Author Topic: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate  (Read 19431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« on: April 27, 2018, 07:59:46 »
According to Pew Research Centre,

Quote
There is now no difference between Republicans and Democrats in their views of compromise. In six previous surveys conducted since 2011, Democrats were consistently more likely than Republicans to say they liked those who compromised. As recently as last July, 69% of Democrats said they preferred elected officials who made compromises; today just 46% say this.

It's obviously in response to Trump, but frankly it's long, long overdue. Imagine if Democrats didn't compromise on the warcrime in Iraq, if Obama didn't compromise with Romneycare and stuck to at least a public option, if Obama had stuck to his guns about Bush' tax cuts for the rich, if the flat-out theft of the Supreme Court seat presently held by Gorsuch was fought against with even a passing degree of outrage.

Democrats have been "keeping their powder dry" for as long as the Clinton's rammed third-way centrist neoliberalism down the throats of the American left-leaners in the '90's. It's about time they said enough's enough. It took a crypto-fascist to do it, but at least it's something.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 194,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,662
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2018, 10:36:53 »
...and the tone of your post suggests you'd really be up for compromise.

We wrote new rules for the politics section for a reason.  It seems you're here to scream and shout.  I recommend re-reading them.

Consider this strike 1.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 10:47:51 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2018, 12:52:51 »
I doubt compromise is dead; what is dead is slow-moving progress and concensus that governments should mainly see to the mundane business of the day and effect large-scale changes only occasionally and only once the case has been sold to the people sufficiently to convince a large mass of them.  People seeking change today want a great deal and they want it almost immediately.  (It doesn't help that when change is "won", some of the victors make a point of punishing those who stood against them.  It hardens the will of those who count themselves among the punished to resist in future.)

For compromise to work, both parties must be willing to make concessions: of equal value, subject to modification depending on the relative political strength in the legislature.  And: they must stick to the terms, including the substance informal preliminary agreements (don't renege on a commitment made when a one-two phasing favours your aims first).

It is illustrative that although the Democrats had nothing they were willing to concede to Republicans in order to pass the PPACA, a great deal of compromise within Democratic ranks was necessary.  What they got was as much as was practical; had anyone held out for much more, I doubt they would have passed anything.

The animations of Pew surveys here - which I have linked before - illustrate the growing divide.  Worth noting is that the position of Republicans has not shifted much (which we should expect for "conservativism") whereas the position of Democrats has shifted considerably.  How can anyone expect their relative expectations to be easily reconciled?  If you select for "Politically Active", the shifts and gap are more pronounced; since the "politically active" are the ones writing and talking, it feeds a perception that the country as a whole is more divided than it really is.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,908
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,046
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2018, 13:51:36 »
I doubt compromise is dead; what is dead is slow-moving progress and concensus that governments should mainly see to the mundane business of the day and effect large-scale changes only occasionally and only once the case has been sold to the people sufficiently to convince a large mass of them.  People seeking change today want a great deal and they want it almost immediately.  (It doesn't help that when change is "won", some of the victors make a point of punishing those who stood against them.  It hardens the will of those who count themselves among the punished to resist in future.)

For compromise to work, both parties must be willing to make concessions: of equal value, subject to modification depending on the relative political strength in the legislature.  And: they must stick to the terms, including the substance informal preliminary agreements (don't renege on a commitment made when a one-two phasing favours your aims first).

It is illustrative that although the Democrats had nothing they were willing to concede to Republicans in order to pass the PPACA, a great deal of compromise within Democratic ranks was necessary.  What they got was as much as was practical; had anyone held out for much more, I doubt they would have passed anything.

The animations of Pew surveys here - which I have linked before - illustrate the growing divide.  Worth noting is that the position of Republicans has not shifted much (which we should expect for "conservativism") whereas the position of Democrats has shifted considerably.  How can anyone expect their relative expectations to be easily reconciled?  If you select for "Politically Active", the shifts and gap are more pronounced; since the "politically active" are the ones writing and talking, it feeds a perception that the country as a whole is more divided than it really is.

Great post and thanks for the link.  Very good read.  Thank you again.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,468
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2018, 14:23:01 »
This is all about 2 party politics.When the dem's are in power they wont compromise.The Republicans have power but little stomach to use it.Then you have divisions within the parties.There are neverTrumpers who dont want the President to succeed so they obstruct him at every turn.Here we are over a year later and he hasnt got his selections in place there are too many democrats still in government.Usually when a new administration comes in the old resign.This time the dem's are staying which will bite them in the behind if they ever win the Presidency.

Offline Pencil Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 328
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2018, 15:17:37 »
It's very disturbing how entrenched the two sides are there now. I don't see how they can ever come back together. It's like they're speaking two completely different languages.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2018, 18:40:06 »
This is all about 2 party politics.When the dem's are in power they wont compromise.The Republicans have power but little stomach to use it.Then you have divisions within the parties.There are neverTrumpers who dont want the President to succeed so they obstruct him at every turn.Here we are over a year later and he hasnt got his selections in place there are too many democrats still in government.Usually when a new administration comes in the old resign.This time the dem's are staying which will bite them in the behind if they ever win the Presidency.
Canada has 3 parties and it's not any better here.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2018, 18:41:50 »
6 parties

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2018, 18:45:49 »
6 parties
Lib,Con,NDP, Bloc,Green....?

And really, only the big three are in positions where they may actually need to compromise on things
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 306,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,840
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2018, 19:01:53 »
According to Pew Research Centre,

It's obviously in response to Trump, but frankly it's long, long overdue. Imagine if Democrats didn't compromise on the warcrime in Iraq, if Obama didn't compromise with Romneycare and stuck to at least a public option, if Obama had stuck to his guns about Bush' tax cuts for the rich, if the flat-out theft of the Supreme Court seat presently held by Gorsuch was fought against with even a passing degree of outrage.

Democrats have been "keeping their powder dry" for as long as the Clinton's rammed third-way centrist neoliberalism down the throats of the American left-leaners in the '90's. It's about time they said enough's enough. It took a crypto-fascist to do it, but at least it's something.

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

― Mark Twain

 ;D
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,468
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2018, 23:12:33 »

Online PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,746
  • It's all good
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2018, 23:32:12 »
Ryan has fired the House Chaplain.The dem's are outraged. :o

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/27/paul-ryans-firing-house-chaplain-outrages-democrats.html

The comments section accompanying this piece was.....illuminating
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 553,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,693
    • The job.
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2018, 23:44:04 »
Ryan has fired the House Chaplain.The dem's are outraged. :o

Some Republicans grill Ryan over House chaplain firing
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/politics/chaplain-dismissed-house-ryan/index.html

QUOTE

“I’m not aware of any discontent or any criticism, and to be the first House chaplain removed in the history of Congress in the middle of the term raises serious questions, and I think we deserve more of an explanation of why,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who asked Ryan in the GOP meeting Friday to detail the reasons for his decision. “Paul said it was solely because he was not giving good service to the members. Again, I never heard that before.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/ryan-seeks-to-defend-ouster-of-house-chaplain-as-members-question-his-motives/2018/04/27/70937e8a-4a0f-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html?utm_term=.09d92b6600ef

END QUOTE


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,800
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2018, 10:54:58 »
He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 384
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2018, 16:34:21 »
He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.
Not like you can make the argument that members of Congress are unable financially/logistically to find new supports while in D.C., unlike e.g. service members.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 273,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,242
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2018, 17:01:23 »
He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.

The whole thing makes me marvel at the hypocrisy behind these things.

Wikipedia's article on the chaplaincies are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate

Despite the Constitution there has almost always been a chaplain in each house and, until 2000 and with one exception for a year in 1832, almost always some form of Protestant. Anyone want to lay bets on when the first Jewish, or Muslim or Scientologist chaplain will be appointed?

Note that the court issues on this have always ruled on the side of "tradition" or the right to appoint "officers" despite the clear language in the Constitution. I guess anyone who has "In God We Trust" inscribed on their money can't be too serious about separation of church and state.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 553,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,693
    • The job.
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #16 on: April 28, 2018, 18:34:47 »
The whole thing makes me marvel at the hypocrisy behind these things.

 :cheers:

I don't know who said it first, just reminds me of something I read,

"The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar."  :)


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,800
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2018, 18:37:38 »
Anyone want to lay bets on when the first Jewish, or Muslim or Scientologist chaplain will be appointed?

 The fellow in yellow will be appointed as soon as Tom Cruise wins the presidency.  ;D

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 162,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,173
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #18 on: April 28, 2018, 18:40:45 »
The fellow in yellow will be appointed as soon as Tom Cruise wins the presidency.  ;D


Hmn.  So he could be both president and congressional chaplain at once...
Optio

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,300
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2018, 10:20:31 »
Unclear why there is a need for one in the first place?

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,468
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2018, 16:29:24 »
Your Parliment lacks a chaplain ?

Online PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 221,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,746
  • It's all good
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2018, 16:34:44 »
Your Parliment lacks a chaplain ?

Not that I am aware of...and religion has no place in our politics at all.  We do not care where or even if our MPs go to church.  It is a complete non-issue......except that most know who the Sikhs are, and most know who many of the Muslims are, but that is a matter of dress as a means of self-identification, as opposed to proclamation.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 162,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,173
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2018, 17:03:29 »
Not that I am aware of...and religion has no place in our politics at all.  We do not care where or even if our MPs go to church.  It is a complete non-issue......except that most know who the Sikhs are, and most know who many of the Muslims are, but that is a matter of dress as a means of self-identification, as opposed to proclamation.

Not quite true as a prayer is part of parliamentary proceeedings. See here: http://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure-book-livre/document.aspx?sbdid=af057bd0-f018-4fb4-bd75-4a2200729f05&sbpidx=2

Also there is a chaplain assigned to the speaker in the British system.  Not sure if Canada has one or not.
Optio

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 273,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,242
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2018, 21:41:24 »
Your Parliment lacks a chaplain ?

Not that I'm aware of as the prayer in the House of Commons is given by the speaker.

There's a fundamental difference between religious freedom in our Constitution and that of the US.

Canada recognizes in it's constitution in the preamble that states "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God." This however is an anachronism that was put into the document in order to resolve some compromise. Pierre Trudeau himself didn't want it and was quoted as saying "I don't think God gives a damn whether he's in the constitution or not." The phrase has been generally interpreted as having no legal effect and being a "dead letter". See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

The substantive freedom of religion clause is in Section 2 which provides that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms a) freedom of conscience and religion ..." As such it is a permissive right given to people to use or not to use.

The US Constitution, on the other hand, provides at the 1st Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." This is a restrictive as well as permissive law which puts a prohibition on Congress (and government in general) in this field.

I quite frankly prefer the US provision as it appears at first blush to be clearer. Unfortunately what ought to be clear provisions are ones that are inconvenient to many of those who just can't stop themselves from proselytizing.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2018, 09:21:31 »
So we can see that compromise has died in the American independent and left-leaning voters, but why has never really existed in "conservatives"? Glad you asked!

Quote
Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century. Plenty of people don’t want to directly engage with this fact, but this [piece] will be getting into it in full. All too often I see the framing that “Hillary lost to the worst candidate in history.” But I think this framing has always been wrong, and it allows people to bypass a question that they don’t want to grapple with: why was Trump electorally viable to the degree that he was? Do not construe this as me arguing that Hillary’s campaign didn’t make mistakes, but I want to laser focus on why people voted for Trump, and what that says about where we are as a country.

“He promised to shake up the establishment.”

“His campaign resonated with those who have been left behind.”

“It’s just so refreshing to hear a candidate speak his mind.”

“Trump voters responded to economic anxiety.”

But these theories do not have any explanatory power regarding why the vote broke down the way it did demographically. Only one broad demographic seemed to be receptive to the kind of campaign that Trump ran on: white people.

We must be cognizant of what Trump ran on: calling Mexicans rapists, banning Muslim immigration, building a wall to keep undocumented immigrants out, national stop-and-frisk. And he has a track record of questioning the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. We know that denial of racism, alongside hostile sexism, predicted a vote for Donald Trump significantly more than other factors like economic dissatisfaction.

This kind of correlation between racial resentment and the probability of voting for Trump has been observed in other studies.
Lack of education predicted support for Trump because of its strong relationship to ethnocentrism, not so much income and occupation. Trump voters thought that a hierarchy that prioritized white people was under attack. Trump helped cement that belief.

Separate point: perceptions of the economy don’t really determine political preference. Rather, it’s the other way around; political preferences determine economic perceptions. Bearing this in mind…

We’ve seen something analogous under President Obama; racial resentment predicted perception of the economy (note the blue curve). The more racially resentful, the poorer the perception of the economy.

So yeah. You see the theme. Of course, it’s not enough to grapple with what the appeal of Trump’s campaign was. We must also be cognizant of the fact that that appeal was propelled to the White House while Trump has demonstrated he's thoroughly unfit.

We know Trump’s temperament is horrible, he lacks the qualifications to govern effectively, he doesn’t know the ins and outs of the issues, he has no real desire to learn, he is obsessed with denigrating his opponents and not being humiliated, and he’s a lecher. We can’t just say “Donald Trump won by cultivating bigotry” though because that still leaves some things ambiguous. Donald Trump won because affirming the primacy of whiteness is still an issue of importance to too many white voters.

What white supremacy greatly fears is a genuine meritocracy, a society where anyone, regardless of race or gender, can rise according to their talents and diligence. For white supremacy to guard against a trajectory toward meritocracy, this requires everything of merit must be sacrificed, which brings us to a terrifying conclusion: the various ways Trump was unfit for the Presidency were features to his voters, not flaws. Trump won the GOP primary and was propelled to the White House because a swath of white voters wanted to send this message to people of color after 8 years of a Black President who successfully governed: “The worst of us should still be given deference over the best of you.”

Furthermore, this entitlement is so profound that many white voters have been willing to sacrifice benefits to their class in exchange for seeing institutions uphold the primacy of whiteness. In W. E. B. Du Bois’s Black Reconstruction in America, he wrote about the psychological wage of whiteness; in exchange for experiencing potentially low economic wages, white people were given a psychological wage in the form of ubiquitous deference.

If you find it hard to conceive of people forgoing fiscal wages for the sake of a psychological wage, consider that similar behavior has been observed in non-racial contexts. A Harvard study asked people if they’d rather make $50,000 when everyone else around them makes $25,000 OR if they’d rather make $100,000 when everyone else around them makes $200,000. Fifty percent of respondents opted for the former.

Wild, right? People will opt for a job that pays absolutely less so long as they know they make more relative to everyone else over a job where they make absolutely more but relatively less than everyone else. Because people want to know they’re on top. But if that’s how people behave in non-racial contexts, then it’s actually not a wild leap to conceive of white people forgoing economic benefits so long as they get institutions and politicians upholding white supremacy. They want to know they’re on top.
This is actually why many fiscally left-leaning policy positions that we support run into brutal opposition; the real undercurrent is too many white people do not want to share the safety net with anyone else. Then they wouldn't be on top.

Here’s a specific example: we could have had something akin to single-payer during the Truman years. But white southerners opposed it because they feared a national health insurance program would force hospitals to integrate. Seriously.

The 60s marked a period of significant success for the Democratic Party and civil rights. It also led to a flight of white southerners from the party and the end of bipartisanship on redistributionist policies.

Reality: This country was founded upon building an economy on top of exploiting Black labor, concentrating wealth produced from that labor in the hands of white people, and deploying all kinds of terrible tactics to ensure that rigid social stratification was upheld. And when that status quo has been challenged, our country has experienced its most significant upheavals.
The U.S. fought its bloodiest and most destructive war over whether the enslavement of Black people should continue. Eras of relative stability for the United States, on the other hand, usually relied on people with power tacitly (or explicitly) upholding racial exclusion from democracy.

As minorities increasingly got to participate in democracy—both in terms of voting and participating in government—we saw a decline in bipartisanship, a trend which effectively exploded when Barack Obama was elected President. This isn't a coincidence.

The unfortunate truth is Trump is the culmination of a force that has always been here, namely the tendency to undermine and destroy institutions that do not show extraordinary deference to whiteness, and instead, propping up new and regressive systems in their place. The White House did not show extraordinary deference to whiteness for the past eight years because the President was Black, so the institution was undermined by a majority of white people who voted for a man thoroughly unfit to run the institution but promised bigotry.

I made this [piece] because I am sick of the bullshit excuses for voting for Trump as well as the attempts to obfuscate what happened in 2016. Regardless of your opinion of Hillary Clinton, this was my attempt to explain what happened in 2016. Thanks for reading. I think it's only fair for me to add that many of the observations in this thread conform to what people of color have been saying for years and years. That shouldn't go unacknowledged.

Source

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 169,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,878
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2018, 11:16:51 »
So we can see that compromise has died in the American independent and left-leaning voters, but why has never really existed in "conservatives"? Glad you asked!

Source

I missed how your Twitter sourced article proved that small c-conservatives never compromise.

Doesn't the fact there was a US civil war (partially) over the issue of slavery kind of weaken Mr Grey's thesis that the US was built on slavery?


Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 282,737
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,676
    • Army.ca
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2018, 11:55:58 »
.... or that the democrat slave owners wouldn't comprimise with the republicans to end slavery.

Slavery was pretty much a democrat thing and they still try make political hay with the subject.

Those two statements hold as much water as anything your highly biased, left wing blogger, Ethan Grey, has to say on the subject.

His very first untruthful first sentence, "Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century" sets the tone for the rest of his drivel.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2018, 12:16:55 »
That first sentence assumes a lot that has to be proven.  Extending from the argument that cultural chauvinism and identity politics were among the reasons for Trump's victory to the argument that it was "the" reason will require more proof, as will the thesis that "whiteness" is an acceptable synonym for such a large mass of people.

There were other contributing factors, such as the fact that Democratic strategy included using Trump as a foil to muddy the primary and drag down those thought of as "serious" candidates.  The media gave him an easy ride, and he got beyond their control.  If you disagree, go back and re-read all the lamentations published after the election by people who regretted not covering the Republican primary more fairly and objectively.

A rant asserting the recent adoption of identity politics - a long-time technique of a great many groups who are decidedly opposed to Republicans and conservatives in the US - by some Trump voters does not fit the description of an excuse for why "compromise...has never really existed in "conservatives"".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2018, 19:26:54 »
I missed how your Twitter sourced article proved that small c-conservatives never compromise.
To be more precise it's a Twitter article with many sources.

Regardless the over-arching premise of this article is that there is a deeply held belief in white entitlement (if not supremacy) that drives conservatives generally and Trump voters particularly. As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person - or as we've seen with Trump and his supporters more recently simply implemented by a non-white/black person - such a policy or law is not to be supported in any way, regardless how helpful it may be to white people generally.

Ergo uncompromising.

Quote
Doesn't the fact there was a US civil war (partially) over the issue of slavery kind of weaken Mr Grey's thesis that the US was built on slavery?
How so? It's a fact that a very significant part of the early-American economy was built on slavery. The civil war proves at least in part that many in America wanted to preserve slavery as a means to continue building the economy.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2018, 19:46:05 »
There is a simpler explanation that doesn't involve attributing malign motives to large swathes of people - they prefer their own culture.

"As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person"

Untrue.  Plenty of laws and policies in the US have been helpful to black people.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2018, 08:55:50 »
There is a simpler explanation that doesn't involve attributing malign motives to large swathes of people - they prefer their own culture.
*Edit #2: I should think if conservatives were genuinely so concerned about maligning the motives of large swathes of people Trump's "Mexicans are rapists", etc. would be thoroughly offputting. Funny that it doesn't seem to be.

Regardless, the article does not ascribe "malign motives" it describes what are entitlement motives among white conservatives. Are officers "malign" when they act upon the wrongful denial of a salute from an NCM? It's about hierarchy and subordination and the entitlements therein.

With regard to culture you would probably have a point if it could be demonstrated conclusively that there are indeed clearly defined and differentiated cultures that are (coincidentally) identifiable by relative melanin content in superficial tissues. As far as I can see blacks and whites in America speak the same language, learn the same facts and history in school, go to many of the same church denominations and believe in the same deities, watch essentially the same tv and movies, support the same sports teams, form the same ideal family units and pledge the same allegiance to their flag.

*Edit: And even if there is a clearly defined and different culture between whites and blacks, how does culture alone explain the rejection of a desegregated healthcare system that would've significantly benefited whites?

Quote
"As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person"

Untrue.  Plenty of laws and policies in the US have been helpful to black people.
Plenty of laws and policies in the US have been passed by independents and non-conservatives. The point isn't whether or not blacks are ever treated fairly, it's whether or not one identifiable type of voter ever wants to treat blacks fairly. The polls and studies sourced in this article suggest fairly convincingly that they do not is a well-supported proposition.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 11:17:00 by beirnini »

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2018, 23:07:22 »
People vote for candidates with off-putting attributes.  Examples: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump.  It doesn't mean those voters approve.  Several prominent defenders of Bill Clinton admitted defending him because he was the Democratic president - strict political partisanship - even though they found his personal conduct repulsive.  No-one gets to define the threshold of acceptability for others: each voter determines what he is willing to tolerate.  Others are free to feel as outraged as they choose.  Both sides have freedom of thought and expression.

Comparing military regulations and discipline to the free exercise of a vote is not an effective position to adopt.

Cultures: suburban white, urban black.  Do you propose to argue they are not distinct and differentiable?

>The point isn't whether or not blacks are ever treated fairly

Then you should abandon or modify this absolute statement: "As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person ... such a policy or law is not to be supported in any way, regardless how helpful it may be to white people generally.".  Too broad a brush.

What is being overlooked (deliberately or ignorantly, doesn't matter) is this: people who share interests might, given a choice of only two practical candidates, all vote for the same candidate.  Their calculation might give greater weight to political interests than to personal values.  It tells us nothing about their personal shortcomings, or the many shades and strengths to which they adhere to particular points and positions.  Examples: some people tired of the Democratic war against their religious liberty (the reality, however it might be debated on the head of a pin, is irrelevant compared to the perception) voted for Trump because he was the only candidate not representing a continuation of such policies; some people subject to or witnessing losses of employment voted for Trump because he was promising to change things rather than simply asserting that those jobs are gone and are never coming back.  Again, the perception is what is important.  Even a faint hope will almost always carry more weight than none at all.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Pencil Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 328
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2018, 09:11:30 »
I missed how your Twitter sourced article proved that small c-conservatives never compromise.

Doesn't the fact there was a US civil war (partially) over the issue of slavery kind of weaken Mr Grey's thesis that the US was built on slavery?

I disagree. There were always people who were opposed to slavery, even at the founding of the USA, but many of the founding fathers were slave owners as is well documented. By the time the of the civil war, abolitionism had become more and more widespread - slavery and the slave trade had been abolished in England without a war but the US was late in abolishing slavery and it had to come to civil war for it to happen. Then during the Reconstruction, slavery was replaced by Jim Crow and segregation. This whole trauma is woven tightly into the fabric of the USA and the repercussions continue.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 169,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,878
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2018, 10:53:01 »
I disagree. There were always people who were opposed to slavery, even at the founding of the USA, but many of the founding fathers were slave owners as is well documented. By the time the of the civil war, abolitionism had become more and more widespread - slavery and the slave trade had been abolished in England without a war but the US was late in abolishing slavery and it had to come to civil war for it to happen. Then during the Reconstruction, slavery was replaced by Jim Crow and segregation. This whole trauma is woven tightly into the fabric of the USA and the repercussions continue.

I accept that. My point (clearly, poorly made) was that at the time of US civil war, slavery was not part of the industrial Northern States- it was a feature of the much economically weaker agrarian South. I accept also that the removal of Federal troops from the South in the 1880s allowed Jim Crow to take root. I accept that this trauma runs deep in the US. My point is in parallel to Brad's- the original article asserted but proved nothing of the sort that everyone who voted for Trump was a racist. I think even Canada, people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons- both simple and complicated.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2018, 11:45:39 »
People vote for candidates with off-putting attributes.  Examples: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump.  It doesn't mean those voters approve.  Several prominent defenders of Bill Clinton admitted defending him because he was the Democratic president - strict political partisanship - even though they found his personal conduct repulsive.  No-one gets to define the threshold of acceptability for others: each voter determines what he is willing to tolerate.  Others are free to feel as outraged as they choose.  Both sides have freedom of thought and expression.
There are off-putting attributes that will and will not speak to one's executive capacity (e.g. willingness to commit oval office adultery or ordering the burglary of the offices of your political opponent) and to one's suitability to be a shaper of public opinion in the media.  As you rightly point out a writer who baselessly "maligns the motives of large swathes of people" is concerning if not unacceptable.  So I have to still wonder how is that same characteristic not similarly concerning if not unacceptable in a politician and member of the executive unless, as the article goes into some detail, such a characteristic is not actually a flaw but a feature.
Quote
Comparing military regulations and discipline to the free exercise of a vote is not an effective position to adopt.
Again, as the article goes into some detail when we're talking about a social system of hierarchy and subordination and entitlements, a system that in part was fought over at the cost of millions of lives in the American Civil War.  It is a perfectly apt comparison and position.
Quote
Cultures: suburban white, urban black.  Do you propose to argue they are not distinct and differentiable?
Do you take issue with the study cited in the article that supports white entitlement was the determining factor to rejecting desegregated healthcare even though it would have helped whites equally? Because I fail to see how as you propose culture largely explains that, especially when urbanization wasn't so pronounced in the '50's and '60's.
Quote
Quote
The point isn't whether or not blacks are ever treated fairly
Then you should abandon or modify this absolute statement: "As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person ... such a policy or law is not to be supported in any way, regardless how helpful it may be to white people generally.".  Too broad a brush.
I don't think so.  Seeing as Trump - within his powers and far more than any President before him - has gone out of his way with almost single-minded purpose to undo everything Obama ever did either with executive orders, appointments (or lack thereof) or attempted legislation I'm not really prepared to abandon that just yet. Trump's motivation goes far beyond mere partisanship.

Beyond that as I said before laws and policies have been put into place by independents and non-conservatives, regardless the objection of conservatives. That's democracy. There are non-zealous, non-ideologically driven politicians and civil servants that occupy the vast majority of positions in government and the bureaucracy as well. Just because blacks are treated fairly by the bureaucracy now and again does not preclude a faction in the electorate that is, as the studies and polls in this article demonstrate, against the fair and equal treatment of blacks. One need only look to Kim Davis to see what a bureaucracy filled with conservative zealots opposed to enacting policy and law that run against their beliefs would look like.  We're not there yet, and I hope we never will, but considering how much support she continues to receive from her politically like-minded and fellow travelers it isn't outside the realm of possibility either.
Quote
What is being overlooked (deliberately or ignorantly, doesn't matter) is this: people who share interests might, given a choice of only two practical candidates, all vote for the same candidate.  Their calculation might give greater weight to political interests than to personal values.  It tells us nothing about their personal shortcomings, or the many shades and strengths to which they adhere to particular points and positions.  Examples: some people tired of the Democratic war against their religious liberty (the reality, however it might be debated on the head of a pin, is irrelevant compared to the perception) voted for Trump because he was the only candidate not representing a continuation of such policies; some people subject to or witnessing losses of employment voted for Trump because he was promising to change things rather than simply asserting that those jobs are gone and are never coming back.  Again, the perception is what is important.  Even a faint hope will almost always carry more weight than none at all.
The article describes in some detail that "denial of racism, alongside hostile sexism, predicted a vote for Donald Trump significantly more than other factors like economic dissatisfaction. This kind of correlation between racial resentment and the probability of voting for Trump has been observed in other studies". If you have a issues with the methodology of the studies and polls themselves, or with the conclusions drawn from them then by all means share them. But your opinion that Trump voters particularly and conservative voters generally vote on some other calculus is just that; your opinion. It isn't supported by the data.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2018, 13:55:28 »
The different identifiable segments of the whole voting population were sliced and diced after the election, and Hillary didn't hold Obama's fraction of several of the voting blocs, including blacks.  I accept it as established that Obama was at nearly all points during his administration more popular personally than the policies he favoured.  That evidence tends to deprecate racism as an explanation, and reinforce Hillary and her political positions as the source of her own demise.

You can go on cherry-picking the handful of studies that support your position.  They're a fart in a hurricane.  Your selected author isn't a righteous iconoclast disproving the conventional wisdom of political analysts on both sides of the aisle; he's angry and frustrated that his causes have at least suffered a four-year interruption of advancement and at worst an eight-year period of reversals and he situated his estimate.

Regardless, the idea that white racism propelled Trump into office could be proven or unproven and would still be irrelevant to the notions that compromise never really existed among conservatives, or that the blame for a dearth of compromise could be narrowly laid at any one pair of feet.  To reiterate a couple of examples I may have mentioned before which poisoned compromise: Reagan's compromise with Tip O'Neill over immigration; Harry Reid's iron-fisted no-compromise management of the Senate.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 473
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2018, 14:04:35 »
beirnini

I wonder if you have read any of Thomas Sowell's quotes and comments regarding slavery and racism.   

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,331
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2018, 15:36:47 »
Again, as the article goes into some detail when we're talking about a social system of hierarchy and subordination and entitlements, a system that in part was fought over at the cost of millions hundreds of thousands of lives in the American Civil War.

Fixed that for you.  Much like most modern political debate discourse jabbering, it is irritating when those participating either don't bother or don't care to ensure that what they say is factually correct.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 553,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,693
    • The job.
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2018, 16:19:04 »
For reference to the discussion of American Civil War casualties,

New York Times
New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll
APRIL 2, 2012
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html


Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2018, 07:51:12 »
Fixed that for you.  Much like most modern political debate discourse jabbering, it is irritating when those participating either don't bother or don't care to ensure that what they say is factually correct.
Thanks for the correction and apologies for the irritation.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2018, 07:56:07 »
beirnini

I wonder if you have read any of Thomas Sowell's quotes and comments regarding slavery and racism.   
I haven't. Is there some writing of his that is relevant to this thread that you recommend?

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2018, 08:11:21 »
The different identifiable segments of the whole voting population were sliced and diced after the election, and Hillary didn't hold Obama's fraction of several of the voting blocs, including blacks.  I accept it as established that Obama was at nearly all points during his administration more popular personally than the policies he favoured.  That evidence tends to deprecate racism as an explanation, and reinforce Hillary and her political positions as the source of her own demise.

You can go on cherry-picking the handful of studies that support your position.  They're a fart in a hurricane.  Your selected author isn't a righteous iconoclast disproving the conventional wisdom of political analysts on both sides of the aisle; he's angry and frustrated that his causes have at least suffered a four-year interruption of advancement and at worst an eight-year period of reversals and he situated his estimate.

Regardless, the idea that white racism propelled Trump into office could be proven or unproven and would still be irrelevant to the notions that compromise never really existed among conservatives, or that the blame for a dearth of compromise could be narrowly laid at any one pair of feet.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but in over 15 years of itinerant forum discussions I can't think of one instance where my mind was changed after endless lobbing of heated rhetoric, usually fallacy-riddled assertions, and poorly sourced and cited (at best) opinions. I've no reason to believe this time will be any different. On the rare occasion I was brought to reconsider anything it was after the presentation or dissection of particularly germane facts or data. Brushing away what is probably hundreds, if not thousands of hours of cited research as "farts in a hurricane" does little to convince me of anything (assuming that is your object) besides your ability to use language rather poetically.

*Edit: I'd like to think we can do better than American voters.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 08:18:47 by beirnini »

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2018, 11:02:54 »
Until those people can explain from where "white-conscious" voters emerged if they were not already part of the Republican base - were they part of the Democrat base; had they sat out the past two elections and passed up a chance to vote against a black man and his decidedly not-white-favouring policies; are they traditionally part of the roughly 20% in the middle that decide presidential elections - then the mere discovery that they voted based on cultural affinity just tells us what common sense should already have told us.  Asserting they voted their interests in this election isn't very interesting if they have voted their interests for several consecutive elections.

The people who decided the election are the ones who switched from Democrat to Republican after voting Obama, or declined to participate after voting Democrat for Obama.  That is where the explanations must be sought.

Thousands of hours of research doesn't carry much weight in a field that has generated tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of research and assessment.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2018, 07:05:15 »
Asserting they voted their interests in this election isn't very interesting if they have voted their interests for several consecutive elections.
You're somehow drawing the wrong conclusion from this article as no such assertions are made. The studies pertaining to relative compensation for the general population and desegregated healthcare for Southern whites in particular demonstrate that voters regularly do not vote in their interests but rather their status to the detriment of their interests. In particular the healthcare and welfare net studies suggests "white-conscious" voters are greatly motivated by status over African Americans.

Quote
Thousands of hours of research doesn't carry much weight in a field that has generated tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of research and assessment.
Re-iterating your opinion about farts and hurricanes doesn't make it any more convincing. At least one study that squarely contradicts the conclusions of the studies I've provided or a methodical dissection and refutation of the data, procedures or conclusions of at least one of the provided studies will go much farther to that end.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #44 on: July 05, 2018, 19:15:48 »
You missed the point.  I accept that the polls and whatnot demonstrate that some arbitrarily defined categories of white people are motivated by arbitrarily defined "white-consciousness" to vote for "white issues".  I'm looking for evidence that they suddenly became "white-conscious" recently - after the 2012 election.  If they were voting "white" all along (it's hardly plausible that they were Obama voters), then they were "base" voters, not "swing" voters, and they aren't to blame for the change in election fortunes between 2012 and 2016.  A tirade directed at their vote in 2016 with a view to blaming them for the outcome is not an explanation of how Hillary lost part of Obama's coalition.

The most probable explanation is still: Hillary is responsible for losing part of Obama's coalition.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2018, 00:31:11 »
I looked at the 2012 and 2016 Wikipedia articles about the respective US presidential elections.

In no particular order, here are some things that piqued my interest.  Where I compare, the 2012 number will be first as the former/earlier and 2016 as the latter/later.  Caveat: I'm not sure how directly comparable (or reliable) the demographic breakdown measures (polls) are.

Voter turnout up slightly, 54.1% to 55.4%.

Share of vote to Libertarians way up (0.99% to 3.27%) and to Greens up (0.36% to 1.06%).  Republican share down roughly 1.4% (47.32% to 45.93%), Democratic share down roughly 3.2% (51.19% to 48.02%).  Observation: those numbers say nothing about the EC distribution (efficiency) or exactly who moved where, but Hillary lost much more.  I suppose it could have been mostly Republicans who went Libertarian and Democrats who went Green, but that would imply a lot of Democrats went Republican.  The breakdown by Ideology (liberal, moderate, conservative) shows Trump more or less held the same numbers and Hillary slipped in all three groups to the benefit of third parties.  In particular, a lot of liberals and moderates were lost to third parties, for which "white consciousness" is not a likely explanation.

By Party, Trump lost among all 3 groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents).  Hillary lost Democrats and Independents, and actually gained a bit among Republicans.  Observation: another measure which illustrates that a bleed to the benefit of third parties.

By Race/Ethnicity: Trump claimed a slightly lower fraction of whites (59% to 58%), higher fractions of blacks (6% to 8%), asians (26% to 29%), and hispanics (27% to 29%), and a lower fraction of others (38% to 37%).  Observation: a decreased share of whites and increased share among the primary non-white groups doesn't intuitively fit well with blaming "white consciousness".

From the results by state, the increased share in the Libertarian and Green vote would have been enough to flip FL (29), MI (16), PA (20), and WI (10), but not OH (18).  The first four sum to 75 EC votes - more than enough to have elected Hillary; she would have needed 39 so several lesser combinations would have sufficed.

So now I don't merely believe Hillary lost part of the Obama coalition; I also believe she lost most of that to tickets other than Trump/Pence.  It's still possible to believe that Trump got more votes by appealing to "white consciousness" than he otherwise might have, but the biggest finger seems to point at the people who pulled the lever for Libertarians and Greens, particularly in battleground states.

That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2018, 03:02:20 »
[...]If they were voting "white" all along (it's hardly plausible that they were Obama voters), then they were "base" voters, not "swing" voters, and they aren't to blame for the change in election fortunes between 2012 and 2016.
[...]
The most probable explanation is still: Hillary is responsible for losing part of Obama's coalition.
My intention with referencing this article and the studies cited within is to present data that describes conservative voter motivation. This description is used to support the contention that compromise in the conservative electorate has long since died, assuming it ever existed in the first place. Several of these studies support the notion that most people are significantly motivated by status regardless the better interests they might impinge. Intuitively we know this is true by the prevalence of over-leveraging. Big mortgages and big car loans for the biggest, newest houses and cars to show off one's status (however sustainable) are everywhere. Maxed out credit cards on consumer goods are seemingly the norm, not the exception. Everyone is at least in part driven by status. "White-conscious" voters are driven even further by status relative to African Americans and other visible minorities (with a significant overlap of concern for male status over females, i.e. sexism).

I'm not particularly interested in how or why Hillary lost/Trump won, at least as it pertains to this thread.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2018, 07:20:32 »
It would seem I've been warned probably about the use of "crypto-fascist" when referring to Trump. In the spirit of forum rules and at the risk of taking the thread on a tangent I submit for consideration Harvard political scientist Robert Paxton's definition of fascism from his book The Anatomy of Fascism;
Quote
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. (p. 218)
- Political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline? Check. Humiliation? Check. Victimhood? Check.
- Compensatory cult? None definitively or formally, but his supporters have consistently exhibited mania for, devotion to, and excessive admiration towards him which add up to cult-ish behaviour. His go-to insult is weirdly "low-energy" as well.
- Mass-based party of committed nationalist militants? Not yet, but his implied support of the thugs in Charlottesville does not bode well.
- Collaborates uneasily but effectively with traditional elites? An apt description of his relationship with the GOP.
- Abandons democratic liberties? Only in the present climate could an American president say that "President-For-Life" a la Jinping is something that should be given a shot and it barely causes a ripple. His unqualified praise for autocrats (Putin, Jinping, KJU) and autocrat wannabe's (Erdogan, Duterte) is concerning to say the least as well.
- Redemptive violence? Internal cleansing? External expansion? No on all counts, but his attitude to immigrants and muslims is questionable.

That's far more than anyone should be comfortable with. Whether it's crypto-fascist, latent-fascist, or ur-fascist, there's something deeply wrong politically going on in that man.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 167,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,300
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2018, 10:11:38 »
I see both Obama and Trump being parties of 1. Each used their respective parties as jumping off platform, but it was really about them and not the party. I think many voters picked up on that and voted to show their frustration with their traditional party. Hillary and the DNC were to closely joined at the hip. Internal politics within each of the major parties is likely poisoning support for them. 

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2018, 15:18:26 »
>compromise in the conservative electorate has long since died

But that's not what the linked article shows.  The linked article basically shows that some guy is angry that more white voters than he expected have recently discovered identity politics, and that they are not in the Democratic tent.  And that makes him one among many people who wrote articles after the 2016 election along the lines of "Hey, white people have become a group that votes along identity (cultural) lines.  No fair."  And since these particular white voters were just about the last group to start doing it (2016) compared to all the other identity/grievance factions, I suppose that you might be able to claim that compromise has died in the white-conscious sub-faction of the conservative electorate.  But they don't represent all conservatives, and it didn't happen "long since".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2018, 15:51:51 »
This is all off-topic, some of it unnecessary, but I lost tolerance for sloppy usages of "authoritarianism" and "fascism" long ago.  Ignore what follows if you have no interest definitions.

>definition of fascism

It's bilge.

From the Wikipedia article:

"In his 1998 paper "The Five Stages of Fascism," he suggests that fascism cannot be defined solely by its ideology, since fascism is a complex political phenomenon rather than a relatively coherent body of doctrine"

Bearing that in mind, consider stage 2 of his 5 stages:

"Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage"

How does he know it's a fascist movement, if fascism can not be defined by ideology or doctrine?  Because he just knows it when he sees it?

He is also at odds with the guy who invented it (Mussolini).  Latter-day academics don't get to redefine it.  I get that latter-day political scientists mostly lean left, and that the left has been trying very hard to scrub its excesses and bad associations for a century or more, but it was always clear (to most of the earlier generations of scholars who lived through the period and its aftermath) that the "fascism is on the right" meme was a corruption of Stalin's attempt to move fascism out of communism's zone in what amounted to a turf war over the extreme left in the 1930s.

Those 5 stages are just a common-or-garden description that could apply to the ascension of many parties.

1. Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of [whatever]
2. Rooting, where [the party], aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
3. Arrival to power, where [politicians] seeking to control rising [any] opposition invite the movement to share power
4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
5. Radicalization or entropy

As for these points:

- Political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline / humiliation / victimhood? [Not a distinguishing feature.  Think of all the political and religious movements concerned with family/community; the notion of humiliation expressed by, say, Chinese leftists; the sense of victimhood expressed by all the leaders of crappy little dictatorships who require an external boogeyman to divert attention from their domestic incompetence and tyranny.]

- Compensatory cult? [Not a distinguishing feature.  Consider all the "Great Leader" images and iconography and statuary and leader-worship of the firmly left-identified movements of the past century.]

- Mass-based party of committed nationalist militants? [Not a distinguishing feature.  Shared with pretty much every extreme left-wing movement, irrespective of whether they paid lip service to the International.  The Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Cubans, Venezuelans, etc, etc all had/have their enforcers out to purify the nation.]

- Collaborates uneasily but effectively with traditional elites? [Not a distinguishing feature, and not particularly accurate.  Some of the movements accused of being fascist in various countries around the world are decidedly not collaborating with the elites; many political movements not accused of being fascist collaborate "uneasily but effectively" on the path to power.]

- Abandons democratic liberties? [Not a distinguishing feature; describes virtually every totalitarian regime.]

- Redemptive violence? Internal cleansing? External expansion? [Not a distinguishing feature: repression of the kulaks, the gulag, the Great Leap Forward, Cambodian genocide, political imprisonments and executions under Communist and other totalitarian regimes, occupation of Tibet.]

Basically, that is just a shopping list of features of totalitarian regimes, most of which arise on the left.  It doesn't distinguish fascism.  The key distinction between communism and fascism is ownership: under communism, the state (notionally, at least) owns everything and controls everything; under fascism (corporatism), the state controls through established bodies the important parts of the economy while they remain in (notionally, at least) private hands.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2018, 04:44:51 »
My first link to start this thread shows a "long-standing partisan gap over views of compromise [that] has disappeared", so when I say "long since" I merely refer to the this "long-standing" difference.

Quote
And since these particular white voters were just about the last group to start doing it (2016) compared to all the other identity/grievance factions, I suppose that you might be able to claim that compromise has died in the white-conscious sub-faction of the conservative electorate.

Your point about some guy recently discovering there is a bigger white-conscious sub-faction of the conservative electorate is undoubtedly true, because that guy is definitely me. The writer of the article however seams to have studied this for far longer and at a far greater depth than most. I don't get where or how you figure he's "angry". If I were to guess I would say that's a bit of projection. If anything the writer comes across as genuinely worried.

Beyond that I can't see how you can conclude that any particular set of "white voters were just about the last group to vote along cultural lines" with any of the data I've presented. None of the data I've presented suggests any dynamism in the motivations of the conservative voter that I can see. Of course you're more than welcome to make that case with this or any other data you might wish to provide.

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,468
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2018, 06:29:33 »
its the politicians that don't compromise because if you have the power they wont.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2018, 20:42:13 »
"This description is used to support the contention that compromise in the conservative electorate has long since died"

In that statement, "compromise in the conservative electorate" (one thing, not two things or a measure of the relative distance between them) is what has "long since died".  (Break it down: compromise...has...died.)  But the shift among white-conscious voters is novel (2016) according to its accusers.  It is neither "long since", nor has it anything to do with a gap (there is no "gap" between a single item and itself).

"I made this [piece] because I am sick of the bullshit excuses for voting for Trump as well as the attempts to obfuscate what happened in 2016." 

That tone conveys anger, not worry.

"So we can see that compromise has died in the American independent and left-leaning voters, but why has never really existed in "conservatives"?"

I can't make sense out of the second clause.  Was it supposed to be "compromise has never really existed among conservatives", or something else?

There's a methodological problem with the Pew survey, shared with many surveys, that hinges on questions and who answers them honestly.

I have a thought experiment that goes something like this: suppose conservatives tend to hold a larger share of the people whose education never went past high school; progressives tend to hold a larger share of those who went beyond high school.  The latter, by experience and necessity, will tend to be better test takers.

Ask a potentially embarrassing question like "Are insults fair game?"  Who is more likely to know the politically correct answer; who is more likely to write to pass the test rather than to admit - even to themselves - having outmoded wrong thoughts?  [In case it's not clear: I believe the lower-educated people are more likely to shoot straight and give an honest answer about their opinions.]

Based on what Democrats and progressives in general are saying is acceptable behaviour toward anyone involved with Trump's administration or even supporting Trump, I don't believe that the number of Democrats who admit to "wrong thoughts" [in surveys] about partisanship and civility is anywhere near as high as [in reality].  And based on how things were during the Bush administration, I don't think it was the case then, either (it's not a recent shift).  People who cheer for F-bombs and c*ck-holster comments are not high-minded.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 20:45:42 by Brad Sallows »
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 584,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,471
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2018, 10:44:37 »
[In case it's not clear: I believe the lower-educated people are more likely to shoot straight and give an honest answer about their opinions.]
This relates, somewhat, to my recurring hobby-horse of opinions versus informed  opinions.  Much like your displeasure with sloppy usages of "authoritarianism" and "fascism," I have heartache with people who assume that "educated" and "intelligent" are synonyms;  many educated people are dumber than dirt, while many very smart people don't have a school paper to frame.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #55 on: July 10, 2018, 12:10:46 »
Quote
IBut the shift among white-conscious voters is novel (2016) according to its accusers.
Again, according to who? What "accuser" data or survey or study are you referencing that suggests this novelty? Because I'm failing to see where in the article I provide this is suggested. I'm missing it (or if you have data of your own) please point it out.
Quote
"I made this [piece] because I am sick of the bullshit excuses for voting for Trump as well as the attempts to obfuscate what happened in 2016."

That tone conveys anger, not worry.
I suppose it comes down to whether one sympathizes or not with the writer.  Anyone who is similarly concerned with the prospect of "those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them" then that quote is definitely frustrated concern. But if one finds Trump's election not at all concerning then I can see how that quote comes across as anger. <shrug>
Quote
Was it supposed to be "compromise has never really existed among conservatives?
More like, "why has compromise historically been relatively lower in value among conservatives compared to left-leaners and independents". But since I titled the thread "Compromise Has Died" I thought I should keep it consistent. It's a distinction without much of a difference, at least as far compromise itself is concerned.

Regarding your thought experiment I would need at least one clear example (preferably taken directly from at least one of the studies I've provided but really anything similarly peer-reviewed will do) to see your point: "Political Correctness" and "outmoded" are both far too loaded and too vague to rest any convincing claims on.

Beyond that rigorous polls are anonymous, designed to avoid gaming and extract genuine responses from participants of all demographic backgrounds. If lower-educated participants are as honest and straight as you claim then all the better, although I object to your implication about higher-educated participants. Regardless nobody wants to spend the considerable time and energy on a study and realize after peer-review that all one's data is garbage because of such an oversight.

Accordingly I have my doubts that peer-reviewed studies in general suffer from the kind of general weakness in polling you describe, but any studies or data that demonstrates that this is a genuinely recurring problem is welcome.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #56 on: July 10, 2018, 23:22:03 »
>I have heartache with people who assume that "educated" and "intelligent" are synonyms;  many educated people are dumber than dirt, while many very smart people don't have a school paper to frame.

Correct; but - and maybe it's a subtle difference - my point is how a person is likely to answer based on their accumulated expertise taking tests.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2018, 00:15:30 »
"why has compromise historically been relatively lower in value among conservatives compared to left-leaners and independents"

That's qualitatively different than "compromise has never really existed".  A conservative could easily value the abstract idea of "compromise" less than a non-conservative, simply by having a longer list of principles he excludes from compromise.  It doesn't mean he won't compromise to reach a deal on anything else.

Example: on the related issues of amnesty (for illegal aliens) and border control, conservatives and progressives have complementary preferences.  Conservatives have repeatedly expressed willingness to concede amnesty for improved border control.  Progressives are the ones unwilling to compromise (improved border controls for amnesty).

Example: the US First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  With respect to that statement, conservatives are uncompromising.  In their view, there is nothing worth trading any of it away.

This just brings me back to my first post in this thread.  Compromise isn't dead; it just appears that way because the people seeking change want it rapidly and want large returns on small concessions.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 73
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2018, 11:05:13 »
Yes, conservatives could have a longer list of principles then independents and left-leaners. They could also have a shorter list. We don't have anything but opinions to support either position. What we do have is a presumably rigorous poll/polls and analysis indicating the relative value of compromise between all three groups. If number of principles is a potentially confounding variable I would expect that it's accounted for in the appropriate manner.

Quote
Compromise isn't dead; it just appears that way because the people seeking change want it rapidly and want large returns on small concessions.
Seeking substantial change through small concessions is the definition of uncompromising. As indicated by Pew all identifiable groups of the electorate now value compromise equally poorly, which is to say they're all equally uncompromising, which is to say they're all essentially "seeking change, want it rapidly and want large returns on small concessions." Semantics aside, how can one conclude anything other than that compromise has all but "died in the electorate"?

The question I've tried to raise is that while the sudden and dramatic change in independents and left-leaners is readily explainable the consistency in conservatives is not. Sorry to say but I've yet to be dissuaded by anything more persuasive then what I've submitted for consideration.

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2018, 14:37:08 »
>The question I've tried to raise is that while the sudden and dramatic change in independents and left-leaners is readily explainable the consistency in conservatives is not.

But it is.  In the US, the constitution and structure of government (how it is chosen, how it functions) favours the conservative position - or, more accurately, conservatives are those who favour the constitution etc (which is why they are deemed conservative).  And they hold a positional advantage: many of the provisions they favour are unambiguously stated (uncompromising) (eg. Bill of Rights), and the structure of government is designed to thwart significant change without broad support.  They already have most of what they want, and they continue to have it by simply refusing to compromise - to trade any of it away.

Conversely, some of the things progressives wish to achieve are unconstitutional, and require amendments.

We should expect progressives to favour "compromise" as an abstract value more than conservatives.  Nevertheless, I observe that once progressives think they have secured a position they desire, they become rigidly uncompromising and start applying matching terminology: the debate is over, the science is settled, the issue is settled, etc.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 194,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,662
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #60 on: November 14, 2018, 19:09:11 »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-made-amends-with-pete-davidson-on-snl-but-thats-only-the-beginning/2018/11/13/e7314fb0-e77e-11e8-b8dc-66cca409c180_story.html?fbclid=IwAR02D5eKf96lZ78QK5vMady6gAYg0roueV8h0Ixz5g354UPZgMVMi2RW158&utm_term=.829228f5fe5c

Figured this was the best place to put this.  Shared with the usual Copyright provisions.  Dan Crenshaw for President...and Prime Minister.

Quote
Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, is a Republican representative-elect from Texas.

The past couple of weeks have been unusual for me, to say the least. After a year of hard campaigning for Congress in Texas and gradually entering the public sphere, I was hit by a sudden, blinding spotlight. But I have no complaints — it wasn’t as bad as some other challenges I’ve faced, like a sudden, blinding IED explosion. (See what I did there? “Saturday Night Live” has created a comedic monster.)

On the Nov. 3 show, SNL’s Pete Davidson mocked my appearance — “he lost his eye in war . . . or whatever,” Davidson said, referring to the eye patch I wear. His line about my looking like a “hit man in a porno movie” was significantly less infuriating, albeit a little strange. I woke up on the Sunday morning after the show to hundreds of texts about what Davidson had said. A lot of America wasn’t happy. People thought some lines still shouldn’t be crossed.

I agreed. But I also could not help but note that this was another chapter in a phenomenon that has taken complete control of the national discourse: outrage culture. It seems like every not-so-carefully-worded public misstep must be punished to the fullest extent, replete with soapbox lectures and demands for apologies. Anyone who doesn’t show the expected level of outrage will be labeled a coward or an apologist for bad behavior. I get the feeling that regular, hard-working, generally unoffended Americans sigh with exhaustion — daily. 

Was I really outraged by SNL? Really offended? Or did I just think the comment about losing my eye was offensive? There is a difference, after all. I have been literally shot at before, and I wasn’t outraged. Why start now?

So I didn’t demand an apology and I didn’t call for anyone to be fired. That doesn’t mean the “war . . . or whatever” line was acceptable, but I didn’t have to fan the flames of outrage, either. When SNL reached out with an apology and an offer to be on the show, I wasn’t fully sold on the idea. It was going to be Veterans Day weekend, after all, and I had events with veterans planned. I asked if another weekend might work. No, they said, precisely because it was Veterans Day, it would be the right time to send the right message. They assured me that we could use the opportunity to send a message of unity, forgiveness and appreciation for veterans. And to make fun of Pete Davidson, of course.

And that’s what we did. I was happy with how it worked out. But now what? Does it suddenly mean that the left and right will get along and live in utopian harmony? Maybe Saturday’s show made a tiny step in that direction, but I’m not naive. As a country, we still have a lot of work to do. We need to agree on some basic rules for civil discourse.

There are many ideas that we will never agree on. The left and the right have different ways of approaching governance, based on contrasting philosophies. But many of the ultimate goals — economic prosperity, better health care and education, etc. — are the same. We just don’t share the same vision of how to achieve them.

How, then, do we live together in this world of differing ideas? For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun.

Similarly, people too often attack not just an idea but also the supposed intent behind an idea. That raises the emotional level of the debate and might seem like it strengthens the attacker’s side, but it’s a terrible way to make a point. Assuming the worst about your opponents’ intentions has the effect of demonizing their ideas, removing the need for sound counter-reasoning and fact-based argument. That’s not a good environment for the exchange of ideas.

When all else fails, try asking for forgiveness, or granting it. On Saturday, Pete Davidson and SNL made amends. I had some fun. Everyone generally agreed that a veteran’s wounds aren’t fair game for comedy. Maybe now we should all try to work toward restoring civility to public debate.

"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr