Launching a party will cost much more than whatever he makes from the book sales. He released The War on Normal People for his last presidential campaign and the book was well received, and it...
Launching a party will cost much more than whatever he makes from the book sales.
He released The War on Normal People for his last presidential campaign and the book was well received, and it definitely helped for understanding where he was coming from and his political goals.
Now he has experience campaigning and he got to see what politics is from the inside which is what the new book is about. It will definitely set the tone for his political party.
I don't think this really makes any sense either. We already know how well Yang fared in the comparatively much more liberal democratic primaries, or NY general election, than the US nationally. I...
I don't think this really makes any sense either. We already know how well Yang fared in the comparatively much more liberal democratic primaries, or NY general election, than the US nationally.
I suppose it's predicated on the idea of vast swathes of either independents or non-active voters who are tired of the current two party system, etc. a claim which I would be doubtful regardless of the situation, but am extra doubtful given just how far he was from winning either of those contests. Maybe if he lost an extremely close blue primary you could make the prior case with any semblance of seriousness, but that is far from the case.
The only way the US can get a viable 3rd party is if someone else forms a 4th party on the other side. A 3rd party invariably takes the majority of its support from one side, virtually...
The only way the US can get a viable 3rd party is if someone else forms a 4th party on the other side. A 3rd party invariably takes the majority of its support from one side, virtually guaranteeing long-term domination by the unfractured party. Everyone knows this, it's basic game theory, the whole "don't throw your vote away" refrain.
There was a brief period recently, when it looked like both Trump and Sanders might form their own parties at about the same time, splitting the two parties into 4 roughly equal-sized groups. That would have been one of the best things that could have happened in US politics ... but alas, the moment seems to have passed.
I think the Venn diagram of current Republicans and Republicans who would jump ship to a Trump party is nearly a circle at this point, so I think that might be a distinction without difference.
I think the Venn diagram of current Republicans and Republicans who would jump ship to a Trump party is nearly a circle at this point, so I think that might be a distinction without difference.
The fact that there's a blurb by Mark Cuban on the book is really revealing of Yang's intentions here (and in politics in general, I suppose). He's claiming to want a departure from the existing...
The fact that there's a blurb by Mark Cuban on the book is really revealing of Yang's intentions here (and in politics in general, I suppose). He's claiming to want a departure from the existing political establishment in some capacity, citing America's "era of institutional failure," while also palling around with the ultra-wealthy: the exact people causing America's institutions to fail.
It seems like that would make more sense as a question: to what extent are American institutional failures caused by rich people? But first you’d have to specify which institutional failures...
It seems like that would make more sense as a question: to what extent are American institutional failures caused by rich people?
But first you’d have to specify which institutional failures you’re talking about, and then decide what caused them. That sounds it would take a lot of research?
But this would be a lot more work than any of us are willing to do as part of a casual conversation. Therefore, I don’t think we can take this for granted as if it were a fact.
I don't think we need the rich to explain failure. We all know the real reason intimately - eternal september. Every institution, government, church, currency, corporation, and empire is just as...
I don't think we need the rich to explain failure. We all know the real reason intimately - eternal september. Every institution, government, church, currency, corporation, and empire is just as vulnerable to it as every community on the internet. The digital world's communities just run through the life cycle faster than the real world does. Time dilation gives us a better perspective on the problem. Human intelligence and organization don't scale well. It's still an unsolved problem.
Our institutions lack an inbuilt capacity for renewal and reflection. Trying to build it into America from the outset doesn't seem to have worked, either. Organizations are slaves to their own inertia. More reactive than proactive. Any exceptions one might point out will just succumb to that rule within a couple of decades and become the usual sort of money-seeking vampires we all know and love. I don't blame the 'rich' for our institutions sucking up to them all the time, that's on us, we built them improperly.
Sometimes I wonder if the right thing to do might be to abandon long-form institutions entirely, aim for something more like mayflies. Just live for a 'day', long enough to do the 'thing' whatever it is, and then immediately shut it down. Institutions and communities do seem to be at their best while they are young. Corruption is usually a long, slow rot that takes time to settle in. We could perhaps deny it that opportunity. Hard to imagine a government where every single person who works there is fired and replaced every couple of years, along with all the rules for it too. :P
I think we can say that the vast majority of our institutional failures are caused by neoliberal capitalism, the same system that gives the ultra-wealthy their status and power. To me, at least,...
I think we can say that the vast majority of our institutional failures are caused by neoliberal capitalism, the same system that gives the ultra-wealthy their status and power. To me, at least, that fact is patently true on the face of it. To say that capitalism is something that is the root cause of most of the world's problems isn't something that I really would expect to have to argue, given that, in my view at least, it's obviously self-evident to anyone who isn't wealthy.
It sounds like it’s a matter of faith. I can think of adjacent claims that I do believe, but as stated, I think that’s neither true nor false. It’s too abstract to check.
It sounds like it’s a matter of faith. I can think of adjacent claims that I do believe, but as stated, I think that’s neither true nor false. It’s too abstract to check.
It's... not? I was just agreeing with you that it would be a lot of work to prove it to you. All I'm saying is that the best evidence is that which comes from living under modern capitalism.
It's... not? I was just agreeing with you that it would be a lot of work to prove it to you. All I'm saying is that the best evidence is that which comes from living under modern capitalism.
I think everyone is entitled to their own suspicions. But, “living under modern capitalism” seems too vague to be called evidence and might better be called personal experience? We don’t all have...
I think everyone is entitled to their own suspicions. But, “living under modern capitalism” seems too vague to be called evidence and might better be called personal experience? We don’t all have the same experiences, and there are things we believe that are difficult to share.
Capitalism is also at the root of much of the world's luxuries and high points. Leisure time as a result of capitalism's push to rapid advancement is the best example. Leisure time being the thing...
Capitalism is also at the root of much of the world's luxuries and high points. Leisure time as a result of capitalism's push to rapid advancement is the best example. Leisure time being the thing which facilitates virtually all art, culture and science.
I would say that consolidation of wealth, both under and outside of capitalism, is the root cause of most of the world's problems. Which is probably the sentiment you were getting at.
In David Graeber's book Bullshit Jobs, he says: Capitalism takes away half of our waking life working to enrich some capitalist. Leisure time has been created by technological advancements, not...
In David Graeber's book Bullshit Jobs, he says:
In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.
Capitalism takes away half of our waking life working to enrich some capitalist. Leisure time has been created by technological advancements, not capitalism. Capitalism has us working so much because it requires infinite growth. We don't need to work this much. Capitalism is the thing keeping us from having more leisure time, not the thing giving us leisure time.
Leisure time being the thing which facilitates virtually all art, culture and science.
Countless people could be amazing artists, poets, musicians, or scientists but cannot do that because capitalism necessitates that people slave away for wages doing something that serves the interests of the wealthy. Art isn't generally profitable, so people cannot become artists full time. We are missing out on amazing developments in science because the price of education bars so many people from the profession.
Consolidation of wealth happens because capitalism requires it. It's not some accident or side effect, it's the whole point of capitalism that capital flows towards those at the top.
Many, perhaps most technical advances were made as part of some money-making scheme or another. Or worse, to fight wars. You might take the history of railroads or electrification for example....
Many, perhaps most technical advances were made as part of some money-making scheme or another. Or worse, to fight wars. You might take the history of railroads or electrification for example.
More recently, the new vaccines wouldn’t be possible without both publicly funded research and a whole lot of investment by large pharmaceutical companies.
It's not that the new vaccines wouldn't wouldn't be possible without the pharmaceutical companies. It's that it didn't happen that way here in this moment. Your framing of the issue presumes that...
It's not that the new vaccines wouldn't wouldn't be possible without the pharmaceutical companies. It's that it didn't happen that way here in this moment. Your framing of the issue presumes that this world is the only way things might work, in more ways than one.
Well no, I'm not claiming to know about all possible alternative histories. It does seems pretty clear that you need some kind of pharmaceutical industry, or you'll end up like the many countries...
Well no, I'm not claiming to know about all possible alternative histories. It does seems pretty clear that you need some kind of pharmaceutical industry, or you'll end up like the many countries that ended up entirely dependent on imported vaccines. I guess you could point to Cuba doing it mostly on their own, until recently when they started importing vaccines from China.
Still, it seems like when people are saying that capitalism doesn't have any accomplishments, it's useful to point out a few, and the new mRNA vaccines are a good example. This was based on publicly funded research, but BioNTech and Moderna were founded quite recently and funded by venture capitalists. It seems to be a good example of how the system can work?
At least for me, the fact that the vaccines were developed while there was a capitalist economic framework is not enough to consider the development of the vaccines as specifically to the credit...
At least for me, the fact that the vaccines were developed while there was a capitalist economic framework is not enough to consider the development of the vaccines as specifically to the credit of Capitalism. You haven't really brought any reasoning why the funding source mattered.
Again, I”m not saying There is No Alternative. I can’t stop you from imagining whatever alternative sources of funding you like, and I can imagine some of my own, too. For example, I think it...
Again, I”m not saying There is No Alternative. I can’t stop you from imagining whatever alternative sources of funding you like, and I can imagine some of my own, too.
For example, I think it would make sense for governments to give away large prizes to whoever develops important new drugs, in return for giving up patent rights.
Still, if you’ve set things up so that imaginary sources of funding are just as valid as actual sources of funding, that’s not very evidence-based, is it? I think it makes sense to give credit for the contributions that people actually make to important achievements.
But that's the thing. The scientists who made the achievement didn't do it because of Capitalism. They did it for fame or kindness or money or sympathy for the sick or personal fear of death or...
But that's the thing. The scientists who made the achievement didn't do it because of Capitalism. They did it for fame or kindness or money or sympathy for the sick or personal fear of death or whatever else. How did Capitalism in particular make this vaccine happen, that it should be credited?
Well, that's the problem with macroeconomic / ideological abstractions. What does Capitalism really mean other than "the parts of modern civilization that some people like to hate?" But if it...
Well, that's the problem with macroeconomic / ideological abstractions. What does Capitalism really mean other than "the parts of modern civilization that some people like to hate?"
But if it means anything, surely venture capitalism counts? The scientists didn't have funding. Rich investors put tens or hundreds of millions into starting a new business, in hopes of doing good (maybe) but also making money (maybe). It's a commonly used system that they all willingly participated in to get stuff done.
You might as well ask what universities should be credited with when scientists do all the work. (Or, more abstractly, what does higher education do.)
It seems like there are institutions and patterns of organization that help people do things that they couldn't do alone. In particular, to produce an mRNA vaccine, they needed a framework for hiring lots of smart people and buying fancy equipment and coordinating internationally to organize a complicated supply chain, while making sure everyone involved gets compensated. Possibly, there might be other ways to do it, but this is one that worked for them.
I don't know that rail or especially electrification are great examples. Rural electrification in the United States basically just didn't happen until the government stepped in with the Rural...
I don't know that rail or especially electrification are great examples. Rural electrification in the United States basically just didn't happen until the government stepped in with the Rural Electrification Act as part of the New Deal, and rail is overwhelmingly state owned and operated.
For electricity, I was thinking more of earlier history, Edison's research lab and and the founding of General Electric and Westinghouse. But you're right about rural electrification. For...
For electricity, I was thinking more of earlier history, Edison's research lab and and the founding of General Electric and Westinghouse. But you're right about rural electrification.
For railroads, I was thinking of the development of the steam engine in Britain, and early expansion in the U.S. But later there was government investment in infrastructure, such as the U.S. transcontinental railroad. And at the same time, a ghastly safety record (by modern standards), brazen fraud, the rise of the robber barons, railroad monopolies, union busting (the Pullman strike) and so on.
These aren't purely capitalistic or purely government projects. The history of technology and war and business are all intermingled.
What you're referring to (the technological ability to provide basic needs for a population so cheaply that people don't need to work as much, or at all) is absolutely true. We're pretty much...
What you're referring to (the technological ability to provide basic needs for a population so cheaply that people don't need to work as much, or at all) is absolutely true. We're pretty much there already.
Consolidation of wealth has sucked up all that surplus created by technology, both directly and through influence over legislation.
Some countries have already made major steps towards remedying that by creating comprehensive safety nets, free education, healthcare, etc.. Those countries still have a capitalist economic system.
Prior to the Regan administration in the US, the top tax rate was 70%. In the past there was a more robust tax on large estates too. Corporate and capital gains taxes have been higher in the past as well. Anti-trust has periodically been enforced more aggressively.
At none of those points in history was the US not a capitalist economy.
There are a lot of downsides to capitalism, but there are also a lot of ways to run a capitalist country.
Consolidation of wealth is a separate issue. There was massive consolidation of wealth in soviet Russia, as there is in modern Russia. There is huge consolidation of wealth in China. The same is true everywhere and every when. Corruption is as, or more, rampant in non capitalist economies. How then, is the problem capitalism's fault?
I'm not saying there aren't problems with late stage capitalism, there are all kinds of problems. But they are problems that happen in late stage anything. Problems which, for better or worse, have to be solved by the state. Capitalism tempered by socialism, I think, is the best way forward. Which is what Yang has seemingly been after.
At this point I’m mostly thinking of him as a celebrity first (famous for being famous). People know him but mostly won’t vote for him. Staying in the public eye seems more important than success?...
At this point I’m mostly thinking of him as a celebrity first (famous for being famous). People know him but mostly won’t vote for him. Staying in the public eye seems more important than success?
You might compare with Buttigieg who can actually get a government job, though I haven’t read anything about how well he’s doing as Transportation Secretary.
Good luck... The "third party" in the US electoral system is the Libertarian Party, and they barely win enough votes to even be a blip on the map. Which is a shame because the current two-party...
Good luck...
The "third party" in the US electoral system is the Libertarian Party, and they barely win enough votes to even be a blip on the map. Which is a shame because the current two-party system is failing America and I think some Libertarian and Green representation in Congress could help things.
Yang dropped out nearly dead-last in last year's race for the Democratic nomination, and he lost out in the recent New York Mayor elections. And now he thinks he can start a third party to directly compete with the Democrats & Republicans because he's hot-shit in Silicon Valley.
The problem is they so rarely run candidates at lower levels. In my mind anyone looking to start a functioning third party really needs to build from the ground up. You need to run candidates at...
I think some Libertarian and Green representation in Congress could help things.
The problem is they so rarely run candidates at lower levels. In my mind anyone looking to start a functioning third party really needs to build from the ground up. You need to run candidates at city level, and then state level before you start even thinking about the federal level.
I think that simple fact reveals that the real purpose of American third parties isn't to provide a serious alternative to the two party system, but to be a controlled opposition and vote...
I think that simple fact reveals that the real purpose of American third parties isn't to provide a serious alternative to the two party system, but to be a controlled opposition and vote siphoning mechanism within the two party game. Contrast the Green Party with the DSA when it comes to shifting the political conversation.
Bingo. Whatever they were meant to be once, that's all they've become now. I think it might need to go the other way first. We might need a breakthrough President from a new party just to...
Bingo. Whatever they were meant to be once, that's all they've become now.
I think it might need to go the other way first. We might need a breakthrough President from a new party just to legitimize them in the public's eyes. I can't see that happening unless most Americans are massively pissed off at both the red and blue teams at the polls on election day. Ready to riot pissed, tailgating the poll locations with beer, bbq, guns, and fireworks - not just grumpy.
Really though, it's all about one thing in the end: debate access and debate control. Right now, third parties have no access, and until they have access, they will remain a curiosity at best. The questions are a farce and that also needs to change.
If someone like Rogan were to team up with a group like the league of women voters and run an old school debate that invites everyone on a platform with over a hundred million guaranteed listeners, that might move the needle.
The best play for the red and blue teams in that scenario is not to show, but if it's Trump on the red team, he'll show - Rogan already turned him down for an interview, he wants to be there. He may be one of those third party options if he's not team red. The blue team won't be able to sit it out and be taken seriously at that point.
I've watched the 3rd party debates many times over the years. The Green and Libertarian and Socialist candidates will eat the red and blue teams for lunch, they are used to answering real questions with data. They have their own narratives, old and well practiced, that are rather toxic to the red/blue mindset. No matter who wins or loses that debate, American politics 'business as usual' will die on that stage.
I appreciate the thought of working from the ground up - I heard that 40 years ago. They've tried it, doesn't work. The Libertarians got the closest I think with their New Hampshire 'free state' project. Also, we don't have time to fuck around anymore. Let's have another 40 years of government paralysis and see what's left of the continent by then. We need to get busy.
That's the way I'd grow a political party to be honest, at least if I were to start one here in the UK. Start low, contest council/county level seats and only when things have really grown start...
That's the way I'd grow a political party to be honest, at least if I were to start one here in the UK.
Start low, contest council/county level seats and only when things have really grown start pushing for MP positions.
Oh, this makes me happy. Get the hell out of that blue tar pit, Andrew. If you think they'll treat you any better than Bernie was treated you're fooling yourself. If this party starts with his old...
Oh, this makes me happy. Get the hell out of that blue tar pit, Andrew. If you think they'll treat you any better than Bernie was treated you're fooling yourself. If this party starts with his old presidential platform plans I'm so in. Make it the party of UBI. How many new parties will we have on the ballots in 2024 I wonder? Seems like we might be in for something of a deluge. Nothing like a fractured electorate to ruin all of the predictive models and make 2024 interesting. We know Trump is going to be running again, perhaps we'll get that Trump vs Yang debate after all. I'll tune in for that.
I guess he's not going to take a swing at Cuomo's job after all. After that abysmal NYC mayoral campaign he ran I figured he was ready to check out of politics like any sane person would. :P
Well this is interesting. I think this might be a good thing. While I don't imagine that he'll be able to make a successful party, I think that he's charismatic enough to bring enough people on...
Well this is interesting.
I think this might be a good thing. While I don't imagine that he'll be able to make a successful party, I think that he's charismatic enough to bring enough people on board that the parties might actually make the issues he represents into an actual priority.
If by some miracle he managed to pull off a third party, I would imagine our world would be a much better place. But that's very much wishful thinking.
Can he even do that in the USA? Everything I've read indicates that the whole U.S. political system is constructed around the assumption that there are two, and only two, political parties. I've...
Can he even do that in the USA?
Everything I've read indicates that the whole U.S. political system is constructed around the assumption that there are two, and only two, political parties. I've even picked up the impression that some laws and some parts of the electoral process are designed to handle two, and only two, political parties.
Also, there's been a third party for years: the Green Party of the United States. They haven't been able to get any traction in America's electoral system.
Why does Yang think that his party will succeed, when the American electoral system is actively biassed against third parties, and other third parties have failed?
No, just the nature of FPTP. There's also the fact that the president is also elected with a FPTP election unlike in the UK or Canada, which means multiple parties make it more likely for the...
No, just the nature of FPTP. There's also the fact that the president is also elected with a FPTP election unlike in the UK or Canada, which means multiple parties make it more likely for the presidential election to be passed to the house.
I'm not sure I follow this. Can't someone with a plurality of votes be elected POTUS? Under what conditions is it sent to the house? In Canada three parties exist just fine in FPTP -- yes, there...
There's also the fact that the president is also elected with a FPTP election unlike in the UK or Canada, which means multiple parties make it more likely for the presidential election to be passed to the house.
I'm not sure I follow this. Can't someone with a plurality of votes be elected POTUS? Under what conditions is it sent to the house? In Canada three parties exist just fine in FPTP -- yes, there is a layer of abstraction in that you don't vote directly for a PM but other than the possibility of a coalition government gaining confidence of the house I don't see how it would differ.
Strategically, I think the presence of the NDP in Canada does lead to some vote-splitting that does benefit the Conservatives from time to time but it also legitimizes and popularizes left-wing politics as well so I don't think its entirely self-harming. And I say that as a predominantly Liberal voter.
The way I understand it: One can get a majority of the electoral college vote (which you get by getting the largest share of the popular vote in the individual states+DC) with a plurality or even...
Can't someone with a plurality of votes be elected POTUS?
The way I understand it:
One can get a majority of the electoral college vote (which you get by getting the largest share of the popular vote in the individual states+DC) with a plurality or even a minority of the popular vote like in 1912 where Wilson got 435 (out of 531) electoral votes with 42% of the vote because there were 3 (relatively) large parties opposing them as opposed to just one like it was since the Civil War.
However, if no one gets a majority of the electoral college vote, the election is then passed to the house of representatives where the majority of the house members of each state vote for who will become president, and whichever candidate has the most states backing him wins. This happened in 1825 where 13 states voted to elect John Quincy Adams president after not reaching a majority in the electoral college or the popular vote.
In Canada three parties exist just fine in FPTP -- yes, there is a layer of abstraction in that you don't vote directly for a PM but other than the possibility of a coalition government gaining confidence of the house I don't see how it would differ.
Firstly, if you're talking about the Bloc Quebecois, FPTP with single member districts tends to favor regionalist parties partly by virtue of the districts being regional themselves and because a regionalist party usually only needs a plurality of the vote to get decent representation of the state, which isn't hard with multiple other parties. I also forgot to mention the Senate in the US is also elected like the house is but most of the states are much larger than any given house district, which makes it even harder for their parties to win.
Strategically, I think the presence of the NDP in Canada does lead to some vote-splitting that does benefit the Conservatives from time to time but it also legitimizes and popularizes left-wing politics as well so I don't think its entirely self-harming. And I say that as a predominantly Liberal voter.
While the NDP does seem to be perfectly capable of holding it's own politically (and it's politics are better than the libs), I think it definitely often lets conservatives get away with government with only 40% or so of the vote.
Ah that makes sense. Strangely, a major third party seems like it would transform the US into a pseudo-parliamentary system , with the presidential and house election being merged into one and the...
However, if no one gets a majority of the electoral college vote, the election is then passed to the house of representatives where the majority of the house members of each state vote for who will become president
Ah that makes sense. Strangely, a major third party seems like it would transform the US into a pseudo-parliamentary system , with the presidential and house election being merged into one and the same? Something interesting to think about.
Firstly, if you're talking about the Bloc Quebecois
I actually meant the NDP but yea the Bloc is another factor. I don't know if I agree regional parties are favoured by default -- they only exist in one province at the moment. I think they are certainly favored in regions where a regional identity is sufficiently different than the rest of the regions as to not be adequately serviced by the non-regional parties. For instance similar to Quebec I could see an Albertan party take hold in Canada, but an Ontario party would make no sense.
While the NDP does seem to be perfectly capable of holding it's own politically (and it's politics are better than the libs), I think it definitely often lets conservatives get away with government with only 40% or so of the vote.
I'm just saying that framing it only in terms of electoral outcomes is missing the big picture. How much of Canada's support for left-of-center politics is innate and how much stems from a left-wing party that has consistently been able to use the political system as a platform even without ever forming government?
The 2 major parties coordinate to create barriers to entry for 3rd parties as well. One example would be requiring 15% polling across 5 national polls to even qualify for the national debates. 15%...
Is there anything that is explicitly 'hardcoded' for 2 parties in US elections or are you just referring to the nature of FPTP?
The 2 major parties coordinate to create barriers to entry for 3rd parties as well. One example would be requiring 15% polling across 5 national polls to even qualify for the national debates. 15% is easy for the candidates from the 2 major parties but nearly impossible in the modern era for someone from a 3rd party unless they're a billionaire (see: Ross Perot).
I think the motivation for "launching the new party" is more about:
Launching a party will cost much more than whatever he makes from the book sales.
He released The War on Normal People for his last presidential campaign and the book was well received, and it definitely helped for understanding where he was coming from and his political goals.
Now he has experience campaigning and he got to see what politics is from the inside which is what the new book is about. It will definitely set the tone for his political party.
Book release parties can be a great time.
I don't think this really makes any sense either. We already know how well Yang fared in the comparatively much more liberal democratic primaries, or NY general election, than the US nationally.
I suppose it's predicated on the idea of vast swathes of either independents or non-active voters who are tired of the current two party system, etc. a claim which I would be doubtful regardless of the situation, but am extra doubtful given just how far he was from winning either of those contests. Maybe if he lost an extremely close blue primary you could make the prior case with any semblance of seriousness, but that is far from the case.
The only way the US can get a viable 3rd party is if someone else forms a 4th party on the other side. A 3rd party invariably takes the majority of its support from one side, virtually guaranteeing long-term domination by the unfractured party. Everyone knows this, it's basic game theory, the whole "don't throw your vote away" refrain.
There was a brief period recently, when it looked like both Trump and Sanders might form their own parties at about the same time, splitting the two parties into 4 roughly equal-sized groups. That would have been one of the best things that could have happened in US politics ... but alas, the moment seems to have passed.
You know your country is fucked when you hope Trump makes his own party to save the country.
I think the Venn diagram of current Republicans and Republicans who would jump ship to a Trump party is nearly a circle at this point, so I think that might be a distinction without difference.
The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.
- Some dude, probably
The fact that there's a blurb by Mark Cuban on the book is really revealing of Yang's intentions here (and in politics in general, I suppose). He's claiming to want a departure from the existing political establishment in some capacity, citing America's "era of institutional failure," while also palling around with the ultra-wealthy: the exact people causing America's institutions to fail.
It seems like that would make more sense as a question: to what extent are American institutional failures caused by rich people?
But first you’d have to specify which institutional failures you’re talking about, and then decide what caused them. That sounds it would take a lot of research?
But this would be a lot more work than any of us are willing to do as part of a casual conversation. Therefore, I don’t think we can take this for granted as if it were a fact.
I don't think we need the rich to explain failure. We all know the real reason intimately - eternal september. Every institution, government, church, currency, corporation, and empire is just as vulnerable to it as every community on the internet. The digital world's communities just run through the life cycle faster than the real world does. Time dilation gives us a better perspective on the problem. Human intelligence and organization don't scale well. It's still an unsolved problem.
Our institutions lack an inbuilt capacity for renewal and reflection. Trying to build it into America from the outset doesn't seem to have worked, either. Organizations are slaves to their own inertia. More reactive than proactive. Any exceptions one might point out will just succumb to that rule within a couple of decades and become the usual sort of money-seeking vampires we all know and love. I don't blame the 'rich' for our institutions sucking up to them all the time, that's on us, we built them improperly.
Sometimes I wonder if the right thing to do might be to abandon long-form institutions entirely, aim for something more like mayflies. Just live for a 'day', long enough to do the 'thing' whatever it is, and then immediately shut it down. Institutions and communities do seem to be at their best while they are young. Corruption is usually a long, slow rot that takes time to settle in. We could perhaps deny it that opportunity. Hard to imagine a government where every single person who works there is fired and replaced every couple of years, along with all the rules for it too. :P
I think we can say that the vast majority of our institutional failures are caused by neoliberal capitalism, the same system that gives the ultra-wealthy their status and power. To me, at least, that fact is patently true on the face of it. To say that capitalism is something that is the root cause of most of the world's problems isn't something that I really would expect to have to argue, given that, in my view at least, it's obviously self-evident to anyone who isn't wealthy.
It sounds like it’s a matter of faith. I can think of adjacent claims that I do believe, but as stated, I think that’s neither true nor false. It’s too abstract to check.
It's... not? I was just agreeing with you that it would be a lot of work to prove it to you. All I'm saying is that the best evidence is that which comes from living under modern capitalism.
I think everyone is entitled to their own suspicions. But, “living under modern capitalism” seems too vague to be called evidence and might better be called personal experience? We don’t all have the same experiences, and there are things we believe that are difficult to share.
Capitalism is also at the root of much of the world's luxuries and high points. Leisure time as a result of capitalism's push to rapid advancement is the best example. Leisure time being the thing which facilitates virtually all art, culture and science.
I would say that consolidation of wealth, both under and outside of capitalism, is the root cause of most of the world's problems. Which is probably the sentiment you were getting at.
In David Graeber's book Bullshit Jobs, he says:
Capitalism takes away half of our waking life working to enrich some capitalist. Leisure time has been created by technological advancements, not capitalism. Capitalism has us working so much because it requires infinite growth. We don't need to work this much. Capitalism is the thing keeping us from having more leisure time, not the thing giving us leisure time.
Countless people could be amazing artists, poets, musicians, or scientists but cannot do that because capitalism necessitates that people slave away for wages doing something that serves the interests of the wealthy. Art isn't generally profitable, so people cannot become artists full time. We are missing out on amazing developments in science because the price of education bars so many people from the profession.
Consolidation of wealth happens because capitalism requires it. It's not some accident or side effect, it's the whole point of capitalism that capital flows towards those at the top.
Many, perhaps most technical advances were made as part of some money-making scheme or another. Or worse, to fight wars. You might take the history of railroads or electrification for example.
More recently, the new vaccines wouldn’t be possible without both publicly funded research and a whole lot of investment by large pharmaceutical companies.
It's not that the new vaccines wouldn't wouldn't be possible without the pharmaceutical companies. It's that it didn't happen that way here in this moment. Your framing of the issue presumes that this world is the only way things might work, in more ways than one.
Well no, I'm not claiming to know about all possible alternative histories. It does seems pretty clear that you need some kind of pharmaceutical industry, or you'll end up like the many countries that ended up entirely dependent on imported vaccines. I guess you could point to Cuba doing it mostly on their own, until recently when they started importing vaccines from China.
Still, it seems like when people are saying that capitalism doesn't have any accomplishments, it's useful to point out a few, and the new mRNA vaccines are a good example. This was based on publicly funded research, but BioNTech and Moderna were founded quite recently and funded by venture capitalists. It seems to be a good example of how the system can work?
At least for me, the fact that the vaccines were developed while there was a capitalist economic framework is not enough to consider the development of the vaccines as specifically to the credit of Capitalism. You haven't really brought any reasoning why the funding source mattered.
Again, I”m not saying There is No Alternative. I can’t stop you from imagining whatever alternative sources of funding you like, and I can imagine some of my own, too.
For example, I think it would make sense for governments to give away large prizes to whoever develops important new drugs, in return for giving up patent rights.
Still, if you’ve set things up so that imaginary sources of funding are just as valid as actual sources of funding, that’s not very evidence-based, is it? I think it makes sense to give credit for the contributions that people actually make to important achievements.
But that's the thing. The scientists who made the achievement didn't do it because of Capitalism. They did it for fame or kindness or money or sympathy for the sick or personal fear of death or whatever else. How did Capitalism in particular make this vaccine happen, that it should be credited?
Well, that's the problem with macroeconomic / ideological abstractions. What does Capitalism really mean other than "the parts of modern civilization that some people like to hate?"
But if it means anything, surely venture capitalism counts? The scientists didn't have funding. Rich investors put tens or hundreds of millions into starting a new business, in hopes of doing good (maybe) but also making money (maybe). It's a commonly used system that they all willingly participated in to get stuff done.
You might as well ask what universities should be credited with when scientists do all the work. (Or, more abstractly, what does higher education do.)
It seems like there are institutions and patterns of organization that help people do things that they couldn't do alone. In particular, to produce an mRNA vaccine, they needed a framework for hiring lots of smart people and buying fancy equipment and coordinating internationally to organize a complicated supply chain, while making sure everyone involved gets compensated. Possibly, there might be other ways to do it, but this is one that worked for them.
I don't know that rail or especially electrification are great examples. Rural electrification in the United States basically just didn't happen until the government stepped in with the Rural Electrification Act as part of the New Deal, and rail is overwhelmingly state owned and operated.
For electricity, I was thinking more of earlier history, Edison's research lab and and the founding of General Electric and Westinghouse. But you're right about rural electrification.
For railroads, I was thinking of the development of the steam engine in Britain, and early expansion in the U.S. But later there was government investment in infrastructure, such as the U.S. transcontinental railroad. And at the same time, a ghastly safety record (by modern standards), brazen fraud, the rise of the robber barons, railroad monopolies, union busting (the Pullman strike) and so on.
These aren't purely capitalistic or purely government projects. The history of technology and war and business are all intermingled.
What you're referring to (the technological ability to provide basic needs for a population so cheaply that people don't need to work as much, or at all) is absolutely true. We're pretty much there already.
Consolidation of wealth has sucked up all that surplus created by technology, both directly and through influence over legislation.
Some countries have already made major steps towards remedying that by creating comprehensive safety nets, free education, healthcare, etc.. Those countries still have a capitalist economic system.
Prior to the Regan administration in the US, the top tax rate was 70%. In the past there was a more robust tax on large estates too. Corporate and capital gains taxes have been higher in the past as well. Anti-trust has periodically been enforced more aggressively.
At none of those points in history was the US not a capitalist economy.
There are a lot of downsides to capitalism, but there are also a lot of ways to run a capitalist country.
Consolidation of wealth is a separate issue. There was massive consolidation of wealth in soviet Russia, as there is in modern Russia. There is huge consolidation of wealth in China. The same is true everywhere and every when. Corruption is as, or more, rampant in non capitalist economies. How then, is the problem capitalism's fault?
I'm not saying there aren't problems with late stage capitalism, there are all kinds of problems. But they are problems that happen in late stage anything. Problems which, for better or worse, have to be solved by the state. Capitalism tempered by socialism, I think, is the best way forward. Which is what Yang has seemingly been after.
At this point I’m mostly thinking of him as a celebrity first (famous for being famous). People know him but mostly won’t vote for him. Staying in the public eye seems more important than success?
You might compare with Buttigieg who can actually get a government job, though I haven’t read anything about how well he’s doing as Transportation Secretary.
Good luck...
The "third party" in the US electoral system is the Libertarian Party, and they barely win enough votes to even be a blip on the map. Which is a shame because the current two-party system is failing America and I think some Libertarian and Green representation in Congress could help things.
Yang dropped out nearly dead-last in last year's race for the Democratic nomination, and he lost out in the recent New York Mayor elections. And now he thinks he can start a third party to directly compete with the Democrats & Republicans because he's hot-shit in Silicon Valley.
The problem is they so rarely run candidates at lower levels. In my mind anyone looking to start a functioning third party really needs to build from the ground up. You need to run candidates at city level, and then state level before you start even thinking about the federal level.
I think that simple fact reveals that the real purpose of American third parties isn't to provide a serious alternative to the two party system, but to be a controlled opposition and vote siphoning mechanism within the two party game. Contrast the Green Party with the DSA when it comes to shifting the political conversation.
Bingo. Whatever they were meant to be once, that's all they've become now.
I think it might need to go the other way first. We might need a breakthrough President from a new party just to legitimize them in the public's eyes. I can't see that happening unless most Americans are massively pissed off at both the red and blue teams at the polls on election day. Ready to riot pissed, tailgating the poll locations with beer, bbq, guns, and fireworks - not just grumpy.
Really though, it's all about one thing in the end: debate access and debate control. Right now, third parties have no access, and until they have access, they will remain a curiosity at best. The questions are a farce and that also needs to change.
If someone like Rogan were to team up with a group like the league of women voters and run an old school debate that invites everyone on a platform with over a hundred million guaranteed listeners, that might move the needle.
The best play for the red and blue teams in that scenario is not to show, but if it's Trump on the red team, he'll show - Rogan already turned him down for an interview, he wants to be there. He may be one of those third party options if he's not team red. The blue team won't be able to sit it out and be taken seriously at that point.
I've watched the 3rd party debates many times over the years. The Green and Libertarian and Socialist candidates will eat the red and blue teams for lunch, they are used to answering real questions with data. They have their own narratives, old and well practiced, that are rather toxic to the red/blue mindset. No matter who wins or loses that debate, American politics 'business as usual' will die on that stage.
I appreciate the thought of working from the ground up - I heard that 40 years ago. They've tried it, doesn't work. The Libertarians got the closest I think with their New Hampshire 'free state' project. Also, we don't have time to fuck around anymore. Let's have another 40 years of government paralysis and see what's left of the continent by then. We need to get busy.
That's the way I'd grow a political party to be honest, at least if I were to start one here in the UK.
Start low, contest council/county level seats and only when things have really grown start pushing for MP positions.
Oh, this makes me happy. Get the hell out of that blue tar pit, Andrew. If you think they'll treat you any better than Bernie was treated you're fooling yourself. If this party starts with his old presidential platform plans I'm so in. Make it the party of UBI. How many new parties will we have on the ballots in 2024 I wonder? Seems like we might be in for something of a deluge. Nothing like a fractured electorate to ruin all of the predictive models and make 2024 interesting. We know Trump is going to be running again, perhaps we'll get that Trump vs Yang debate after all. I'll tune in for that.
I guess he's not going to take a swing at Cuomo's job after all. After that abysmal NYC mayoral campaign he ran I figured he was ready to check out of politics like any sane person would. :P
Well this is interesting.
I think this might be a good thing. While I don't imagine that he'll be able to make a successful party, I think that he's charismatic enough to bring enough people on board that the parties might actually make the issues he represents into an actual priority.
If by some miracle he managed to pull off a third party, I would imagine our world would be a much better place. But that's very much wishful thinking.
The cynic in me thinks this is more about his book than his new party, but we'll see.
Can he even do that in the USA?
Everything I've read indicates that the whole U.S. political system is constructed around the assumption that there are two, and only two, political parties. I've even picked up the impression that some laws and some parts of the electoral process are designed to handle two, and only two, political parties.
Also, there's been a third party for years: the Green Party of the United States. They haven't been able to get any traction in America's electoral system.
Why does Yang think that his party will succeed, when the American electoral system is actively biassed against third parties, and other third parties have failed?
Yes he can start a party. There's plenty of small ones. No, the electoral structure doesn't really support more than 2.
Is there anything that is explicitly 'hardcoded' for 2 parties in US elections or are you just referring to the nature of FPTP?
No, just the nature of FPTP. There's also the fact that the president is also elected with a FPTP election unlike in the UK or Canada, which means multiple parties make it more likely for the presidential election to be passed to the house.
I'm not sure I follow this. Can't someone with a plurality of votes be elected POTUS? Under what conditions is it sent to the house? In Canada three parties exist just fine in FPTP -- yes, there is a layer of abstraction in that you don't vote directly for a PM but other than the possibility of a coalition government gaining confidence of the house I don't see how it would differ.
Strategically, I think the presence of the NDP in Canada does lead to some vote-splitting that does benefit the Conservatives from time to time but it also legitimizes and popularizes left-wing politics as well so I don't think its entirely self-harming. And I say that as a predominantly Liberal voter.
The way I understand it:
One can get a majority of the electoral college vote (which you get by getting the largest share of the popular vote in the individual states+DC) with a plurality or even a minority of the popular vote like in 1912 where Wilson got 435 (out of 531) electoral votes with 42% of the vote because there were 3 (relatively) large parties opposing them as opposed to just one like it was since the Civil War.
However, if no one gets a majority of the electoral college vote, the election is then passed to the house of representatives where the majority of the house members of each state vote for who will become president, and whichever candidate has the most states backing him wins. This happened in 1825 where 13 states voted to elect John Quincy Adams president after not reaching a majority in the electoral college or the popular vote.
Firstly, if you're talking about the Bloc Quebecois, FPTP with single member districts tends to favor regionalist parties partly by virtue of the districts being regional themselves and because a regionalist party usually only needs a plurality of the vote to get decent representation of the state, which isn't hard with multiple other parties. I also forgot to mention the Senate in the US is also elected like the house is but most of the states are much larger than any given house district, which makes it even harder for their parties to win.
While the NDP does seem to be perfectly capable of holding it's own politically (and it's politics are better than the libs), I think it definitely often lets conservatives get away with government with only 40% or so of the vote.
Ah that makes sense. Strangely, a major third party seems like it would transform the US into a pseudo-parliamentary system , with the presidential and house election being merged into one and the same? Something interesting to think about.
I actually meant the NDP but yea the Bloc is another factor. I don't know if I agree regional parties are favoured by default -- they only exist in one province at the moment. I think they are certainly favored in regions where a regional identity is sufficiently different than the rest of the regions as to not be adequately serviced by the non-regional parties. For instance similar to Quebec I could see an Albertan party take hold in Canada, but an Ontario party would make no sense.
I'm just saying that framing it only in terms of electoral outcomes is missing the big picture. How much of Canada's support for left-of-center politics is innate and how much stems from a left-wing party that has consistently been able to use the political system as a platform even without ever forming government?
The 2 major parties coordinate to create barriers to entry for 3rd parties as well. One example would be requiring 15% polling across 5 national polls to even qualify for the national debates. 15% is easy for the candidates from the 2 major parties but nearly impossible in the modern era for someone from a 3rd party unless they're a billionaire (see: Ross Perot).