American Politics the 2016 edition

rogerthat wrote: As ridiculous as the notion of a casting call sounds, to an outsider it looks like Trump is simply taking the personality obsession of American politics to an extreme.  The last President who did not look charismatic was Gerald Ford and he was not elected to the post.  Maybe Bush Sr and again he simply rode the Reagan wave.  It cannot be a mere coincidence that so many of your Presidents have been charismatic; it seems to be a rather important requirement and one that perhaps overrides considerations of intellect or integrity.  Without commenting on the merits or demerits of either politician, I wonder if a John Major or Angela Merkel could ever win a Presidential Election in the US.  You converted the Presidential race into a reality TV show a long time back and now the reality TV star is spreading the disease through the Cabinet too.

JJLehto wrote: There is absolutely truth to this. Our celebrity worship has been shown off in glorious display with this election.  Though you are right it's always been in our political culture, at least in modern times. I mean...let's look at the very start of widespread TV usage: 1960. JFK was handsome, made up and sounded nice. Nixon...none of that, though he was clearly more experienced, possibly smarter. Radio listeners felt Nixon was the clear winner, TV viewers thought it was JFK.  You remind me of something I heard back in 2004 when John Kerry (the living (I think??) corpse) lost.  How everyone who's beaten an incumbent has some type of moxie. That charisma, pizzazz, an image. Carter had it, as did Reagan and Bill Clinton. Ford, Kerry, Romney...nope.  Even in normal elections: Gore vs Bush and Clinton vs Trump. In each it's clear which had more charisma (not saying the quality of it). In an election where people dont like either choice, the lesser disliked/more popular one may just win by default. We deff need a President with character. Sad to say, because much as I try to be strictly about issues, I cant escape this is not the norm. Quite the opposite Perot said no one cares about details, and Trump proved it right. I also hate to admit Sanders had some of this as well. I loved the guy because of his views/policies but he ran a not terribly detailed campaign, I wanted so bad for him to better defend himself, and I saw more than a few fans who just loved him more than any knowledge of issues. He was a different personality from the norm as well. Cant deny the impact of personality. Though since you mentioned Europe, I will say it does seem while the continent certainly lacks our addiction with celebrity, they seem just as prone to fear, baser instincts and demagoguery. A Merkel would never win here, but Merkels seem to be losing in Europe too. Except in Germany where those super cool, level headed folk are. Then again, I read displeasure in Germany with immigrants is on the rise, and there have been some supposedly red flags rising. Much like the US and the rest of the continent left and right wing populism seems on the rise there. Perhaps not even Germany is immune?

JJLehto wrote: Oh and honestly...I could've easily lived with a Colin Powell presidency!

Truly, I think I could have lived with the presidency of many people. McCain, Kasich, hell, even Romney. I don't really agree with them, but I find them to be reasonable humans who would put their personal feelings aside to do what is necessary (especially McCain, who I would have voted for in a heartbeat this cycle). Trump scares me because he seems to be following through with his threat of governing from the extreme rather than the center, which is something we just don't see in U.S. politics. The closest analogue I could find in history would be Andrew Jackson 200 years ago, but his populism enjoyed strong majority support throughout where Trump has the lowest support among incoming presidents we've recorded. There's always the possibility that Trump instead assumes strong centrist position or spends his time pushing for policies which the Left also supports (e.g. infrastructure spending), but I would rather assume the worst.

rogerthat wrote: Gamemako wrote: Anyhow, an interesting read on how we got here. I highly suggest everyone read it, and I've been shipping it around where I can. Great article.  Found another too about how life in a meritocracy can be exhausting.  What's the solution, though?  How to undo 30 plus years of Ayn Rand?

Very difficult problem, but one we will have no choice but to address soon. Automation is accelerating as computers acquire the ability to generate strategies for weakly-constrained problems. That is what made Google's AlphaGo such a big deal, and I don't think most people realize just how large a leap that is. Humans are becoming superfluous in even complex professional tasks like engineering and medicine. A simple calculation based on the rate of net job creation in our best decade (1990s) minus the rate of job loss due to automation portends an unemployment rate in 2055 of 35% (relative to our current participation rate). Massive unemployment is an economic inevitability under our current system.

I personally find the most likely solution to be a universal basic income. Whether or not we like it, it's a way to solve the issue without deliberately handicapping your economy. People will still want to work, but they will mostly have to work in creative and leisure pursuits.

Gamemako wrote: Very difficult problem, but one we will have no choice but to address soon. Automation is accelerating as computers acquire the ability to generate strategies for weakly-constrained problems. That is what made Google's AlphaGo such a big deal, and I don't think most people realize just how large a leap that is. Humans are becoming superfluous in even complex professional tasks like engineering and medicine. A simple calculation based on the rate of net job creation in our best decade (1990s) minus the rate of job loss due to automation portends an unemployment rate in 2055 of 35% (relative to our current participation rate). Massive unemployment is an economic inevitability under our current system. I personally find the most likely solution to be a universal basic income. Whether or not we like it, it's a way to solve the issue without deliberately handicapping your economy. People will still want to work, but they will mostly have to work in creative and leisure pursuits.

A populist is supposed to represent ordinary people, not a distinct political or social group. To refer to Trump as such right at the moment is in error. We have to wait and see who's interests will actually be represented.

Romney no. Especially with a Republican congress. That's my real worry, there'll be far less restraint on these Tea Partiers, as well as the Republican mainstream which is of course Tea-lite Party lol But yeah McCain, sure. Kasich is indeed very sane and reasonable but also very dedicated to top down class warfare and failed economics, oh sorry I mean: Reaganomics ;) Even Jeb who has somehow ended up as one of the acceptable ones is scary to think about. Speaking of the GOP is licking its lips. They finally have what they've wanted, Congress with a Republican PotUS. Years of being held at bay by Obama is now gone, lets hope the Democrats manage to fight for as much as they can. Inequality, the environment, public health, education and healthcare are all in danger. Let's not fool ourselves, this new post 2008 GOP is very ideologically dedicated and those who aren't are forced to be or risk being booted. And despite his "I won't touch the big 3 programs" talk I uh....dont really believe Trump will stick to that.

^ We still got Governor Moonbeam --

Atavachron wrote: ^ We still got Governor Moonbeam --

Yes good ol California is heading in the opposite direction of our country, though I wonder how much is part SoCal conservatives fleeing to Arizona lol Fun fact: Despite everyone seemingly still stuck in the 70s with Jerry Brown, he's really quite a pragmatist and fiscal tightwad. He's done a great job running CA but governing a state and nation are different. I fear his love for austerity, balanced budgets and fiscal restraint while good at the state level, would be quite detrimental at the federal. Remember in 92 despite his fiery populism he also ran on eliminating the Dept of Education and a flat tax + consumption tax. Back in the 80s and even 70s he opposed both universal and individual mandate healthcare instead backing tax breaks and spoke of how were entering an era of limits. He's absolutely a social liberal though. I dare to say he's basically a centrist Democrat. I feel bad about the moonbeam thing, seems to me a good idea and was just toward thinking. Basically: Will forever be ribbed solely because he had ideas ahead of his time. Poor Jerry :'(

Atavachron wrote: I've always thought it a badge of honor.

Absolutely, but guess I'm just overreacting to a convo I had once about him and someone, older, interjected with "oh governor moonbeam!" I chuckled and carried on but then it was back to "he'll always be governor moonbeam to me. Oh I like him a ton he just has some whacky ideas" and I thought well 1: That's not vey fair nor is it very nuanced...going off a gag from over 3 decades ago as a basis of analysis lol 2 idk it reminds me of old politics. How, like earlier discussed, were obsessed with image. That still it lingers gov moonbeam eh I'm just bitter and kinda fearful at what's happened. Been making me extra volatile. Brown HAS done an excellent job and managed to right California's budget disaster. Reminds me of NJ, a Republican pushed tax cuts that basically put us in perma deficit, and we alternate between Democrats who try to fix it often with tax hikes then get angry and vote Repubs to hold the line/cut taxes lol Brown has certainly done better than Christie, who's managed a historically bad -58% approval rating! Capping off his tenure with a massive tax gas hike, partly to help pay for the removal of the estate tax and as part of the deal to unfreeze thousands of state construction / jobs. Typical Repub: Make us all pay for the benefits of the wealthy, and refusal to allow basic governing to happen. He also held up gay rights for near 2 years by vetoing the bill that passed allowing marriage. State politics matter :)

Edited by JJLehto - January 02 2017 at 01:06

Like I said, he's done a superb job as governor. I just dont know if his style/views would be appropriate for federal government because they are different beasts. He has indeed done the impossible: Gotten Cali's budget under control. Let's hope future governors don't f**k it up. Like ya know, Gray Davis or any Republican that sees a surplus and dreams of tax cuts or unfunded spending increases.