America's Last Chance...?

[Simon_Jester]

Or they might actually shift considering it happened two times before (first FDR, then civil rights movement). The point is, you do not know until you try.

My take on American politics is that the shift cannot happen in a meaningful way until the 2016 presidential campaign, by which point I expect it to manifest anyway no matter what I do. Until then, any change is likely to be for the worse, no matter who wins which elections- though there's still some hope for the 2014 midterms, depending on how things fall out in 2012-13.

I understand that you have said this, over and over, and that you really believe it, and that it is important, and that you think I'm a moronic asshole for not agreeing. You have conveyed all of that very effectively.

I do not think you are a moronic asshole. I think you are simply too afraid to make a stand for your principles, no matter how important it is. You are compromising your principles willingly for no gain and continued bad effects. That is spineless and cowardly.

In this case, not compromising my principles on civil rights yields the same result as compromising them. Not compromising my principles on civil rights (by not voting) would require that I compromise my principles on social justice, minority rights, the role of federalism in American government, and the military side of foreign policy.

I find myself in a bit of a bind here. Luckily, as I said before, I can vote for a third party without fearing the consequences on the issues I listed. I live in a state with a large majority for the politician who doesn't violate those principles.

That gives me a way out of the bind, should I choose to take it. A Democrat in a state like Ohio or Florida cannot reassure himself of that. He does not have the luxury of voting in an ineffective way.

I say "ineffective" because any third party I pick in 2012 is going to prove a flash in the pan in terms of getting anything done directly, since there is no well-organized third party operating on the federal level in this election cycle. Were this an election cycle like 1992, something might be accomplished directly. But it isn't. The only thing a third party can accomplish this election cycle is to get the Democratic National Committee to have an extra item in their next meeting. Based on their performance since 2009, I predict they will go "oh, look, 0.5% of people voted Socialist, that means we might pick up about 1% of the electorate by veering sharply to the left. Let's not bother."

It's going to take primary challenges in 2014 and 2016 to make the party sit up and take notice, just as primary challenges in the 1980s made the Republicans shift so far to the right in the first place.

But there is this thing that bugs me. If I don't vote, or vote for someone who isn't on the radar and who the major political parties don't even perceive as an opponent, my vote goes under the radar. They don't even notice my opposition to their policy.[ All they see is that X percent of people voted for Democrats, and Y percent voted for Republicans. And if the Democrats win without my vote, their leadership won't change, and if they lose without my vote, their leadership will change for the worse.

Again, you do not know that. The Democrats certainly went for the "left" Obama over the "center" Clinton in the past, or have you completely forgotten that?

I don't view Obama as being significantly to the left of Clinton. Certainly not after looking at Obama's track record now that he's in the White House. The measurable differences between them before the election were very narrow, except that Obama had stronger credentials for being against the Iraq War from the start. Since Clinton had already come around on this issue well before the election, that's a very narrow margin.

Obama's supporters were to the left of Clinton's supporters, but Obama's supporters were gravely disappointed, and are now in disarray. They will matter again in 2016, and maybe in 2014 if they get organized under better leaders. They don't matter very much to the party now, because Obama doesn't have to do any work to get the nomination this time, and he doesn't seem to be relying on the same kind of mobilized youth machine that he used in 2008.

As for your protest vote going unnoticed, what they will see is that you did not vote for them. As I do not think you have ever written a letter to Obama or done anything else to protest his policies (for that would actually require an effort) that might be the most meaningful thing you have ever done.

You may think what you wish about my letter-writing habits.

That bugs me- that my refusal to vote Obama out of protest for his torture policies cannot actually hasten the day when anti-torture politicians have a chance to take the reins and put an end to the foulness. And that by making this the single central issue that governs all my voting decisions, I totally abandon any hope of influencing any other issue, including rather important ones like "poor people not starving to death."

Does this not bother you? Do you not see how this can bother me, and make me reluctant to accept the idea that everyone who votes Obama is a rat for validating torturers?

No, because you once again base your arguments on a bad premise, namely that losing the election (fat chance considering the clowns the GOP will put out) will cause the democrats to swing right, when in fact they swung left after the last elections.

What, after 2008? I don't think they swung very far to the left. Everything the Democrats tried to do in 2008-09 was a straightforward continuation of what they'd been doing the last time they held the White House and both sides of Congress. Even the health insurance plan was actually less ambitious than Hillarycare was in 1994.

If the Democrats win the election without my vote, they will stay exactly where they are, just as they would if they win the election with my vote. It doesn't make any difference. The only way the party leadership will interpret the 2012 election as a sign that they're doing something wrong is if they lose, or come very close to losing.

If they lose because of depressed turnout among the base, they might swing left- but they didn't swing very far left in 2008. They didn't have to; all they needed to do was stay comfortably to the left of George Bush and they had that election sewed up.

If the Democrats lose, there may be a swing to the left, or there may not. More likely there will be internal struggle within the party in the runup to the 2016 election. And that would happen anyway if Obama wins, because the Occupy movement and other 'revolts' among the American left aren't going away.

[UnderAGreySky]

Yes, the economic crash would be hard (although there is very much the same possibility that the crash is inevitable if current policies are continued)

That's a LOT of BS packed into one sentence. You have no clue, do you, of how hard it would be? You don't realise how much suffering and even deaths there will be? (Suicide, looting)

As for the second part of your sentence... Well, you have provided no evidence. And there is NO indication of an economic disaster in the near future based on current policies. Maybe in Europe, sure. But this is not about that.

Environment (and to an extent medicine) are fucked - but aren't they already almost broken, anyway? But give it a bit time under the new non-regulated scenario, and most people will realize that federal oversight is needed, and public healthcare is a good idea.

Are you REALLY this stupid? You think the FDA and EPA regs today do not save lives?

You're willing to risk the lives of an untold number of people so that "people will realize" somewhere down the line? Listen, you nitwit, the world TRIED deregulated industries for most of human civilisation. People died much, much more often then. How many people in LA had lifespans shortened before pollution laws were tightened?

You're just clueless, aren't you?

As crazy as it sounds, your chances are better Paul crashes the system in the way he proposed to do so.

No. They are decidedly not. Stop deluding yourself that electing Paul would do more good than bad. The ONLY thing you got right in that post was that it does sound crazy. It sounds batshit insane.

[Channel72]

By definition, using voting statistics to determine your vote will always be invalid, it will always be circular reasoning.

No, this is completely and utterly wrong.

You don't understand what circular reasoning is. You're basically saying "it's circular to make decisions using past aggregate data that may include your own actions as a data point". So, I guess if I decide NOT to move into a city that has a high crime rate, my decision is somehow "circular" if I actually committed a crime in that city sometime in the past. The fact that I committed a murder in that city doesn't fucking change the fact that it's still a dangerous place, with or without me.

Seriously, stop being absurd.

You are a voter! Let those words sink in. Why do third parties not have enough support? Because you, people like you, and people whose votes you are right now trying to sway, have decided not to support them. And you have decided not to support them... because they don't have voter support. Circular reasoning, paired down to its essentials.

There's not much point in discussing this if you aren't even able to distinguish between:

(1) An actual circular argument, where the conclusion is in the premise
(2) An argument which includes premises based on aggregate data that may include data points obtained from the person making the argument

The first is an actual logical fallacy. The second is simply an argument which includes premises based on observations about aggregate data. It doesn't fucking matter whether or not the person making the argument contributes data points to the aggregate data.

If you can't even make that simple distinction, you're just going to keep spouting more boring bluster.

Sure, I'm a voter - but in my original post premise (1) and (2) rely on the aggregate data about all voters, not merely my individual vote. It doesn't matter that my individual vote makes up some infinitesimal percentage of this aggregate. It's not circular to draw conclusions about aggregate data, even if the person making the conclusion contributes data points to that aggregate data. Again, if you can't understand that simple concept, this is a hopeless discussion.

You categorize my position as the "idealistic" position. What you are missing is that democracy is a system where the idealistic position and the pragmatic position are one in the same by design. Your vote as an individual has very little impact on any population too large for everyone to know you personally. It is the sum of everyone's votes that makes the decision of who gets elected or what laws get passed, and the individual voter is barred from knowing the votes of everyone else until after the election is finished. Hence, you must vote on your ideals, because you lack the information to account for what people in current and future elections are going to vote for. Furthermore, you are focusing on your decision as an individual. But doing so leads to absurd conclusions in a democracy. For instance, your individual vote has such a small effect on the decision making process that not casting it has minimal consequences, enough that its tempting to ignore them and stay home on election day. But the more people who make that decision, the more your vote would have impacted the election results if you chose to cast it. That is mathematically true. Incidentally, lets just put the "why not abstain?" question to bed, shall we? Good.

But I don't lack predictive information concerning the candidates current and future people are going to vote for. Past aggregate data gives me a very good indication of how votes will be placed. For example, I'll bet you $1,000 that in the 2012 election, over 50% of the people in New York and California will vote for Obama. Presidential candidates use this information all the time to "game the system", in a way, by spending a lot of time campaigning in key swing states. Campaign strategists no doubt take into account third party voting patterns as well.

Now, if you use the logic that your vote as an individual is all that matters in your personal decision making process, it can appear that the decision to exclude certain "unelectable" candidates was made for you by the majority. But when you look at a larger scale and realize that there are millions of other voters who are dis-empowered for similar reasons, it becomes apparent that in fact they have no one to blame but themselves for having to choose between the lesser of two villains. Or worse. I am reminded of the classic tactic of dictators, wherein they claim that they are allowing elections... but there is only one party you can vote for. A sham election. That's the situation your "pragmatic" criteria create, effectively, only you technically have two officials... neither of whom you actually agree with. Again, its a sham election; only in this case the fault lies not with a conspiracy of government (though granted I can't see the Status Quo parties complaining any time soon) but with the voting population believing their own bullshit about how there are only two "electable" parties, and everything else is a protest vote/helping the "more evil" candidate/as worthless a gesture as abstaining.

This is why I call you an idealist: your argument is more about assigning blame than actually building a convincing case that voting third party is a good strategy. You find fault with individual voters for taking into account actual observations about reality derived from aggregate data, even though no middle class individual voter has control over the aggregate vote. The aggregate vote is a phenomenon that an individual must take into account when making decisions, just like how candidates themselves take into account the per-state aggregate vote when deciding where they should most effectively invest campaign resources.

I agree that the situation sucks, but it's not any individual voter's fault: it's an emergent property arising from a large-scale system. The only way to change it is to make a dent larger than would be possible with an individual vote. This would require some kind of well-organized grass-roots movement over the Internet, or serious financial backing (like Ross Perot had) to accomplish.

[LaCroix]

God damn but I'm sick of accelerationists. Especially accelerationists who want to stand safely on another continent and watch the fireworks....

Don't play stupid - I know that there is sufficient computing power in your head to know that NO ONE will sit down and watch safely - if America's economy goes down in flames, the rest of the world follows! Europe will be the first to follow down the drain. I'm relatively sure that I am among the ones to lose their job, which will make me default on my loans, by definition.

[Simon_Jester]

I know that, but a fair chunk of the accelerationists don't.

To be blunt, LaCroix, if knowing what the consequences of an American economic collapse are for you doesn't convince you that making the crash come harder and sooner is a bad idea, I don't know what can. There's really no upside; reform rarely comes faster in the wake of massive destruction than it does in times of peace and stability.

[Force Lord]

Ok, can anyone explain to me what 'accelerationist' means? This is the second time I've seen the term.

[Terralthra]

An accelerationist is someone who sees a decline in a standard (economic welfare and income equality, for relevant examples) and thinks that a viable strategy to address it is to act (vote, in this case) in such a way as to accelerate the decline. Their logic is that because the decline at present is slow, people don't prioritize addressing it, but if the decline was accelerated into a collapse, people would realize the scope of the problem and act to stop the decline.

[LaCroix]

I know that, but a fair chunk of the accelerationists don't.

To be blunt, LaCroix, if knowing what the consequences of an American economic collapse are for you doesn't convince you that making the crash come harder and sooner is a bad idea, I don't know what can. There's really no upside; reform rarely comes faster in the wake of massive destruction than it does in times of peace and stability.

I hit the wrong button, so I can't complete my earlier post, so I'm trying to merge it into this post here.

Sorry that my altruism confused you...

I was spinnning this theoretical scenario under the rational premise that there is still some semblance of intelligence left in people.
Unlike UnderAGreySky, who went into relevation mode and prophecied Apocalypse(tm) NOW!, I know that changes like that won't come overnight.

@UnderAGreySky Oh, by the way, I'd really like to see proof of your claim that there will be looting. Suicides, well, they always occur in economic turmoil, but I am convinced that the next economic crash is not avoidable, since the whole system is not sustainable as it is, and changes are not in sight. The world simply stopped doing what they did, took a deep breath and started runnign in the same direction, again. (Even China is currently seeing a sudden decrease in building projects - the artificial boom is ending there, as well.) Therefore, it is only logical to expect another economic bottleneck causing a crash somewhere down the road.

YOU are the one claiming that there will be chaos and death everywhere, so the burden of proof is on you. We already had a relatively mayor crash, and there weren't shootouts on the streets, as far as I remember.

And to answer your implied question - I'm not deluding myself that Paul would do more good than bad. I'm actually convinced that it would be the other way round.

I was just curious how such a scenario would actually play out - how bad would it really be? I honestly doubt a complete meltdown scenario, because at some point, Paul will meet resitance from the Republicans, as well.

Back to my intended topic - what would realistically happen (with a grain of salt, because Obama also turned out a complete disapointment, so you can never be sure that there actually is some sanity left in politics)

First - ending "war". This can be done relatively quickly and easily. If you don't care about what's left behind, you can getthem back as quickly as you can cycle the transports. What are the troops still doing out there?(Honest question.) Most of all, they are guarding their own bases, and doing drone strikes. Even the Taliban are tired of fighting. Calling them back means that you can cut military spending (even if you don't reduce troop strenght) by a huge amount that can be used for other things.

Middle east - america would still support israel in the UN, but not by rattling the saber behind israel's back. Israel would have to learn how to play in a team, as honestly, the US were the only ones not pissed by their attitude and actions. Iran might even be willing to negotiate on the nuclear question if they wouldn't always have to watch out for an US intervention.

Also, the EU, Russia and China would have to step up and actually start behaving like the second-tier superpowers they are and start playing police, as well.

Reverting power from Fed to State - this will take some time, and it will NOT result in immediate DOOM!!! on the drop of a hat.
It means that States will have to make these laws on their own, but there are Democrat and third party voters(which you need to activate by campaining) in these States, as well. You don't need to vote with your feet, you can simply be active. Yes, some do have a republican majority that means they can do what they want, but it won't change much. But overall, it will empower democracy, by getting issues out of the two-party deadlock/lockstep (depending of issue) in congress. Also, as Broomstick stated, it is much easier to get third parties going on a state level, where the horse-race scheme of the federal voting process isn't as crippling.

Deregulation of industries (EPA): Do you really think that existing industries will rip out their filter systems at once? You really think that state legislators will no immediately propose state legislation to defuse the worst offences.

Medicine - Same as above. Also, I doubt doctors will be suddenly only sell snake-oil and untested stuff to patients. Most people in that profession actually do care about their patients.


So tell me what you think will happen if Ron Paul would become President - and stay calm and reasonable - "the sky will be falling!" is something we heard about so many candidates, and it rarely (or almost never, to be honest) happened.

[Broomstick]

Hence, saying "vote third party or don't vote" is effectively saying "don't vote on the Federal level". Thus, my question to you, slightly clarified: if the moral, anti-torture people refuse to vote for the current major party offerings they won't vote at all in the Federal elections... in which case, who do you think will win?

If there is no option, then write in a candidate. But if you care for civil liberties, I cannot see how one can vote for Obama and thereby validate his policies. I do not know how the election will turn out but I know that I could not justify to myself voting for Obama.

And so far I note you are pretty much dancing around the issue of what you value more. I guess the above is to turn this into a spiel about how the EVIL REPUBLICANS will win if all those good, honest people who totally oppose torture (except when it threatens their interests) do not vote for the VALIANT OBAMA (who, I might add, presided so far over the biggest rollback in civil liberties in over a century). Sorry, I do not buy into this false dichotomy.

Thanas, other people are dancing around that issue, I am not. I have not participated in that debate on whether voting third party is good or bad for this or that party or candidate. (Though if anyone is interested in my personal opinion I can only say it depends. There IS an instance of a third party candidate winning the office of PotUS, so it's not impossible. The effect hinges on the context and the particular election involved.) Please do not read into my question anything more than is actually there. I asked your opinion on who you think would win if Americans actually followed your advice, not how YOU would vote.

But if you genuinely don't know that's a perfectly OK answer too, as far as that question goes.

[Broomstick]

Environment (and to an extent medicine) are fucked - but aren't they already almost broken, anyway? But give it a bit time under the new non-regulated scenario, and most people will realize that federal oversight is needed, and public healthcare is a good idea.

Are you REALLY this stupid? You think the FDA and EPA regs today do not save lives?

Maybe it's different where LaCroix lives, but I'm old enough to remember when the Cuyahoga River made the news because the river CAUGHT FIRE. The EPA was created, among other reasons, to put an end to burning rivers. They must be doing something right, because I haven't heard of bodies of water catching fire for a couple decades in this country.

There are still major pollution problems, of course, but the regulations have been a good thing. People contemplating collapses such that agencies like the EPA would be either abolished or completely ineffective aren't, in my opinion, much different from Christians who eagerly look forward to the "end times" despite the inevitable carnage such a thing would involve. The world has managed to make positive change without millions suffering and/or dying, I continue to hope that change can still occur without needing to sacrifice multitudes in the process.

[LaCroix]

Environment (and to an extent medicine) are fucked - but aren't they already almost broken, anyway? But give it a bit time under the new non-regulated scenario, and most people will realize that federal oversight is needed, and public healthcare is a good idea.

Are you REALLY this stupid? You think the FDA and EPA regs today do not save lives?

Maybe it's different where LaCroix lives, but I'm old enough to remember when the Cuyahoga River made the news because the river CAUGHT FIRE. The EPA was created, among other reasons, to put an end to burning rivers. They must be doing something right, because I haven't heard of bodies of water catching fire for a couple decades in this country.

There are still major pollution problems, of course, but the regulations have been a good thing. People contemplating collapses such that agencies like the EPA would be either abolished or completely ineffective aren't, in my opinion, much different from Christians who eagerly look forward to the "end times" despite the inevitable carnage such a thing would involve. The world has managed to make positive change without millions suffering and/or dying, I continue to hope that change can still occur without needing to sacrifice multitudes in the process.

Ok, I must take back my statement. I was only comparing the current state with the European standards, which caused me to conclude that the EPA only managed to prevent the worst offences. Given the starting point, the EPA seems to be rather effective, even though there is still a long way to go.

I googled that river and found out that it actually burned at least 13 times! And here I thought that the Rhine were in bad shape back in the early 80's when we made jokes about being able to MINE the water for various metals...

[UnderAGreySky]

LaCroix, I'm sorry I went all berserk on you - over the top rhetoric was not called for.

You said

@UnderAGreySky Oh, by the way, I'd really like to see proof of your claim that there will be looting. Suicides, well, they always occur in economic turmoil, but I am convinced that the next economic crash is not avoidable, since the whole system is not sustainable as it is, and changes are not in sight. The world simply stopped doing what they did, took a deep breath and started runnign in the same direction, again. (Even China is currently seeing a sudden decrease in building projects - the artificial boom is ending there, as well.) Therefore, it is only logical to expect another economic bottleneck causing a crash somewhere down the road.

YOU are the one claiming that there will be chaos and death everywhere, so the burden of proof is on you. We already had a relatively mayor crash, and there weren't shootouts on the streets, as far as I remember.

My theory is that a return to pre-depression-era economics such as the gold standard will result in a Great Depression part two. It will make this current recession look like a happy time. The world is too big to stop suddenly and take a deep breath. I'd have thought that a depression would lead to crime and violence, why is that so hard to believe?

You say the whole system is not sustainable, I'm not sure what "system" you're talking about.

As for the EPA - if you were unaware of the history, I'm sorry for being an arse about it.

[Kuja]

Ok, I must take back my statement. I was only comparing the current state with the European standards, which caused me to conclude that the EPA only managed to prevent the worst offences. Given the starting point, the EPA seems to be rather effective, even though there is still a long way to go.

I googled that river and found out that it actually burned at least 13 times! And here I thought that the Rhine were in bad shape back in the early 80's when we made jokes about being able to MINE the water for various metals...

It wasn't just the Cuyahoga River, either. Niagara River, just a short hop to the northeast also caught fire a time or two, thanks to the dumping going on.

And there's a reason that Love Canal is practically the Western New York version of "He That Shall Not Be Named." I recommend not reading the story on a full stomach.

[General Brock]

Ron Paul would probably do better had early American proportional representation attempts been generally embraced, rather than the first-past-the-post system in place now.

[Simon_Jester]

No, because proportional representation has nothing to do with party primaries. Paul's problem is that he can't convince a plurality of Republicans that he ought to be their candidate for President of the United States. He hasn't even begun to try and win the support of the American majority.

[Broomstick]

Ok, I must take back my statement. I was only comparing the current state with the European standards, which caused me to conclude that the EPA only managed to prevent the worst offences. Given the starting point, the EPA seems to be rather effective, even though there is still a long way to go.

I googled that river and found out that it actually burned at least 13 times! And here I thought that the Rhine were in bad shape back in the early 80's when we made jokes about being able to MINE the water for various metals...

It wasn't just the Cuyahoga River, either. Niagara River, just a short hop to the northeast also caught fire a time or two, thanks to the dumping going on.

The Chicago River as well.

I can't help but think libertarians who want to abolish things like the EPA and the Clean Water Act either don't know their history, or think they'll be wealthy enough to move away from all the fucked up areas, or are just plain evil people.

Me, I find it astonishing that there are once again living fish in the Cuyahoga, Niagra, and Chicago rivers, and once-dead Lake Erie now has a viable fishing industry again. If you had asked anyone in 1970 they would have thought such a day was centuries off, if ever. This, to me, is one of the most positive things to come out of Federal government. Abolishing these would be a disaster.

[LaCroix]

My theory is that a return to pre-depression-era economics such as the gold standard will result in a Great Depression part two. It will make this current recession look like a happy time. The world is too big to stop suddenly and take a deep breath. I'd have thought that a depression would lead to crime and violence, why is that so hard to believe?

You say the whole system is not sustainable, I'm not sure what "system" you're talking about.

Now we're talking - from my point of view, a system that continuously creates artificial wealth through betting and gambling, and creates increasing pressure on the physical world to keep up with these inflated expectations is on shaky grounds. If you combine it with the increasing gap between the few that are rich enough to do these bets, and the many who have to have to struggle to make ends meet, it becomes a critical thing that needs to be handled with care.

Especially since it can only function as long there is an exponential growth (called inflation). This is fine for financial bets, which can bring high ROI. Sadly, natural resources can't keep up with that. So at one point or another, the lines on the graph will cross.

I do understand your dire predictions, especially since the US will be hit hardest, since their economic system is the worst in terms of long-term sustainability. (Not much internal production, massive outsourcing, high dependency of foreign imports, high energy needs, massive income gap and almost no social security net)

[Thanas]

Or they might actually shift considering it happened two times before (first FDR, then civil rights movement). The point is, you do not know until you try.

My take on American politics is that the shift cannot happen in a meaningful way until the 2016 presidential campaign, by which point I expect it to manifest anyway no matter what I do. Until then, any change is likely to be for the worse, no matter who wins which elections- though there's still some hope for the 2014 midterms, depending on how things fall out in 2012-13.

And of course this totally arbitrary cutoff date absolves you of voting for Obama. Good going there, but not fooling anybody.

In this case, not compromising my principles on civil rights yields the same result as compromising them. Not compromising my principles on civil rights (by not voting) would require that I compromise my principles on social justice, minority rights, the role of federalism in American government, and the military side of foreign policy.

I find myself in a bit of a bind here. Luckily, as I said before, I can vote for a third party without fearing the consequences on the issues I listed. I live in a state with a large majority for the politician who doesn't violate those principles.

That gives me a way out of the bind, should I choose to take it. A Democrat in a state like Ohio or Florida cannot reassure himself of that. He does not have the luxury of voting in an ineffective way.

When history will be written on this period and (unlike people who vote for Obama apparently aim for) the security state is finished as an aberration quite like McCarthyism, then what will be your answer when asked "What did you do to prevent it and why did you vote for these policies?"

(for the analogy I am getting at, suddenly nobody voted for Hitler after 1945, but before that they were all content to scrap civil liberties for food and work. The US populace does not even have the food excuse).

It's going to take primary challenges in 2014 and 2016 to make the party sit up and take notice, just as primary challenges in the 1980s made the Republicans shift so far to the right in the first place.

How high do you think the chances of that considering the security state has won in the past three presidential elections? it they win a fourth, that is 16 years of destruction of civil liberties.

I don't view Obama as being significantly to the left of Clinton. Certainly not after looking at Obama's track record now that he's in the White House. The measurable differences between them before the election were very narrow, except that Obama had stronger credentials for being against the Iraq War from the start. Since Clinton had already come around on this issue well before the election, that's a very narrow margin.

Don't try to rewrite history. Obama ran as the candidate of the left against clinton. He ran on the basis of youth and opposition to the security state, he ran as the preferred candidate of leftist organizations. How much more left can you get than Obama did in the primary?

You may think what you wish about my letter-writing habits.

A petulant retort with no information is not going to change my opinion of that either.

What, after 2008? I don't think they swung very far to the left. Everything the Democrats tried to do in 2008-09 was a straightforward continuation of what they'd been doing the last time they held the White House and both sides of Congress. Even the health insurance plan was actually less ambitious than Hillarycare was in 1994.

Left compared to their previous stance, yes. Absolutely.

If they lose because of depressed turnout among the base, they might swing left- but they didn't swing very far left in 2008. They didn't have to; all they needed to do was stay comfortably to the left of George Bush and they had that election sewed up.

If the Democrats lose, there may be a swing to the left, or there may not. More likely there will be internal struggle within the party in the runup to the 2016 election. And that would happen anyway if Obama wins, because the Occupy movement and other 'revolts' among the American left aren't going away.

Aside from the issue of "Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of torture policies", which nobody who votes for obama can honestly answer with "no", I think the democrats need to be sent a message. Just staying put is not going to accomplish anything.

[Broomstick]

for the analogy I am getting at, suddenly nobody voted for Hitler after 1945, but before that they were all content to scrap civil liberties for food and work. The US populace does not even have the food excuse.

No, we have the housing excuse.

While the US government, in the form of foodstamps, ensures that people will be able to eat if you do not work in this country you will have nowhere to live. Hell, even if you DO work in this country you may not have a place to live - the company I work for has 8 employees, and three of them are currently residing in shelters for the homeless.

Not to imply that justifies voting for fascists, torturers, etc., I just wanted to clarify that in the US certain basic needs are not being met and that, for pure survival reasons, there is an incentive to trade rights for shelter and work. That doesn't make it right, but it can be an explanation for why some asshole or other gets into office on occassion.

[VarrusTheEthical]

Aside from the issue of "Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of torture policies", which nobody who votes for obama can honestly answer with "no", I think the democrats need to be sent a message. Just staying put is not going to accomplish anything.

Since you keep harping on Obama supporting torture, I would like some evidence. I ask since both the ACLU and Human Right Watch have stated that Obama ended Bush's torture programs.

From: page 15 of the ACLU's "A Call to Courage" from September of last year.

No policy or practice of the last decade has brought greater shame on America. But the stain of torture extends far beyond the damage to the nation’s moral standing. The use of torture—and the failure to engage in any formal legal reckoning—has degraded the rule of law in ways that continue to metastasize. President Obama categorically disavowed torture when he came to office, and closed the secret CIA prisons where so much of the abuse took place.14 But the President’s political calculation that the nation must look forward and not backward leaves the door open to future abuses.

From: January 14th, 2010 Obama’s First Year Record on Counterterrorism Reform Mixed

Among the administration's key accomplishments, Human Rights Watch cited executive orders to close secret CIA prisons and ban torture and other mistreatment by all US personnel

PolitiFact even goes so far as to give Obama a "promise kept" when it comes to ending torture. Unless I'm missing something, then the facts seem to indicate that the Obama Administration does not support torutre.

[Simon_Jester]

My take on American politics is that the shift cannot happen in a meaningful way until the 2016 presidential campaign, by which point I expect it to manifest anyway no matter what I do. Until then, any change is likely to be for the worse, no matter who wins which elections- though there's still some hope for the 2014 midterms, depending on how things fall out in 2012-13.

And of course this totally arbitrary cutoff date absolves you of voting for Obama. Good going there, but not fooling anybody.

Who said I was going to vote for Obama? I have a choice, a way to avoid voting for Obama without worrying about the consequences of Obama losing to a Republican who's just as bad on civil rights and worse on nearly everything else.

People with the same politics as me living in Florida, well, they already saw one election decided for the security state, after a small chunk of them had chosen the candidate with better left-wing credentials. Indeed, that's how the security-statists got their start in American politics in the first place. If they don't want to risk repeating history this time, I'm not going to blame them.

When history will be written on this period and (unlike people who vote for Obama apparently aim for) the security state is finished as an aberration quite like McCarthyism, then what will be your answer when asked "What did you do to prevent it and why did you vote for these policies?"

(for the analogy I am getting at, suddenly nobody voted for Hitler after 1945, but before that they were all content to scrap civil liberties for food and work. The US populace does not even have the food excuse).

The US also doesn't have mobs of brownshirts breaking Jews' windows and Obama raving about

When you ask people what they did to prevent and oppose McCarthyism, a lot of them would say "I was more worried about Soviet bombers." This is why McCarthyism and post-McCarthyism isn't the defining moment of 20th century American history, the way the Nazis were for Germany. McCarthyism wasn't all-consuming; debate on other issues that had the potential to help or hurt much larger numbers of people was going on at the same time. Even though there were very real innocent victims of McCarthyism, the life of the nation went on, there was no mass internment of hundreds of thousands of suspected socialists (let alone millions of other 'undesirables'). And there was the undeniable, very real issue of Soviet bombers and the Iron Curtain in Europe and the civil rights movement at home trying to get equality for blacks and women. There was a lot else going on, and a lot of other issues that could easily take a close second to McCarthyism and distort voting patterns.

Would you tell a man who went to protests against segregation in the 1950s South, but did nothing about McCarthy, that he was an enemy of civil rights? You're trying to model this through a historical lens that doesn't fit.

It's going to take primary challenges in 2014 and 2016 to make the party sit up and take notice, just as primary challenges in the 1980s made the Republicans shift so far to the right in the first place.

How high do you think the chances of that considering the security state has won in the past three presidential elections? it they win a fourth, that is 16 years of destruction of civil liberties.

I don't know how high- but what the hell am I supposed to do about it in an election cycle where the primaries have already decided that the winning candidate will be for the security state? The only person who isn't and might end up on the ballot with a nonzero chance of winning is Ron fucking Paul; if he's running should I be voting for him?

Don't try to rewrite history. Obama ran as the candidate of the left against clinton. He ran on the basis of youth and opposition to the security state, he ran as the preferred candidate of leftist organizations. How much more left can you get than Obama did in the primary?

Kucinich.

What, after 2008? I don't think they swung very far to the left. Everything the Democrats tried to do in 2008-09 was a straightforward continuation of what they'd been doing the last time they held the White House and both sides of Congress. Even the health insurance plan was actually less ambitious than Hillarycare was in 1994.

Left compared to their previous stance, yes. Absolutely.

What, left compared to their stance in 2006? The stance they adopted when the only way they could get anything done was to have a Republican president sign off on it?

That's not swinging to the left, that's parliamentary tactics- knowing when you can and cannot accomplish your agenda, and being smart enough not to immolate your own party in protest of something you aren't positioned to change yet.

If they lose because of depressed turnout among the base, they might swing left- but they didn't swing very far left in 2008. They didn't have to; all they needed to do was stay comfortably to the left of George Bush and they had that election sewed up.

If the Democrats lose, there may be a swing to the left, or there may not. More likely there will be internal struggle within the party in the runup to the 2016 election. And that would happen anyway if Obama wins, because the Occupy movement and other 'revolts' among the American left aren't going away.

Aside from the issue of "Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of torture policies", which nobody who votes for obama can honestly answer with "no", I think the democrats need to be sent a message. Just staying put is not going to accomplish anything.

I think you define "supporter" differently from me, because the word doesn't mean to me or most of the people I've heard it used by what it means to you.

And having to live in a country where the only way to send the Democrats a particularly loud message of your sort would be to wind up with Newt "Attack Muffin" Gingrich or Mitt "Screw You, I've Got Mine" Romney... I'm not as sanguine about this as you are.

[Thanas]

Since you keep harping on Obama supporting torture, I would like some evidence.

Well, for once, the rendition program is still open and continuing. Source:

As the Washington Post's SpyTalk blog noted, CIA assistant General Counsel Daniel Pines, writing for a law journal last year, asserted that while U.S. officials could not themselves torture suspects during rendition, “U.S. law does not even preclude the United States from rendering an individual to a foreign location where he or she could be abused or tortured.” Pines said he was expressing his own views, and not the official views of the CIA or U.S. government.

Obama also maintains the secret prison in Bagram, where allegations of torture are still ongoing:
source:

A report issued Thursday by a U.S. foundation details allegations of detainee abuse — some as recent as this year — from Afghans who say they were held at a secret detention center inside the main American military base in Afghanistan.

While the U.S. military has long operated a detention facility for those captured in Afghan operations — first inside Bagram Air Base and now right next door — some former detainees have said over the years that they were held at a smaller, more isolated detention center nicknamed the “Black Jail.”

The U.S. has said that it holds detainees at a number of field sites before they are transferred either to Afghan authorities or to the main detention center, but has never confirmed the existence of the Black Jail, rumored to be inside the Bagram base.

The report by New York-based Open Society Foundations, a grant-making and policy organization founded by liberal billionaire George Soros, lists a host of accusations of mistreatment at the alleged site. Former detainees said they were exposed to excessive cold and light, not given enough food or blankets, deprived of sleep, stripped naked for medical exams and kept from practicing their religion, among other complaints.
[...]
The report is based on interviews of 18 detainees who say they were held at a facility matching the description of the alleged Black Jail. Half of those said they passed through the Black Jail in 2009 or 2010 — long after the military had responded to charges of abuse at its detention center at Bagram with extensive reforms.

Horowitz said he found during months of interviews with former Afghan detainees that those who said they were held at the alleged Black Jail described worse conditions than those at other facilities. “It hasn’t benefited from the robust reforms that have been seen at other U.S. detention centers in Afghanistan,” Horowitz said.

Several of those interviewed said their cells were so cold that their teeth chattered and they couldn’t sleep, while bright lights shone 24 hours. The provided blankets weren’t enough to keep warm, they said.

And of course, Obama blocks all access to information on said site. source.

There are also the conditions in which alleged whistleblower Manning was kept and which Obama personally described as a-ok and personally supported. link.

And of course, Obama also personally shields torturers from any sort of legal consequence. Link. That alone makes him culpable.

[Thanas]

for the analogy I am getting at, suddenly nobody voted for Hitler after 1945, but before that they were all content to scrap civil liberties for food and work. The US populace does not even have the food excuse.

No, we have the housing excuse.

While the US government, in the form of foodstamps, ensures that people will be able to eat if you do not work in this country you will have nowhere to live. Hell, even if you DO work in this country you may not have a place to live - the company I work for has 8 employees, and three of them are currently residing in shelters for the homeless.

Not to imply that justifies voting for fascists, torturers, etc., I just wanted to clarify that in the US certain basic needs are not being met and that, for pure survival reasons, there is an incentive to trade rights for shelter and work. That doesn't make it right, but it can be an explanation for why some asshole or other gets into office on occassion.

I really doubt that anything but a tiny minority is faced with homelessnes if Obama does not win reelection.

People with the same politics as me living in Florida, well, they already saw one election decided for the security state, after a small chunk of them had chosen the candidate with better left-wing credentials. Indeed, that's how the security-statists got their start in American politics in the first place. If they don't want to risk repeating history this time, I'm not going to blame them.

False analogy. This assumes the situation in 2004 and 2012 are in any way comparable, which is a pretty bad statement to make.

The US also doesn't have mobs of brownshirts breaking Jews' windows and Obama raving about

Point flying ove your head.

When you ask people what they did to prevent and oppose McCarthyism, a lot of them would say "I was more worried about Soviet bombers." This is why McCarthyism and post-McCarthyism isn't the defining moment of 20th century American history, the way the Nazis were for Germany. McCarthyism wasn't all-consuming; debate on other issues that had the potential to help or hurt much larger numbers of people was going on at the same time. Even though there were very real innocent victims of McCarthyism, the life of the nation went on, there was no mass internment of hundreds of thousands of suspected socialists (let alone millions of other 'undesirables'). And there was the undeniable, very real issue of Soviet bombers and the Iron Curtain in Europe and the civil rights movement at home trying to get equality for blacks and women. There was a lot else going on, and a lot of other issues that could easily take a close second to McCarthyism and distort voting patterns.

Would you tell a man who went to protests against segregation in the 1950s South, but did nothing about McCarthy, that he was an enemy of civil rights? You're trying to model this through a historical lens that doesn't fit.

I really doubt there is not a significant overlap. In any case, your argument makes no sense because at that time, they had the luxury of fighting for better civil rights that would affect the civil rights status of more people. That excuse does not fly today. Nobody is going to get lynched in the streets in the US anymore.

In any case, all this wordy BS on your part is just one giant sidestep to avoid answering my main question - If you vote for Obama and you are asked by a torture victim in ten years or so why you did vote for policies that denied him justice, can you honestly say you will answer with a clean conscience that you did not support this happening?

I don't know how high- but what the hell am I supposed to do about it in an election cycle where the primaries have already decided that the winning candidate will be for the security state? The only person who isn't and might end up on the ballot with a nonzero chance of winning is Ron fucking Paul; if he's running should I be voting for him?

No, as he is an idiot. That doesn't mean you should vote for Obama though.

Don't try to rewrite history. Obama ran as the candidate of the left against clinton. He ran on the basis of youth and opposition to the security state, he ran as the preferred candidate of leftist organizations. How much more left can you get than Obama did in the primary?

Kucinich.[/quot]

Cute, but he pulled out early. By that standard I shall assume that you concede that Obama (after Kucinich) was the candidate of the left?

I think you define "supporter" differently from me, because the word doesn't mean to me or most of the people I've heard it used by what it means to you.

I define it as he who expresses his support for these policies by voting for them. Please explain what is wrong with that assumption.

And having to live in a country where the only way to send the Democrats a particularly loud message of your sort would be to wind up with Newt "Attack Muffin" Gingrich or Mitt "Screw You, I've Got Mine" Romney... I'm not as sanguine about this as you are.

Ah, yes, the scary GOP boogeyman is trotted out. How predictable.

[Broomstick]

I really doubt that anything but a tiny minority is faced with homelessnes if Obama does not win reelection.

You don't have to be homeless to fear homelessness. A lot of the US is only 1-3 missed paychecks from this state, there is very little safety margin for many.

It doesn't have to be a majority, merely a large enough minority to tip the balance.

[Zaune]

There's another factor to consider here. How many independent and/or third party candidates would have to be elected to both Houses of Congress to have an appreciable impact on the governance of the country? I know US representatives have a degree of autonomy in their voting habits that would be unthinkable in Britain, but there's still a lot of groupthink and peer-pressure to overcome.