I do hold out some hope that the ever more flagrant partisanship of our press will start to be noticed by people. Although the number of my left wing friends who're now fairly rabidly anti Corbyn...
I do hold out some hope that the ever more flagrant partisanship of our press will start to be noticed by people. Although the number of my left wing friends who're now fairly rabidly anti Corbyn suggests this maybe an empty hope.
There are two parts to political candidacy for the highest offices. Politics and person. I completely understand anyone who agrees with the policies and principles of both Bernie Sanders and...
There are two parts to political candidacy for the highest offices. Politics and person.
I completely understand anyone who agrees with the policies and principles of both Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn but will never vote for them to hold office.
They're both similar in lacking the pragmatism, statesmanship and interpersonal skills to ever be effective politicians.
As a British friend of mine said, "Even if I agreed with 100% of all of Corbyn's policy, he could only ever be a candidate that was just above average overall."
Many people do not like hearing this. You have to work within the existing political system. You need allies, not just fights. You need to do the politicking to get things done in parliaments. Corbyn and Sanders can never and will never work effectively in those climates.
In a vacuum I'd agree with this, but we're not in a vacuum. The competition was May and will almost certainly be Bojo. Just because our craven press has convinced you that Corbyn would somehow be...
In a vacuum I'd agree with this, but we're not in a vacuum. The competition was May and will almost certainly be Bojo. Just because our craven press has convinced you that Corbyn would somehow be worse than the opportunist architect of Brexit doesn't make it so.
I don't think Corbyn is worse than May or Johnson. That isn't saying much though. The last elections have been Labour's to lose. And they've managed to lose spectacularly, even on an issue like...
I don't think Corbyn is worse than May or Johnson. That isn't saying much though. The last elections have been Labour's to lose.
And they've managed to lose spectacularly, even on an issue like Brexit. That's due to Corbyn's leadership and unwillingness to actually take a stance on the issue. The other parties are winning, Labour and the Tories are both losing.
How different would things be with a somewhat competent leader of Labour?
I'm not saying media doesn't matter. The public just not caring is an issue we all own. We have to pay for news, and to demand quality if we want an efficient Fourth estate.
In the last decades that seems to have been taken for granted, and we're seeing the results now. In populism all over the West. Being wrong isn't an issue any longer. How'd we end up accepting that?
My impression is that Sanders and Corbyn differ on this point. Sanders has a track record of getting things done, being in executive office, and finding common ground. Corbyn, as far as I'm aware,...
They're both similar in lacking the pragmatism, statesmanship and interpersonal skills to ever be effective politicians.
My impression is that Sanders and Corbyn differ on this point. Sanders has a track record of getting things done, being in executive office, and finding common ground. Corbyn, as far as I'm aware, much less so.
To the contrary, according to every source I can find, and a everything I remember, Sanders has been a less effective senator with lower "legislative effectiveness" than the average senator. He...
Sanders has a track record of getting things done
To the contrary, according to every source I can find, and a everything I remember, Sanders has been a less effective senator with lower "legislative effectiveness" than the average senator.
He was even less effective in the House of Representatives (which is natural because he was the first independent there in 40 years when he was elected in 1990).
Here's just one source that notes how few sponsored bills Sanders has gotten past into law and how few successful amendments he's managed to get through on others' bills.
(I don't view achievements outside Congress as relevant to efficacy in national office because it's a completely different ballgame to state or local politics. That's due to the dynamics with both the Supreme court, convention and chamber majority leaders, and the scope of presidential powers)
Sanders has been almost all bark and protest for years. Does he have the ability to compromise? Why hasn't he shown that in the decades he's been in public office?
I was going a bit on my impression of Sanders' record before Washington, yeah. I don't agree that that is completely irrelevant. Plus, I feel it's a little bit unfair to hold lack of results...
I was going a bit on my impression of Sanders' record before Washington, yeah. I don't agree that that is completely irrelevant.
Plus, I feel it's a little bit unfair to hold lack of results against someone whose views and proposals simply had less popular support at the time (and thus, should be less likely to pass) but that are gaining in popularity and support now. We can't know how valid that record is as a predictor for succes with strong mandate and more support amongst other congresspeople.
But other than that, thanks for the correction. My impression seems to have been too positive.
When you're of a minority view, you have at least two options: Sticking to your principles although you know you won't ever be able to cause change as you won't get the votes for changes in...
When you're of a minority view, you have at least two options:
Sticking to your principles although you know you won't ever be able to cause change as you won't get the votes for changes in policy. (The Sanders route)
Clearly stating what principles you stand for as you are elected, then voting pragmatically to gradually enact change in the right direction step by step, inch by inch.
Sanders choosing his route, has meant his vote has largely been irrelevant.
This leads me to believe he'd also choose the Obama/Trump route of being a president by Executive order, rather than getting legislation through congress. This reduces the need for compromise, but also means a successor can overturn a lot of policy.
But with Sanders' capstone policy there's an issue with that route: he needs to fundamentally change the law to overturn supreme court precedents, and in many cases probably even amend the constitution to get his policy through. That can't be done by executive order (and in the very least shouldn't).
Even if you disagree that local office is irrelevant due to the nature of Washington compared to state politics, there's also the factor of time.
Politics has changed completely in the decades Sanders has been in DC. How relevant is really accomplishment 30 years ago when things have changed so much since? Take the hyper-partisanship and unwillingness to vote across the line for one, take the overturn of congressional procedural precedent as another example.
The mechanisms Sanders was even successful using locally don't exist in DC in 2019. How can that experience then be relevant today?
this whole line of thinking is incredibly bizarre considering that many of sanders's policies didn't even have the democratic votes to start out with in 2015, and now many of his planks in his...
Sticking to your principles although you know you won't ever be able to cause change as you won't get the votes for changes in policy. (The Sanders route)
this whole line of thinking is incredibly bizarre considering that many of sanders's policies didn't even have the democratic votes to start out with in 2015, and now many of his planks in his 2016 campaign such as $15/hr minimum wage, conceptions of an M4A or similar system, and things of that nature are basically standard parts of the party platform and ideology to a point where even people like biden who represent the conservative wing of the party are trying to cash in on the benefits of standing on such ideas. sanders has probably irreversibly and fundamentally changed the positions of the democratic party. in fact it's pretty likely that, in the next decade, a lot of what sanders stumped on which was inconceivable to the party as late as prior to the 2016 election will be introduced and implemented by democratic presidents on one level or another.
This sentiment is often used to dismiss radical parties. But I'd rewrite the first route as something like this: Sticking to your principles knowing you won't be able to cause change until you get...
When you're of a minority view, you have at least two options:
- Sticking to your principles although you know you won't ever be able to cause change as you won't get the votes for changes in policy. (The Sanders route)
- Clearly stating what principles you stand for as you are elected, then voting pragmatically to gradually enact change in the right direction step by step, inch by inch.
This sentiment is often used to dismiss radical parties. But I'd rewrite the first route as something like this:
Sticking to your principles knowing you won't be able to cause change until you get the support for changes in policy by trusting/hoping that, in time, you may convince enough of the electorate. And if not, then not, that's democracy for you. (The Sanders route?)
Additionally, 'causing change' can happen through other ways then getting your proposals passed. Radical parties can shift the debate so that others' proposals (that they may sometimes still vote against) move in their direction.
The mechanisms Sanders was even successful using locally don't exist in DC in 2019. How can that experience then be relevant today?
If you see it as the skill of operating in a complex environment, according to local (in time and space) conditions. I'm not saying that experience guarantees he'll do well in current situation, but it doesn't follow from the fact that this succes was in different circumstances that he won't be succesful in current ones. That assumes someone will not adapt or change their approach when faced with a different situation.
That's pretty bad for supposedly quality news outlets. I have much sympathy for Monbiot, but he doesn't really make his case here, I think. It can be "clear whose interests [media] serve" without...
Not one of the many journalists who wrote these articles has contacted any of the authors of the report. Yet they harvested lengthy quotes denouncing us from senior Conservatives.
That's pretty bad for supposedly quality news outlets.
I have much sympathy for Monbiot, but he doesn't really make his case here, I think. It can be "clear whose interests [media] serve" without them being instructed by these billionaires. This seems more a symptom of the us vs. them dynamics of politics in 2-party systems. This is funded, strengthened, and liked by the billionaires, sure, but the mechanism is a bit more subtle (and pernicious) than straight up journalists serving as lackeys of oligarchs, I believe.
Wow, thanks for the link. You're right that it seems worse than I thought/hoped, but I'll stick to saying that it's a more subtle (and therefore, pernicious because more difficult to point the...
Wow, thanks for the link.
You're right that it seems worse than I thought/hoped, but I'll stick to saying that it's a more subtle (and therefore, pernicious because more difficult to point the finger at) mechanism than direct instruction from oligarchs of "go after that Monbiot fellow!".
"The introduction of a “click culture”" at the Telegraph, and especially that "“It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers." is super worrying, but because it's a bit indirect, it gives the people involved a way of seeing themselves as being 'reasonable' and 'pragmatic' or something. In practice, it's functionally the same as an evil billionaire giving out orders, but because there's less clearly outrageous smoking guns this will be harder to effectively fight, I fear.
I do hold out some hope that the ever more flagrant partisanship of our press will start to be noticed by people. Although the number of my left wing friends who're now fairly rabidly anti Corbyn suggests this maybe an empty hope.
There are two parts to political candidacy for the highest offices. Politics and person.
I completely understand anyone who agrees with the policies and principles of both Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn but will never vote for them to hold office.
They're both similar in lacking the pragmatism, statesmanship and interpersonal skills to ever be effective politicians.
As a British friend of mine said, "Even if I agreed with 100% of all of Corbyn's policy, he could only ever be a candidate that was just above average overall."
Many people do not like hearing this. You have to work within the existing political system. You need allies, not just fights. You need to do the politicking to get things done in parliaments. Corbyn and Sanders can never and will never work effectively in those climates.
In a vacuum I'd agree with this, but we're not in a vacuum. The competition was May and will almost certainly be Bojo. Just because our craven press has convinced you that Corbyn would somehow be worse than the opportunist architect of Brexit doesn't make it so.
I don't think Corbyn is worse than May or Johnson. That isn't saying much though. The last elections have been Labour's to lose.
And they've managed to lose spectacularly, even on an issue like Brexit. That's due to Corbyn's leadership and unwillingness to actually take a stance on the issue. The other parties are winning, Labour and the Tories are both losing.
How different would things be with a somewhat competent leader of Labour?
I'm not saying media doesn't matter. The public just not caring is an issue we all own. We have to pay for news, and to demand quality if we want an efficient Fourth estate.
In the last decades that seems to have been taken for granted, and we're seeing the results now. In populism all over the West. Being wrong isn't an issue any longer. How'd we end up accepting that?
My impression is that Sanders and Corbyn differ on this point. Sanders has a track record of getting things done, being in executive office, and finding common ground. Corbyn, as far as I'm aware, much less so.
To the contrary, according to every source I can find, and a everything I remember, Sanders has been a less effective senator with lower "legislative effectiveness" than the average senator.
He was even less effective in the House of Representatives (which is natural because he was the first independent there in 40 years when he was elected in 1990).
Here's just one source that notes how few sponsored bills Sanders has gotten past into law and how few successful amendments he's managed to get through on others' bills.
(I don't view achievements outside Congress as relevant to efficacy in national office because it's a completely different ballgame to state or local politics. That's due to the dynamics with both the Supreme court, convention and chamber majority leaders, and the scope of presidential powers)
Sanders has been almost all bark and protest for years. Does he have the ability to compromise? Why hasn't he shown that in the decades he's been in public office?
I was going a bit on my impression of Sanders' record before Washington, yeah. I don't agree that that is completely irrelevant.
Plus, I feel it's a little bit unfair to hold lack of results against someone whose views and proposals simply had less popular support at the time (and thus, should be less likely to pass) but that are gaining in popularity and support now. We can't know how valid that record is as a predictor for succes with strong mandate and more support amongst other congresspeople.
But other than that, thanks for the correction. My impression seems to have been too positive.
When you're of a minority view, you have at least two options:
Sanders choosing his route, has meant his vote has largely been irrelevant.
This leads me to believe he'd also choose the Obama/Trump route of being a president by Executive order, rather than getting legislation through congress. This reduces the need for compromise, but also means a successor can overturn a lot of policy.
But with Sanders' capstone policy there's an issue with that route: he needs to fundamentally change the law to overturn supreme court precedents, and in many cases probably even amend the constitution to get his policy through. That can't be done by executive order (and in the very least shouldn't).
Even if you disagree that local office is irrelevant due to the nature of Washington compared to state politics, there's also the factor of time.
Politics has changed completely in the decades Sanders has been in DC. How relevant is really accomplishment 30 years ago when things have changed so much since? Take the hyper-partisanship and unwillingness to vote across the line for one, take the overturn of congressional procedural precedent as another example.
The mechanisms Sanders was even successful using locally don't exist in DC in 2019. How can that experience then be relevant today?
this whole line of thinking is incredibly bizarre considering that many of sanders's policies didn't even have the democratic votes to start out with in 2015, and now many of his planks in his 2016 campaign such as $15/hr minimum wage, conceptions of an M4A or similar system, and things of that nature are basically standard parts of the party platform and ideology to a point where even people like biden who represent the conservative wing of the party are trying to cash in on the benefits of standing on such ideas. sanders has probably irreversibly and fundamentally changed the positions of the democratic party. in fact it's pretty likely that, in the next decade, a lot of what sanders stumped on which was inconceivable to the party as late as prior to the 2016 election will be introduced and implemented by democratic presidents on one level or another.
This sentiment is often used to dismiss radical parties. But I'd rewrite the first route as something like this:
Sticking to your principles knowing you won't be able to cause change until you get the support for changes in policy by trusting/hoping that, in time, you may convince enough of the electorate. And if not, then not, that's democracy for you. (The Sanders route?)
Additionally, 'causing change' can happen through other ways then getting your proposals passed. Radical parties can shift the debate so that others' proposals (that they may sometimes still vote against) move in their direction.
If you see it as the skill of operating in a complex environment, according to local (in time and space) conditions. I'm not saying that experience guarantees he'll do well in current situation, but it doesn't follow from the fact that this succes was in different circumstances that he won't be succesful in current ones. That assumes someone will not adapt or change their approach when faced with a different situation.
edit: markup
That's pretty bad for supposedly quality news outlets.
I have much sympathy for Monbiot, but he doesn't really make his case here, I think. It can be "clear whose interests [media] serve" without them being instructed by these billionaires. This seems more a symptom of the us vs. them dynamics of politics in 2-party systems. This is funded, strengthened, and liked by the billionaires, sure, but the mechanism is a bit more subtle (and pernicious) than straight up journalists serving as lackeys of oligarchs, I believe.
How about the ex-political chief of the Telegraph?
Wow, thanks for the link.
You're right that it seems worse than I thought/hoped, but I'll stick to saying that it's a more subtle (and therefore, pernicious because more difficult to point the finger at) mechanism than direct instruction from oligarchs of "go after that Monbiot fellow!".
"The introduction of a “click culture”" at the Telegraph, and especially that "“It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers." is super worrying, but because it's a bit indirect, it gives the people involved a way of seeing themselves as being 'reasonable' and 'pragmatic' or something. In practice, it's functionally the same as an evil billionaire giving out orders, but because there's less clearly outrageous smoking guns this will be harder to effectively fight, I fear.