Y'all got some elderly folk in politics that would be better off in a nursing home. This is just sad and I feel for the man. What would even be the reason he's still doing this? He just looks like...
Y'all got some elderly folk in politics that would be better off in a nursing home.
This is just sad and I feel for the man. What would even be the reason he's still doing this? He just looks like a sad sack of bones standing there all mute.
Conversely, I worry about the state of geriatric politicians because they can't actually represent the people. This isn't good for both the dude nor the people he represents.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that power and the level of control over the party he has must be so incredibly addicting and intoxicating on a scale of which one doesn't...
What would even be the reason he's still doing this?
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that power and the level of control over the party he has must be so incredibly addicting and intoxicating on a scale of which one doesn't comprehend until they'd held a similar level of power. I hear it time and time again, "If it were me I'd go live on a beach somewhere." But the avenue towards happiness and personal fulfillment doesn't lead these sorts of persons to a beach, but near-absolute power in their political party.
I'm not even American, but I remember a scene where he was in the senate with a legit shit-eating grin on his face because he had the sole power to block an important bill. If not for the immense...
I'm not even American, but I remember a scene where he was in the senate with a legit shit-eating grin on his face because he had the sole power to block an important bill.
If not for the immense political power, he would've retired already.
Yeah he looks frail and weak in this video, but he's a nasty vicious little tyrant that's been working against American democracy for a long time. It'll be that spite that's keeping him going, and...
Yeah he looks frail and weak in this video, but he's a nasty vicious little tyrant that's been working against American democracy for a long time. It'll be that spite that's keeping him going, and there are a lot of bad actors who don't want the US government to be effective propping him up.
I have my doubts. A second term with Trump could bring us past a point of no return. And then there’s gerrymandering, the electoral college, the senate, voting rights attacks in many states, etc.
American democracy is still in a very healthy state
I have my doubts. A second term with Trump could bring us past a point of no return.
And then there’s gerrymandering, the electoral college, the senate, voting rights attacks in many states, etc.
There is a primary, but the DNC is fully supporting Biden and isn't hosting any official debates (despite strong support for them among both Democrats and Biden supporters). This essentially makes...
Unless there isn't a democrat primary and Biden is the 2024 candidate.
There is a primary, but the DNC is fully supporting Biden and isn't hosting any official debates (despite strong support for them among both Democrats and Biden supporters). This essentially makes it a rubber-stamp primary for Biden.
Which will certainly sting the more naive voters who trusted the narrative that he would bow out after one term, for no fault of their own except hope.
Which will certainly sting the more naive voters who trusted the narrative that he would bow out after one term, for no fault of their own except hope.
It was naive not to think he was going to run again. So, naive voters, who trusted that narrative, will be stung. Nothing to do with any broader lines of reasoning. Please don't imagine a whole...
It was naive not to think he was going to run again. So, naive voters, who trusted that narrative, will be stung. Nothing to do with any broader lines of reasoning. Please don't imagine a whole essay to reply to.
You're far more charitable to McConnell and far more optimistic over the state of American democracy than I am. I think McConnell would torpedo democracy in a femtosecond if he thought he could...
You're far more charitable to McConnell and far more optimistic over the state of American democracy than I am. I think McConnell would torpedo democracy in a femtosecond if he thought he could control il Duce, but as everyone knows, Trump can't even control Trump.
Besides that, it doesn't take a complete autocratic takeover to completely fuck American democracy. All it takes is to destroy the citizens' faith in the democratic process, which has already been accomplished with the 30% of voters in the cult, and a sizable proportion of the rest of us with eyes and a few brain cells to rub together, though for different reasons to be sure.
Yeah, I think the limit is just what he thinks he can't get away with. I wouldn't exactly cast that in a favorable light towards him unless the light is specifically that he's good at determining...
but I think he has shown over the past few years that while he has no qualms about playing the American democracy game as dirty and disgracefully as he can possibly get away with, he has also shown that he does at least have a limit.
Yeah, I think the limit is just what he thinks he can't get away with. I wouldn't exactly cast that in a favorable light towards him unless the light is specifically that he's good at determining what he can and can't get away with.
I really think the stunt with the Supreme Court nominee in Obama's last year of office is one of the most dangerous things for democracy and politics in the US that I've personally seen acted on and achieved, and to my knowledge that was led by McConnell. It set the precedent and justification for everything that followed, and possibly led to Trump's election (because it made the stakes for the election that much higher and there was a very specific goal Republicans wanted to achieve with the Supreme Court).
Occam and Hanlon's Razor both in effect, I think it's safe to say he hasn't had a reckoning with the state of America's political health. Conceivably, he resisted Trump overturning the 2020...
Occam and Hanlon's Razor both in effect, I think it's safe to say he hasn't had a reckoning with the state of America's political health.
Conceivably, he resisted Trump overturning the 2020 election because he saw it as the end of the GOP, his seat of power, if it failed and key members of GOP leadership were imprisoned for treason. I think he's speaking up for supporting Ukraine because Russia can't afford him anymore while weapons manufacturers still can, and it falls into a broken clocks situation.
McConnell would probably love nothing more than to kill American democracy, all of his actions indicate as much, he casts all precedent of governance into doubt as it benefits him, and is a staunch protector of the country's principles, again, if it benefits him. If there was a foolproof way for him to become a feudal lord in America, there's no doubt in my mind that he would take it. You're right in saying that he won't be the one to do it, but he's done his best to lay the groundwork for someone who would, and if he had that opportunity, he'd take it. Why would now, of all times, he look into the mirror and ask himself "what am I doing? I'm destroying the fabric of this country!".
I understand where you're coming from, and I hope you're correct about the health of our democracy, but ... I'm reminded of this Hemingway quote: “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,”...
, American democracy is still in a very healthy state.
I understand where you're coming from, and I hope you're correct about the health of our democracy, but ...
I'm reminded of this Hemingway quote: “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
I'm worried that we are in the "gradually" phase of democratic decline. And we just haven't reached the suddenly part quite yet.
Or, to use this summer's submarine implosion as another analogy. I'm worried the stress fractures are there. It may just take one more dive for the catastrophic failure.
I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here. You're thinking about a society that's already fallen to despotic autocracy, and we're concerned with a decline into that state, or rather,...
I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here. You're thinking about a society that's already fallen to despotic autocracy, and we're concerned with a decline into that state, or rather, one similar.
Besides which, the more likely scenario for a fallen American democracy to my mind isn't an autocratic takeover, it's entrenched minority rule, a sort of neofeudalism built up from oligarchy. In that sense, McConnell is one of the founders and guiding lights of American decline.
He's not solely to blame, certainly, but he's had much more of a hand in bringing the country to the point it's at now and where it will be in the future than you or I. Saying it's not solely his...
He's not solely to blame, certainly, but he's had much more of a hand in bringing the country to the point it's at now and where it will be in the future than you or I. Saying it's not solely his fault doesn't exculpate him from the grievous damage he has done. Recognizing that and underlining it might do some good.
In this instance, I would argue that McConnell's leagcy in the supreme court is as much a symptom of unjustifiable voter apathy against Hillary as it is the work of some seedy neofeudalist movement seeking to undo democracy.
Two assumptions in this statement stand out to me: first, that the voter apathy against Hillary was somehow separate from whatever neofeudal movement may or may not have been afoot; and second, that the voter apathy that caught old Hillary out was unjustified. I don't think either of those assumptions is accurate.
The DNC had every scrap of evidence they could possibly need to realize that the electorate was not interested in business as usual, and yet they plugged along anyway. I think what happened in 2020 is a strong indication that the Dems lost 2016 as much and probably more than Trump won it. It would be unfair to lay that entirely at Clinton's feet, but to dismiss that apathy as unjustified is at best a horrendous oversimplification.
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, I'm looking to add some nuance to my own understanding, and this thread has been productive in that way. Thanks for your time.
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, I'm looking to add some nuance to my own understanding, and this thread has been productive in that way. Thanks for your time.
I say this in sincerity and not malice: he looks brain dead. He reminds me of someone who has suffered a bad stroke, and there's no real thought going on behind the eyes. Clearly this has been...
I say this in sincerity and not malice: he looks brain dead. He reminds me of someone who has suffered a bad stroke, and there's no real thought going on behind the eyes.
Clearly this has been going on for a while, since there was that other famous freeze a couple months ago. Though I don't know how quickly this all came on before that. I imagine that he's not exactly keeping himself in office. It's more like he has become a puppet and is being coreced to stay in power as long as possible. But who knows.
OTOH, looking at him there I don't think he can mentally reason enough any more to consciously decide that he would rather retire. He's just going through the motions, only for him that's not...
OTOH, looking at him there I don't think he can mentally reason enough any more to consciously decide that he would rather retire. He's just going through the motions, only for him that's not putting out cake for tea, but blocking important bills and being a general dickhead all around. But it's just rote behavior by an empty shell the mind has long left.
Yeah there needs to be age limits for political office. I get the arguments for older politicians having more experience and being able to move legislation forward effectively, but after a certain...
Yeah there needs to be age limits for political office. I get the arguments for older politicians having more experience and being able to move legislation forward effectively, but after a certain point it's actively harmful to democratic processes.
You're making decisions about a country which is radically different to what your lived experienced was like, and the consequences of your decisions won't impact you at all. There's no skin in the game or knowledge of the field.
The guy was born in 1942, he's been a senator since 1985. Wtf does he know about life as an American these days?
He should have retired 20 years ago at least. Dianne Feinstein is another ridiculous case. Wtf is she doing in office still? The US senate is like a goddamn weekend at Bernie's.
Is that the best and brightest your nation has to offer? Wtf is the political calculus that keeps these old fucks in their seats?
Yeah when I was saying older I was thinking of 60's or so as the upper end of that. Life experience working and surviving for 20 something years, 10 years in some minor government position...
Yeah when I was saying older I was thinking of 60's or so as the upper end of that. Life experience working and surviving for 20 something years, 10 years in some minor government position somewhere, 1 or two terms as a rookie senator getting to grips with actually making change in the role until you're 50 ish, 1 or 2 terms actually making change because you know how the game is played, then retire and go do charity work or something if you still want to make a difference.
I'd even be open to capping the term limit even lower. 1 term to get used to things, 1 term actually doing things. There's definitely value in having representatives in a representative democracy have some experience. 1 term limits would be foolish. But serving in office for 40 years is obscene.
I hesitant on term limits for lots of little reasons, including effective long term policy and the issue of them just using the time in office to schedule their next "job" after. I think in my...
I hesitant on term limits for lots of little reasons, including effective long term policy and the issue of them just using the time in office to schedule their next "job" after.
I think in my ideal a 60-65 age limit and MUCH better local voting processes (especially in primaries) would help more. As things stand term limits strike me as unlikely to actually solve many of the problems and just create new ones.
I would be more comfortable with this stance if there was any protection against it now. There's an argument to be made that greedy members of congress aren't retiring to more lucrative private...
I hesitant on term limits for lots of little reasons, including effective long term policy and the issue of them just using the time in office to schedule their next "job" after.
I would be more comfortable with this stance if there was any protection against it now. There's an argument to be made that greedy members of congress aren't retiring to more lucrative private positions because they are making far more money in office, and that doesn't address the issue of representatives being out of touch with the people they represent. Either way, corruption is an uncontrolled factor, but with term limits at least they wouldn't be in functionally lifetime appointments well past retirement age.
The point is you can't easily protect against it, so you disincentivize it. If you're only going to be in office 2 years, then you aren't starting any 10 year projects, not just because of selfish...
The point is you can't easily protect against it, so you disincentivize it.
If you're only going to be in office 2 years, then you aren't starting any 10 year projects, not just because of selfish "i won't get the glory" reasons, but also "how likely are my next 4 predecessors to actually follow through".
Further yes corruption is always a problem, but if you know you're out the door in 2 years you're going to be looking for that consultant firm position day 1. If it's 10 years down the road you might actually get 5/6 years of real effort.
A related issue is campaign frequency and finance, in that the system is structured in such way as to reward/force everyone to CONSTANTLY be begging for money, and it's another part of the puzzle that needs to be handled.
Term limits have been tried out and enacted and (rarely) repealed in the US in various state/municipalities for decades and decades. Term limits make things worse and not better and proponents...
Term limits have been tried out and enacted and (rarely) repealed in the US in various state/municipalities for decades and decades.
Term limits make things worse and not better and proponents seem ignorant of the act that effectively writing legislation is a learned skill and effectively legislating is a learned skill.
If you want people in office looking out solely for themselves who are propped up monied interests while the real power resides in lobbyists and staffers, enact short term limits.
Serving in office for 30-40 years towards a good retirement is ideally what I want.
My issue with 30 - 40 years is that you lose touch with what it's actually like to live as a normal citizen during that time. If you stay in office for 40 years then you're blocking that seat for...
My issue with 30 - 40 years is that you lose touch with what it's actually like to live as a normal citizen during that time. If you stay in office for 40 years then you're blocking that seat for other potentially more energetic and dynamic candidates who have actual lived experience of the world.
How much has the world changed since the 80s? Wouldn't someone who actually understands technology be better suited to be in office?
I wouldn't passionately advocate for 10 year limits, but surely 20 is more than enough to get things done? And passing on the baton would need to become more of a thing encouraging more cooperation.
Given how little long term policy is enacted currently I don't particularly buy the argument that the current set up where people serve for 40 years is enabling more long term legislation.
Long term legislation isn't the important part. Term limits are just big ole piles of crap that make things worse and not better. Spend your energy on useful and actually effective reforms like...
Long term legislation isn't the important part.
Term limits are just big ole piles of crap that make things worse and not better.
Spend your energy on useful and actually effective reforms like campaign finance.amd voting system reforms.
If they leave politics, they still aren't going to be living as normal citizens afterward. A lot of them are independently wealthy, often from before they even got into politics. I don't believe...
My issue with 30 - 40 years is that you lose touch with what it's actually like to live as a normal citizen during that time.
If they leave politics, they still aren't going to be living as normal citizens afterward. A lot of them are independently wealthy, often from before they even got into politics. I don't believe that term limits aren't a way to make sure that we have politicians who are more like the people they are supposed to be representing. It just empowers lobbyists.
While I agree with you that we have a lot of people who have been in politics for too long, a counterpoint might be Bernie Sanders, when he ran for the nomination he was older than both Trump and...
While I agree with you that we have a lot of people who have been in politics for too long, a counterpoint might be Bernie Sanders, when he ran for the nomination he was older than both Trump and Biden.
He was, IMO, mentally sharp enough to lead the country, and he definitely representated the interests of average Americans (some Christians excepted). He's an unbuyable outlier among career politicians, but real nonetheless.
Term limits are worth considering. Maybe even some sort of rudimentary mental fitness test. But I think we should judge candidates on their merits rather than their age.
I honestly think he just enjoys hurting people. He's not doing it for money. He already has tons of money. He's not pushing an ideology. He's famously a hypocrite who drastically changes his...
I honestly think he just enjoys hurting people. He's not doing it for money. He already has tons of money. He's not pushing an ideology. He's famously a hypocrite who drastically changes his opinion on things depending on who benefits. He even once voted against his own bill when it turned out some democrats were willing to pass it.
The only consistent thing he does is always taking whichever action does the most harm to the most people.
It’s got little to do with him, he’s little more than a meat puppet. It’s the whole retinue that’s built itself around him, as happens with anyone in a position of influence, that’s really running...
It’s got little to do with him, he’s little more than a meat puppet. It’s the whole retinue that’s built itself around him, as happens with anyone in a position of influence, that’s really running the show. He’s there as a mascot to remind people of the connections and loyalty, but he’s basically just parroting what these aides tell him to even when he is talking.
To some extent it’s this way with all powerful people. But once they get to be old enough then the tail starts wagging the dog.
In any case, he’s clearly outlived his usefulness to the coterie of lobbyists and special interests and various political hangers on that are the people who make this Weekend at Bernie’s production happen. And I’m sure all of them enjoy each day on his payroll getting them closer to accruing absurd amounts of wealth or influence they can take through the revolving door to turn into wealth at some point.
As an American, this is embarrassing. At worst he's a puppet, at best he's taking up space and hindering progress. Hopefully his constituents can see this and do not re-elect him. When you're this...
As an American, this is embarrassing. At worst he's a puppet, at best he's taking up space and hindering progress. Hopefully his constituents can see this and do not re-elect him. When you're this far gone is doesn't matter how old or young you are, you don't have any right to be dictating anyone's future.
There was a Forbes article after the previous public "freeze-up" a month ago, which suggested several possible physical causes. The most plausible of these in my view is that McConnell has been...
When you're this far gone it doesn't matter how old or young you are
There was a Forbes article after the previous public "freeze-up" a month ago, which suggested several possible physical causes. The most plausible of these in my view is that McConnell has been experiencing a series of transient ischemic strokes.
What we have been observing as a too-geriatric population of those in government, I take to be a symptom of our chronic federal near-deadlock: the major parties gravitate to a known quantities strategy, to avoid unexpected scandals that might cause a crucial unexpected loss. That translates to party veterans who have been vetted since forever.
Once those elderly candidates get past their primaries, there is little risk of the rank and file voters penalizing the strategy, because we are increasingly polarized ourselves. How many Kentucky Republicans would be likely to vote for a Democrat in an election for senator, even if they recognize McConnell clearly isn't fit to do the work? No, the thinking goes, better to choose a potentially embarrassing or ineffective ally than a competent, intelligent individual who (as they have been told by their Facebook feed) doubtless eats aborted babies as an aphrodisiac.
Agreed and it, honestly, has nothing to do with politics. He's old and should have stepped aside by now and been allowed to enjoy a quiet life at this age. I feel the same way about the Dem's who...
Agreed and it, honestly, has nothing to do with politics. He's old and should have stepped aside by now and been allowed to enjoy a quiet life at this age. I feel the same way about the Dem's who are this old, why are you still in office? Mentor some younger lawmaker and pass the torch!
I’m pretty sure that should answer the question. If he’s not mentally fit enough to respond to questions, how can we expect him to be part of the government? His decisions and opinions could have...
I’m pretty sure that should answer the question. If he’s not mentally fit enough to respond to questions, how can we expect him to be part of the government? His decisions and opinions could have drastic consequences. I feel sorry that he’s at this point, but he really should consider stepping down.
Our country was designed to partially be a meritocracy, where we would only vote for people who are the most competent at what they're doing, but there are no measures to ensure that. The Founders...
Our country was designed to partially be a meritocracy, where we would only vote for people who are the most competent at what they're doing, but there are no measures to ensure that. The Founders didn't anticipate our current political climate of populism, anti-intellectualism, and consolidation of political power into majority parties.
By the intention of the position, someone like him shouldn't hold office if his job is to thoroughly represent the will of the people who elected him, but here we are. A land ruled by political parties and corporate lobbyists, who need a mouthpiece more than the people need a voice.
Even a power hungry “kill [it] in the crib” monster like Steve Bannon thinks all members of congress should have term limits. If a guy like that can get behind an effort to actually curb power and...
I mean, would it not be amazing if even some single-issue voters in the U.S. could, ah, temporarily refocus their singular attention on an issue like term limits? Maybe do healthcare after that?
Steve Bannon wants term limits because he knows that's a good way for corruption to thrive. It takes the power from elected reps and gives it to the lobbiests. I'm not against some level of age...
Steve Bannon wants term limits because he knows that's a good way for corruption to thrive. It takes the power from elected reps and gives it to the lobbiests.
I'm not against some level of age cap...but if a qualified 35 yr old gets in the senate there's no legit reason to push them out forcibly before they're 65.
First this is assuming it does actually curb power and influence in the legislature, second it's not accounting for where that power or influence could shift to, and third, it's assuming his goals...
If a guy like that can get behind an effort to actually curb power and influence in the legislature then a change in the status quo would seem to have broad support.
First this is assuming it does actually curb power and influence in the legislature, second it's not accounting for where that power or influence could shift to, and third, it's assuming his goals are to curb power and influence of the legislature for the same reasons that the average American might want to do it, which has implied goals that he may not share. The implied goal would be something like, 'curb power and influence in the legislature...and presumably the power and influence comes back to the public' or something like that, but his implied goal could be 'curb power and influence in the legislature...and the power and influence will further shift into special interest groups and moneyed elite' or something along those lines.
I mean, would it not be amazing if even some single-issue voters in the U.S. could, ah, temporarily refocus their singular attention on an issue like term limits.
Might be more useful if people focused on the system used to start the whole process to begin with, the voting system. The effectiveness in voting for term limits, healthcare, everything else, becomes improved by having a better voting system. Much like building something is easier when you have better tools. Good luck building anything we build today if all you had access to was stone age tools, but yet we're still rocking FPTP trash voting system.
Y'all got some elderly folk in politics that would be better off in a nursing home.
This is just sad and I feel for the man. What would even be the reason he's still doing this? He just looks like a sad sack of bones standing there all mute.
Conversely, I worry about the state of geriatric politicians because they can't actually represent the people. This isn't good for both the dude nor the people he represents.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that power and the level of control over the party he has must be so incredibly addicting and intoxicating on a scale of which one doesn't comprehend until they'd held a similar level of power. I hear it time and time again, "If it were me I'd go live on a beach somewhere." But the avenue towards happiness and personal fulfillment doesn't lead these sorts of persons to a beach, but near-absolute power in their political party.
I'm not even American, but I remember a scene where he was in the senate with a legit shit-eating grin on his face because he had the sole power to block an important bill.
If not for the immense political power, he would've retired already.
Yeah he looks frail and weak in this video, but he's a nasty vicious little tyrant that's been working against American democracy for a long time. It'll be that spite that's keeping him going, and there are a lot of bad actors who don't want the US government to be effective propping him up.
I have my doubts. A second term with Trump could bring us past a point of no return.
And then there’s gerrymandering, the electoral college, the senate, voting rights attacks in many states, etc.
Just becuse we survived the first overt coup attempt does not mean it will survive the second.
There is a primary, but the DNC is fully supporting Biden and isn't hosting any official debates (despite strong support for them among both Democrats and Biden supporters). This essentially makes it a rubber-stamp primary for Biden.
Well because it's basically always happens I'm not angry anymore, thanks
Which will certainly sting the more naive voters who trusted the narrative that he would bow out after one term, for no fault of their own except hope.
It was naive not to think he was going to run again. So, naive voters, who trusted that narrative, will be stung. Nothing to do with any broader lines of reasoning. Please don't imagine a whole essay to reply to.
Its okay to get angry about it even if it is the norm. Actually, maybe the fact that it is the norm should piss people off even more.
You're far more charitable to McConnell and far more optimistic over the state of American democracy than I am. I think McConnell would torpedo democracy in a femtosecond if he thought he could control il Duce, but as everyone knows, Trump can't even control Trump.
Besides that, it doesn't take a complete autocratic takeover to completely fuck American democracy. All it takes is to destroy the citizens' faith in the democratic process, which has already been accomplished with the 30% of voters in the cult, and a sizable proportion of the rest of us with eyes and a few brain cells to rub together, though for different reasons to be sure.
Yeah, I think the limit is just what he thinks he can't get away with. I wouldn't exactly cast that in a favorable light towards him unless the light is specifically that he's good at determining what he can and can't get away with.
I really think the stunt with the Supreme Court nominee in Obama's last year of office is one of the most dangerous things for democracy and politics in the US that I've personally seen acted on and achieved, and to my knowledge that was led by McConnell. It set the precedent and justification for everything that followed, and possibly led to Trump's election (because it made the stakes for the election that much higher and there was a very specific goal Republicans wanted to achieve with the Supreme Court).
Occam and Hanlon's Razor both in effect, I think it's safe to say he hasn't had a reckoning with the state of America's political health.
Conceivably, he resisted Trump overturning the 2020 election because he saw it as the end of the GOP, his seat of power, if it failed and key members of GOP leadership were imprisoned for treason. I think he's speaking up for supporting Ukraine because Russia can't afford him anymore while weapons manufacturers still can, and it falls into a broken clocks situation.
McConnell would probably love nothing more than to kill American democracy, all of his actions indicate as much, he casts all precedent of governance into doubt as it benefits him, and is a staunch protector of the country's principles, again, if it benefits him. If there was a foolproof way for him to become a feudal lord in America, there's no doubt in my mind that he would take it. You're right in saying that he won't be the one to do it, but he's done his best to lay the groundwork for someone who would, and if he had that opportunity, he'd take it. Why would now, of all times, he look into the mirror and ask himself "what am I doing? I'm destroying the fabric of this country!".
I understand where you're coming from, and I hope you're correct about the health of our democracy, but ...
I'm reminded of this Hemingway quote: “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
I'm worried that we are in the "gradually" phase of democratic decline. And we just haven't reached the suddenly part quite yet.
Or, to use this summer's submarine implosion as another analogy. I'm worried the stress fractures are there. It may just take one more dive for the catastrophic failure.
Like I said, I hope you are correct.
I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here. You're thinking about a society that's already fallen to despotic autocracy, and we're concerned with a decline into that state, or rather, one similar.
Besides which, the more likely scenario for a fallen American democracy to my mind isn't an autocratic takeover, it's entrenched minority rule, a sort of neofeudalism built up from oligarchy. In that sense, McConnell is one of the founders and guiding lights of American decline.
He's not solely to blame, certainly, but he's had much more of a hand in bringing the country to the point it's at now and where it will be in the future than you or I. Saying it's not solely his fault doesn't exculpate him from the grievous damage he has done. Recognizing that and underlining it might do some good.
Two assumptions in this statement stand out to me: first, that the voter apathy against Hillary was somehow separate from whatever neofeudal movement may or may not have been afoot; and second, that the voter apathy that caught old Hillary out was unjustified. I don't think either of those assumptions is accurate.
The DNC had every scrap of evidence they could possibly need to realize that the electorate was not interested in business as usual, and yet they plugged along anyway. I think what happened in 2020 is a strong indication that the Dems lost 2016 as much and probably more than Trump won it. It would be unfair to lay that entirely at Clinton's feet, but to dismiss that apathy as unjustified is at best a horrendous oversimplification.
I'm not out to change anyone's mind, I'm looking to add some nuance to my own understanding, and this thread has been productive in that way. Thanks for your time.
We all know a older people who are alive just with the power of pure spite and evil =)
Too bad that this one has actual political power.
I say this in sincerity and not malice: he looks brain dead. He reminds me of someone who has suffered a bad stroke, and there's no real thought going on behind the eyes.
Clearly this has been going on for a while, since there was that other famous freeze a couple months ago. Though I don't know how quickly this all came on before that. I imagine that he's not exactly keeping himself in office. It's more like he has become a puppet and is being coreced to stay in power as long as possible. But who knows.
OTOH, looking at him there I don't think he can mentally reason enough any more to consciously decide that he would rather retire. He's just going through the motions, only for him that's not putting out cake for tea, but blocking important bills and being a general dickhead all around. But it's just rote behavior by an empty shell the mind has long left.
Yeah there needs to be age limits for political office. I get the arguments for older politicians having more experience and being able to move legislation forward effectively, but after a certain point it's actively harmful to democratic processes.
You're making decisions about a country which is radically different to what your lived experienced was like, and the consequences of your decisions won't impact you at all. There's no skin in the game or knowledge of the field.
The guy was born in 1942, he's been a senator since 1985. Wtf does he know about life as an American these days?
He should have retired 20 years ago at least. Dianne Feinstein is another ridiculous case. Wtf is she doing in office still? The US senate is like a goddamn weekend at Bernie's.
Is that the best and brightest your nation has to offer? Wtf is the political calculus that keeps these old fucks in their seats?
60 is plenty old enough to have experience. Maaaaaaybe 65. This is absurd
Yeah when I was saying older I was thinking of 60's or so as the upper end of that. Life experience working and surviving for 20 something years, 10 years in some minor government position somewhere, 1 or two terms as a rookie senator getting to grips with actually making change in the role until you're 50 ish, 1 or 2 terms actually making change because you know how the game is played, then retire and go do charity work or something if you still want to make a difference.
I'd even be open to capping the term limit even lower. 1 term to get used to things, 1 term actually doing things. There's definitely value in having representatives in a representative democracy have some experience. 1 term limits would be foolish. But serving in office for 40 years is obscene.
I hesitant on term limits for lots of little reasons, including effective long term policy and the issue of them just using the time in office to schedule their next "job" after.
I think in my ideal a 60-65 age limit and MUCH better local voting processes (especially in primaries) would help more. As things stand term limits strike me as unlikely to actually solve many of the problems and just create new ones.
I would be more comfortable with this stance if there was any protection against it now. There's an argument to be made that greedy members of congress aren't retiring to more lucrative private positions because they are making far more money in office, and that doesn't address the issue of representatives being out of touch with the people they represent. Either way, corruption is an uncontrolled factor, but with term limits at least they wouldn't be in functionally lifetime appointments well past retirement age.
The point is you can't easily protect against it, so you disincentivize it.
If you're only going to be in office 2 years, then you aren't starting any 10 year projects, not just because of selfish "i won't get the glory" reasons, but also "how likely are my next 4 predecessors to actually follow through".
Further yes corruption is always a problem, but if you know you're out the door in 2 years you're going to be looking for that consultant firm position day 1. If it's 10 years down the road you might actually get 5/6 years of real effort.
A related issue is campaign frequency and finance, in that the system is structured in such way as to reward/force everyone to CONSTANTLY be begging for money, and it's another part of the puzzle that needs to be handled.
Term limits have been tried out and enacted and (rarely) repealed in the US in various state/municipalities for decades and decades.
Term limits make things worse and not better and proponents seem ignorant of the act that effectively writing legislation is a learned skill and effectively legislating is a learned skill.
If you want people in office looking out solely for themselves who are propped up monied interests while the real power resides in lobbyists and staffers, enact short term limits.
Serving in office for 30-40 years towards a good retirement is ideally what I want.
My issue with 30 - 40 years is that you lose touch with what it's actually like to live as a normal citizen during that time. If you stay in office for 40 years then you're blocking that seat for other potentially more energetic and dynamic candidates who have actual lived experience of the world.
How much has the world changed since the 80s? Wouldn't someone who actually understands technology be better suited to be in office?
I wouldn't passionately advocate for 10 year limits, but surely 20 is more than enough to get things done? And passing on the baton would need to become more of a thing encouraging more cooperation.
Given how little long term policy is enacted currently I don't particularly buy the argument that the current set up where people serve for 40 years is enabling more long term legislation.
Long term legislation isn't the important part.
Term limits are just big ole piles of crap that make things worse and not better.
Spend your energy on useful and actually effective reforms like campaign finance.amd voting system reforms.
If they leave politics, they still aren't going to be living as normal citizens afterward. A lot of them are independently wealthy, often from before they even got into politics. I don't believe that term limits aren't a way to make sure that we have politicians who are more like the people they are supposed to be representing. It just empowers lobbyists.
While I agree with you that we have a lot of people who have been in politics for too long, a counterpoint might be Bernie Sanders, when he ran for the nomination he was older than both Trump and Biden.
He was, IMO, mentally sharp enough to lead the country, and he definitely representated the interests of average Americans (some Christians excepted). He's an unbuyable outlier among career politicians, but real nonetheless.
Term limits are worth considering. Maybe even some sort of rudimentary mental fitness test. But I think we should judge candidates on their merits rather than their age.
I honestly think he just enjoys hurting people. He's not doing it for money. He already has tons of money. He's not pushing an ideology. He's famously a hypocrite who drastically changes his opinion on things depending on who benefits. He even once voted against his own bill when it turned out some democrats were willing to pass it.
The only consistent thing he does is always taking whichever action does the most harm to the most people.
It’s got little to do with him, he’s little more than a meat puppet. It’s the whole retinue that’s built itself around him, as happens with anyone in a position of influence, that’s really running the show. He’s there as a mascot to remind people of the connections and loyalty, but he’s basically just parroting what these aides tell him to even when he is talking.
To some extent it’s this way with all powerful people. But once they get to be old enough then the tail starts wagging the dog.
In any case, he’s clearly outlived his usefulness to the coterie of lobbyists and special interests and various political hangers on that are the people who make this Weekend at Bernie’s production happen. And I’m sure all of them enjoy each day on his payroll getting them closer to accruing absurd amounts of wealth or influence they can take through the revolving door to turn into wealth at some point.
As an American, this is embarrassing. At worst he's a puppet, at best he's taking up space and hindering progress. Hopefully his constituents can see this and do not re-elect him. When you're this far gone is doesn't matter how old or young you are, you don't have any right to be dictating anyone's future.
There was a Forbes article after the previous public "freeze-up" a month ago, which suggested several possible physical causes. The most plausible of these in my view is that McConnell has been experiencing a series of transient ischemic strokes.
What we have been observing as a too-geriatric population of those in government, I take to be a symptom of our chronic federal near-deadlock: the major parties gravitate to a known quantities strategy, to avoid unexpected scandals that might cause a crucial unexpected loss. That translates to party veterans who have been vetted since forever.
Once those elderly candidates get past their primaries, there is little risk of the rank and file voters penalizing the strategy, because we are increasingly polarized ourselves. How many Kentucky Republicans would be likely to vote for a Democrat in an election for senator, even if they recognize McConnell clearly isn't fit to do the work? No, the thinking goes, better to choose a potentially embarrassing or ineffective ally than a competent, intelligent individual who (as they have been told by their Facebook feed) doubtless eats aborted babies as an aphrodisiac.
Agreed and it, honestly, has nothing to do with politics. He's old and should have stepped aside by now and been allowed to enjoy a quiet life at this age. I feel the same way about the Dem's who are this old, why are you still in office? Mentor some younger lawmaker and pass the torch!
I’m pretty sure that should answer the question. If he’s not mentally fit enough to respond to questions, how can we expect him to be part of the government? His decisions and opinions could have drastic consequences. I feel sorry that he’s at this point, but he really should consider stepping down.
Our country was designed to partially be a meritocracy, where we would only vote for people who are the most competent at what they're doing, but there are no measures to ensure that. The Founders didn't anticipate our current political climate of populism, anti-intellectualism, and consolidation of political power into majority parties.
By the intention of the position, someone like him shouldn't hold office if his job is to thoroughly represent the will of the people who elected him, but here we are. A land ruled by political parties and corporate lobbyists, who need a mouthpiece more than the people need a voice.
Even a power hungry “kill [it] in the crib” monster like Steve Bannon thinks all members of congress should have term limits. If a guy like that can get behind an effort to actually curb power and influence in the legislature then a change in the status quo would seem to have somewhat broad support.
I mean, would it not be amazing if even some single-issue voters in the U.S. could, ah, temporarily refocus their singular attention on an issue like term limits? Maybe do healthcare after that?
Steve Bannon wants term limits because he knows that's a good way for corruption to thrive. It takes the power from elected reps and gives it to the lobbiests.
I'm not against some level of age cap...but if a qualified 35 yr old gets in the senate there's no legit reason to push them out forcibly before they're 65.
First this is assuming it does actually curb power and influence in the legislature, second it's not accounting for where that power or influence could shift to, and third, it's assuming his goals are to curb power and influence of the legislature for the same reasons that the average American might want to do it, which has implied goals that he may not share. The implied goal would be something like, 'curb power and influence in the legislature...and presumably the power and influence comes back to the public' or something like that, but his implied goal could be 'curb power and influence in the legislature...and the power and influence will further shift into special interest groups and moneyed elite' or something along those lines.
Might be more useful if people focused on the system used to start the whole process to begin with, the voting system. The effectiveness in voting for term limits, healthcare, everything else, becomes improved by having a better voting system. Much like building something is easier when you have better tools. Good luck building anything we build today if all you had access to was stone age tools, but yet we're still rocking FPTP trash voting system.
The United States is a gerontocracy.