melannen | the inevitable fall of global capitalism

the inevitable fall of global capitalism

1. I had my election judge training! Hurrah. It was actually kind of hilarious because apparently the Board of Elections and the State Legislature are having a nonpartisan politicians-vs-bureaucrats feud and all of the BoE employees who were running the training were INCREDIBLY BITTER and NOT EVEN TRYING TO HIDE IT. Our main trainer was literally like "Let me show you the system we SHOULD be using this year and how great and smooth and foolproof and tamperproof it is, and by the way the legislature authorized us to spend millions of dollars on it before they decided they hated, look, isn't it great? So great. Now let me show you the horrible system we had to kludge together because the legislature SUDDENLY DECIDED they hated that one for NO GOOD REASON, can you think of any good reason? I can't. Back me up on this."

That's a minor paraphrase but basically accurate, including tone.

So that was entertaining.

2. All of the Republican candidates for President are unthinkably horrible and both of the Democratic ones are pretty OK rn so to be honest I really am mostly tuning out the election, but here are some links that have turned up on my reading list that are a pretty good summary of my feelings on Bernie vs. Hillary:

old post, you have probably seen:

hth on what people mean when they say Bernie can't get things done
newer post,

nicki on why people say Hillary is 'unlikable'

3. I have some RL friends who are very, very, very invested in Bernie winning. In that way where they have made themselves believe that if Bernie wins, all their problems will be solved and their lives will suddenly be good again. And I am watching them slowly fall into that pit of denial + despair where Bernie HAS to win okay because he's going to win because.

Anyway, I just want to say: Stop worrying. Bernie has already won.

Seriously. People have linked me several times in the last few days to several (clearly biased) Bernie vs. Hillary comparison charts, but what they all summarize to is:

Bernie is right about everything (except possibly gun control)
Hillary used to be wrong about everything, but now that she's running against Bernie, her positions are suddenly a lot like his, SUSPICIOUS.

Bernie got into the race not expecting to win: he got into the race hoping to push the Democratic center further to the left. And he has done that. He has done that in spades. Even if Hillary moves back toward the right in the general election, she'll still be taking much, much more lefty positions on a lot of things than she did a year ago, and than I imagined any Democratic establishment candidate would take this year. That was Bernie's entire goal. He has achieved it. Everything from here on in is just gravy.

Bernie already achieved his win condition, and I suspect he knows it.

4. RE: hth's post, what really matters more than the presidential primary at this point is who wins the downticket races: Congress and the local elections. If you're invested in the presidential stuff, please, please, look around you at your local races, find a candidate for Congress or County Council or Judge who is doing stuff you like, and throw some money and time their way instead. It really does make all the difference. In fact, given how much Congress has managed to lock up the national executive lately, it probably makes more difference.

...that said I haven't looked at any of my downticket races very closely because I'm not even sure what's going to be on the ballot because did I mention that the politicians are feuding with the Board of Elections? Seriously it's beautiful.

(Also I live in one of the skinny parts of the dead pterodactyl so my local votes on a lot of races are pretty pointless anyway. Another reason your state legislature vote matters! fucking gerrymandering.)

5. So I posted a thing on tumblr t'other day about Steve Rogers' personal political context, people seem to be liking it?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I've been sick, and it's a 15-20 walk to my polling place, so I was thinking of sitting the primary out. I'm pretty much going to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, and I don't have strong feelings about who that should be.

Sadly, somebody put a millage renewal (emergency services communications infrastructure) on the county ballot, so I pretty much have to go vote. This isn't like last November (while I was doing radiation) when the only thing on the ballot was someone running unopposed for city council. That I could, in good conscience, skip.

Millages matter, dammit. And I guess I can see why they did it-- Millages around here are much more likely to pass when they come up without a lot of other stuff on the ballot.

It always make me so sad when people talk about how difficult it is for them, logistically, to vote; because there's usually at least something on the ballot that's worth voting on (and even if you have no opinion, just turnout can be important.) Making it physically easier to vote is something we as a country really need to work on.

(IDK if it's worth it to you, but you might be able to contact your local Democratic organization and see if they can provide rides for voters - I know I was a driver for that one year before I started working the election.)

It's particularly sad that Cordelia's school, which is a three minute walk away, is also a polling place. It's just that we don't vote there. Nobody on our side of the street does.

Our actual polling place is also bad because there isn't room inside for people waiting to vote if the line is more than about ten people. I'm actually debating voting absentee, come November, but I'm hung up on the question of whether I really can't physically handle voting. Michigan law only allows absentee voting if one absolutely can't do it any other way, but I'm agoraphobic and asthmatic to cold air and have trouble standing for long periods of time. Oh, and there's very, very little legal parking near the polling place because it's the clubhouse of a subsidized housing condo complex.

A friend offered to take me to vote, but, given that Scott went in to work at 3 a.m., he should be getting home within the next hour because they're not legally supposed to make him work more than twelve hours out of twenty four. They do because there's mandatory clean up time after shift, but they're not supposed to. That'll get him home by 4:30. I prefer to vote earlier in the day, before noon if I can, but I think this will be okay.

It seems to me that "absolutely can't do it any other way" can be interpreted as "can't absolutely guarantee that voting could happen another way, as it would depend on health and environmental conditions."

It's also that, if I go there to vote in the Presidential election, that will be all that I'm able to do that day. Even if everything's perfect, I probably can't do that and, say, cook dinner.

I really wish that Michigan were one of the states that allows absentee voting without a person needing to justify it.

It always makes me so angry when polling places can't understand simple things like "not everybody can stand in a line in the weather for long periods of time".

I mean, Maryland I guess is better than a lot of places, but I still have to fight with the chief judges every year just to get them to put some chairs in the waiting area. THAT SHOULD NOT BE THAT HARD.

Good luck! It seems like agoraphobic and can't stand out in cold air would be good enough reasons, but anytime they ask people to prove they're disabled enough, it's a huge hassle even when it shouldn't be. :/

Agree 100% that he's already won. One of the reasons I got so effing mad at Al Gore was that when Nader challenged him from the left, Al Gore didn't address those issues; he scolded progressives for not falling in line as Democrats. Clinton has done the opposite -- she sees a challenger from the left and she discusses white privilege, the myriad failures of the welfare bill, the school to prison pipeline. Sanders has done exactly what he needed to -- and I want the race to stay close enough to keep her honest all the way to the convention.

I think there is a difference between a challenge from the left in the primaries vs. the general - I am sure we will see Hillary moving back toward the right at least a little - but it's so heartening that these issues have become so central on the democratic side, and that Hillary has been so willing to move to the left and so candid about it. I'm actually way more approving of Hillary now than I was before Bernie started making a splash.

There are certainly disadvantage to someone being a savvy politician rather than an ideals-person, but there's also really solid ADVANTAGES, and I feel like that's one of them.

Like for our election here a whole bunch of people were like OH WELL TRUDEAU'S JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT PLAYS WELL and I'm like . . . no you don't understand: the fact that he thinks this will play well and give him votes is VERY EXCITING TO ME. Mulcair (NDP leader) I already know is an idealist and that's nice and all, but I actually draw a lot more optimism from the career politicians moving my direction than I do from the idealists siding with me.

Chiming in here to agree. People seem to think that politicians doing things for "political reasons" make those things bad or suspect in themselves; I had someone tell me that Obama changing the name of Mt. McKinley back to Denali was "just politics," and I was like yes?? That doesn't mean it's not a good thing!?

I would honestly rather have a politician responsive to the people who frigging elect them?

I mean yes, that becomes a problem when most of your country disagrees with you, but like . . . .that's a problem with the population of your country, not your leader, and having a leader who drags the country with them is, um. Not optimal.

The entire point of anything-resembling-democracy is actually that what people in general think matters.

The thing about Hillary moving to the left as a candidate is that I don't have any expectation that it will change Hillary the elected official. Not that Bernie hasn't had an effect, but it seems more an effect on the electorate than on Hillary in the longer term.

Well, one of the things about a politician of her sort is that if the electorate moves, they usually do too. And not necessarily in a cynical way, either - the same things that move an electorate can also genuinely move a politican, once the topics are out there, and then knowing the people are with them give them courage to act on it. I'm not saying she's going to turn into Bernie, definitely not, and she still makes me unhappy on foreign policy, but no US president has ever made me happy on foreign policy. And I think she's going to be farther left than she would have been, and a lot more willing to push hard on the issues where she already leaned left.

And even in the "cynical" way I . . .don't think it's that cynical.

We want politicians to be responsive to us, right? We want our elected representatives to pay attention to what we say?

Then, you know. Penalizing them when they do it because they didn't intuit what we wanted and preempt us seems kind of counterproductive.

There's something to be said for a politician having some level of personal conviction: if only because eventually there will be a crisis where they have to decide, in private, on things the public discourse can't know yet.

And I do generally like the idea that a politician is doing things because they believe they're reasonably good things to do: a politician who's being asked to go against a deeply held belief should probably either fight it or step down. Or, you know, thoughtfully re-examine their beliefs. Politicians are people too and people who do things they believe are wrong in order to keep power usually goes nowhere good.

But a person who is able to thoughtfully re-examine their beliefs in response to public pressure, or who is willing to bend and compromise on things that aren't core convictions - yes! That is a good thing in a politician!

And for someone who's been politically active as long as Hillary has to have never changed their mind would be a really, really, really bad sign.

That is a good post! :D

(YBEB!Steve literally spent like three weeks with an extremely well-researched and carefully annotated SHIELD "briefing" that basically amounted to "this is all the shit you need to know and also words you need to redefine in your head if you do not want people to assume The Following Things about you", plus other really important highlights. I also headcanon that SHIELD was actually hypercompetent and good at what they do, so it was a very effective briefing. He was also not stupid: if you dragged someone from 1860 and dumped them in HIS Brooklyn, there'd've been Huge Issues, so there was an awareness of needing to catch up so that he at least has some CONTROL over how people perceive him. Really, if Steve's going to insult someone, he wants to do it on purpose.) (I am still waiting for a logical fic to bring that up in. >.>)

Yeah, once he's been awake a couple of months, where he is really depends on your opinion of SHIELD and where else you think he might be getting information and how actually engaged you think he is, and that can vary a lot (especially since canon has not had. great consistency on the matter.)

And he's canonically a really fast learner, so he ought to be able to pick up at least enough to pass if he wants to if he tries.

Which is basically where I figure he is, plus having, well, LIVED in this context for two years: I mean I shift my word-meanings and slang and stuff at least as quick as that, so.

(Canon? CONSISTENCY? What is this you speak?)

Your thoughts on Bernie and Hillary are the same as my thoughts, and they are why I'm very happy about the Democratic half of this election. Even as the Republican half keeps unearthing new depths of horrifying.

Yep! I haven't been paying much attention tbh because I pretty much know where I am, but a friend on Tumblr has been liveblogging the debates, and it's like, the Republicans are testing how low they can go, and meanwhile Bernie and Hillary are, like, modelling intelligent political discourse between two people who respect each other and respect their minor differences of opinion. It's such a contrast.

I'm watching news about your Republican primary like a train wreck I can't turn away from. Like, every time I believe it couldn't possibly get any more bizarre they surprise me and do things like literally comparing their penis sizes (instead of sticking with the civil kind of metaphorical dick measuring contest).

This election is either going to lead to the total collapse of the American right and the Republican party, *or* to the destruction of the US as a whole and the global capitalist system by extension. It's uh. Interesting is one word.

Yeah, this kind of populism that doesn't even offer any solutions beyond scapegoating rhetoric is really worrying. And things get really bad if, once one of these unfortunately not-so-fringe factions gets strong, there still fails to be a coalition of the sane to prevent the worst.

I mean, Germany learned that rather the hard way in the 30s. It's not like the NSDAP ever got an outright majority as long as there were still free elections, even though they were very good at mobilizing previously non-voting people disillusioned with the political system, it's just that the other parties totally failed to make that system work, were all at each others throat, and thought the crazy demagogue would fail sooner rather than later and they'd benefit in the end more from that, and that the far out there policy positions couldn't possibly be meant for real anyway, rather than as bait-and-switch rhetoric. That turned out to be a very risky gamble they then lost.

Yep. The parallels here are really, really scary.

The one thing that make me feel a little better is that I'm pretty sure Trump is not an idealogue at all; he's 100% a narcissist, probably has more than one clinical personality disorder, but he doesn't seem to believe in anything but Trump. So if he gets power it'll turn into a *different* kind of dictatorship than that one, anyway. Not necessarily better, but, you know, different.

(Now, Cruz. Cruz is an idealogue. If people elect him just because they don't want Trump they will get something they don't expect.)

I don't think even if Trump were elected it would turn out catastrophically right then -- well, except maybe if he does something truly horrible with foreign policy (rather than "just" a worsening of war crimes or something like that) which is where he could do the easiest damage, I think, without running into your dysfunctional congress, that he is unlikely to get in a sweep with loyal allies, even if both chambers remained Republican majority, so he'd probably run into the same gridlock.

I think the even scarier part is that his electorate won't go away, but will get even more frustrated if they get disappointed by Trump as well, when he doesn't accomplish anything beyond angry posturing. And in the next iteration you may get the combination of all the implicit rules of civility boundaries being broken, people even more eager to dismantle the political system that failed them, and the formula is then used by someone who isn't a narcissist but a believer and is willing to cohere and build local movements and such.

I mean, from what I gather Cruz for example is all about some weird religious fundamentalist vision or something, but with the Trump example that some economic populism and protectionism talk combined with racism and xenophobia works better to attract people than being just all about the "war for Christian values" or whatever, but neoliberal Republican in economics, you get the next natural iteration of this, where the economic rhetoric switches.

Yeppp.

On the plus side I don't think his chances of winning are that great; he's consistently getting about 35% of the Republican primary vote, and that seems to be it, so if that really is his base, 15% of the general election vote does not win you the presidency even with total dysfunction everywhere else.

The scarier part is nobody really knows what happens next even if he doesn't win, because he's completely changed the landscape.

Well, the optimistic outcome scenario is that landscape change might somehow help with the dysfunction because the Republican party has to adapt.

I have been predicting the collapse/redefinition/reorganization of the Republican Party since the Tea Party started making waves. America has always had two major political parties, but what parties those are has changed over the years, and parties have had really dramatic sudden shifts of platform and key demographics. Such political realignments happen periodically, and we're due for another one. Sometimes a party just comes apart at the seams and is completely replaced; sometimes they keep the name but are almost unrecognizable. And it usually happens around a Presidential election. One election cycle, the system shows strain and stress; things get further stressed in the intervening four years; next Presidential election, the whole thing goes up in flames and everybody goes WTF? for a bit before adapting to the new normal. (The most interesting one, to me, was the formation of the Republican Party and Abe Lincoln's election.)

Now, whether any such realignment would be a net positive for the country ... I don't know. And, of course, using history as a guide for What's Happening Next is tricky in any case.

I have to admit that I find US parties really hard to grasp, probably because they are so very different in organization from what you understand as political party here.

Okay, here's a brief overview.

The structure of our elections and electtoral system is really hard on small parties--basically, for national politics, only the two biggest really have much of a chance at any one election. (This is why, historically, when one party died, another one quickly arose to take its place and the system carried on similarly to before.) And people tend to belong to the same party for both state and federal purposes, so it's only for strictly local politics that you start seeing political parties other than the two biggies, and even then only rarely. I mean, they exist, but rarely get elected.

The thing is, the range of mainstream American political beliefs isn't any narrower than any other country you can think of. But instead of having that range of politial beliefs split up into, say, five mainstream parties, each of which gets enough seats in the legislature that they sort of have to work together because none of them can get a majority on their own, we're divided into two political parties, each of which often can control a house of legislature by itself.

So a major American political party is actually the functional equivalent of two or three (or more) parties in a parliamentary system. Except that while those factions in a parliamentary system might only work together for an election or two before forming an alliance with a different party, here they are part of the same party with a really strong disincentive to go it alone. So major reorganizations only happen every forty or fifty years or so.

Does that help?

That wasn't what I meant. I know your system works differently from say a proportional legislature. What I meant is that what you call a party here is a organization with a program the members (who join and pay their party fees) vote on to determine the goals of the party and a leadership structure elected by the membership base (different from the voting base who are not all members obviously) to try to get elected to then implement their program. Due to that it is also much less person-centric than your system where you elect people for whom parties are a sort of election machine.

So when I hear "party" in my gut the association is with that kind of political organization. The disconnect is not just because of how you slice the political spectrum into fewer sections, but what and how a political party here does things is also different, not merely more defined ideologically.

Edited 2016-03-11 15:37 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, that is different.

Thank you for the link to

hth's post — yes yes yes.

Interestingly, when I was trying to remember who had posted that so I could link, the first journal I checked was yours. :)

I take that as a high compliment; thank you! I'd actually been mulling over writing a post very similar to

hth's, and reading theirs was both validating and oddly déjà vu.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

the inevitable fall of global capitalism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject