Atlantic Article: How American Politics Went Insane

[Lyin' Steve]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

discuss

[Indy Texas]

People are unwilling to accept that politics requires "compromise and barter" as Edmund Burke put it.

No one ever gets 100% of what they want, and in order for you to get something you want, you probably have to give someone else something they want that you may not necessarily like. That's not "selling out" or "betraying your principles." It's called being an adult. People compromise and make deals every day; the idea that a legislative chamber is a special place where you do what Michele Bachmann wanted and "slit our wrists and be blood brothers" is ludicrous.

One point the article misses is that there isn't anything inherently wrong with having an "elite" in society, but that elite has to be accountable to the rest of society. The problem with the elite in the modern world is that because they got there through vaguely meritocratic means (going to Ivy League schools and entering the government-finance-law-consulting-industrial-complex), they believe that they "deserve" to be there and everyone who isn't there "deserves" to be where they are. A 19th century English lord acknowledged that he had a duty to look after the interests of the farmers and shopkeepers in his county. A 21st century Princeton-educated establishmentarian looks at the out-of-work factory workers in Ohio and just says, "Well maybe he should have gotten better grades in school!" That's how you end up with an Angry Orange Chaos Muppet in charge of America's nuclear arsenal.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think a lot of the problem with American politics can be chalked up to a constitution that is in some important structural ways unfortunately intentionally and unintentionally designed to give power to the elites and promote zero-sum partisan gridlock.

You can blame the American people to some extent for being short sighted and ignorant about how the mechanics of American government works (for instance, how millions of people moronically either don't vote in the midterm or even sometimes vote for the opposite party they voted for two years previous) but I DON'T think the solution is to give even more control of American government over to party elites and the lobbyists that they serve.

[Indy Texas]

I think a lot of the problem with American politics can be chalked up to a constitution that is in some important structural ways unfortunately intentionally and unintentionally designed to give power to the elites and promote zero-sum partisan gridlock.

You can blame the American people to some extent for being short sighted and ignorant about how the mechanics of American government works (for instance, how millions of people moronically either don't vote in the midterm or even sometimes vote for the opposite party they voted for two years previous) but I DON'T think the solution is to give even more control of American government over to party elites and the lobbyists that they serve.

I hate people claiming that they know what "the Founders intended" or that that's even relevant today, but I have a feeling the framers never anticipated that a constitutional clause guaranteeing that there wouldn't be a state church would ultimately lead to people and corporations spending billions of dollars trying to influence elections and elected officials.

There was also probably an assumption on their part that (1) the United States would always basically be an Anglophone country of British Isles-descended Protestants (and even if they were forward-thinking enough to believe the "Negroes" would eventually be free and enfranchised, they'd be a small, assimilated, indistinguishable minority), and (2) that the overall dynamic would always be that the US would be a nation of mostly small independent farmers with a minority of people living in cities and engaging in manufacturing and shipping.

They never could have predicted the Industrial Revolution that would make agrarian life obsolete. They never foresaw that a chronic labor shortage would be dealt with by encouraging immigration from increasingly exotic places, first Southern and Eastern Europe and then ultimately the "Orient." They never could have conceived of geographic mobility and standardization of popular culture leading to our Balkanized, "sorted" society where people identify more with subcultures that they "choose" to be a part of rather than with their hometown/region/religion that they were essentially "born into."

The median American voter simply expects too much. John Smith in Peoria thinks the government is too big, but doesn't want to reduce Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security benefits, and doesn't want to cut defense spending. He wants to cut taxes, but he also wants to balance the budget. He complains about having to wait in line for the TSA at the airport but goes into a panic when a man who might be tangentially connected to a terrorist group kills 50 people in a country of 350 million.

Susie Liberal wants to expand the social safety net and thinks that can be done by raising taxes on no one except "the rich." She is concerned about stagnant wages and yet wants to artificially increase the labor supply by allowing more immigration.

Stan Conservative thinks we can "bring the jobs back" from China, but loves being able to buy flat screen TVs at Walmart for $200.

To be completely honest, if you randomly select a dozen registered voters and spend an hour in a room with them, you will come away saying, "Yep, these people are getting exactly what they deserve this year."

[RaphaelDLG]

I don't disagree with your pointed critique of the stupidity of the average American, but I would add a big knock on the founders:  They naively thought that they could design a non-partisan system of government, an assumption that blew up in their faces almost immediately with the advent of strong political parties (something they SHOULD have seen coming) and the subsequent bizarre workarounds of pledged electors and amendment 12.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think a lot of the problem with American politics can be chalked up to a constitution that is in some important structural ways unfortunately intentionally and unintentionally designed to give power to the elites and promote zero-sum partisan gridlock.

You can blame the American people to some extent for being short sighted and ignorant about how the mechanics of American government works (for instance, how millions of people moronically either don't vote in the midterm or even sometimes vote for the opposite party they voted for two years previous) but I DON'T think the solution is to give even more control of American government over to party elites and the lobbyists that they serve.

I hate people claiming that they know what "the Founders intended" or that that's even relevant today, but I have a feeling the framers never anticipated that a constitutional clause guaranteeing that there wouldn't be a state church would ultimately lead to people and corporations spending billions of dollars trying to influence elections and elected officials.

There was also probably an assumption on their part that (1) the United States would always basically be an Anglophone country of British Isles-descended Protestants (and even if they were forward-thinking enough to believe the "Negroes" would eventually be free and enfranchised, they'd be a small, assimilated, indistinguishable minority), and (2) that the overall dynamic would always be that the US would be a nation of mostly small independent farmers with a minority of people living in cities and engaging in manufacturing and shipping.

Hardly.  The non-white population of the Southern states (including Delaware and Maryland) ranged anywhere from a low of 22% in Delaware to a high of 44% in South Carolina.  The significant fraction of Negroes in the South is precisely why the 3/5 compromise proved necessary.  And the idea that they would be assimilated and indistinguishable would have horrified practically every white North or South back then.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think a lot of the problem with American politics can be chalked up to a constitution that is in some important structural ways unfortunately intentionally and unintentionally designed to give power to the elites and promote zero-sum partisan gridlock.

You can blame the American people to some extent for being short sighted and ignorant about how the mechanics of American government works (for instance, how millions of people moronically either don't vote in the midterm or even sometimes vote for the opposite party they voted for two years previous) but I DON'T think the solution is to give even more control of American government over to party elites and the lobbyists that they serve.

I hate people claiming that they know what "the Founders intended" or that that's even relevant today, but I have a feeling the framers never anticipated that a constitutional clause guaranteeing that there wouldn't be a state church would ultimately lead to people and corporations spending billions of dollars trying to influence elections and elected officials.

Also:  Okay, sure, but unfortunately the consequences of their intentions matter tremendously today, because they created a governmental structure that's EXTREMELY difficult to change.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hatred of politicians is a real problem, yeah. It's a problem throughout the world, really, and it can have terrible consequences.

Of course, politicians don't exactly make it very hard to hate them.

[Intell]

Trump's rise comes with the dissatisfaction of the political establishment, particularly the democratic party, from former democratic working class voters, which they perceive as advocation for policies, that go against exactly what their own self-culture is. The growing globalization, and post-industrial economy, is devastating to the working class, growing with fears of immigration, to which immigrants (a lot of time), take working class jobs, and reduces wages for blue-collar workers, who are hurt in this new economy, and harken back to the time in where they had good jobs, with just a high school degree, as in the past, a college degree was not necessary, nor a measure of intelligence (which it shouldn't be.). This all helps understand Trump's rise, with both working class people, unaffiliated, democratic or republican. This combined with middle-class fears of terrorism, and to more up-scale republicans, to more nationalistic conservatism, like pride in country, nationalism, helped to make Trump and his brand of ideology, take center-place in the political debate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Simple our media is very polarizing, fox is too far right , cnn brings in debaters from both the far left and far right , and MSNBC is too far left

[Bojack Horseman]

Quite honestly, it's the internet. It gives extremist radicals a bigger platform to reach far more people with their whackjob conspiracy theories and hate-filled manifestos. Why do you think nobody ever questioned Bill Clinton's place of birth?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why do you think nobody ever questioned Bill Clinton's place of birth?

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

[TJ in Oregon]

The intro to the article is snappy  but ultimately it proclaims our problem is that our politicians aren't corrupt enough. It raises some important points, but I still don't quite agree with the main premise.

[Virginiá]

Trump's rise comes with the dissatisfaction of the political establishment, particularly the democratic party, from former democratic working class voters

Are we talking about former Democrats from decades ago or Democrats who just now decided to support Trump? Because Trump's primary base of support comes from Republicans. He most likely is going to take some working class voters from Democrats, but not nearly enough to ever be considered noteworthy in terms of his base composition.

[Intell]

Trump's rise comes with the dissatisfaction of the political establishment, particularly the democratic party, from former democratic working class voters

Are we talking about former Democrats from decades ago or Democrats who just now decided to support Trump? Because Trump's primary base of support comes from Republicans. He most likely is going to take some working class voters from Democrats, but not nearly enough to ever be considered noteworthy in terms of his base composition.

I mean post 2000 republicans, who formerly voted for democrats, combined with people that never voted before.

[Boston Bread]

I did like that they didn't go the easy route and proclaim everything is due to economic "anxiety" and tried to find the actual roots of the problem.

A lot of aspects of the US political system is designed to create gridlock in situations where ideological unity within parties is high and the power of party leaders is low. Often western democracies either have highly ideological parties or weak party leaders, but rarely do you find both.

[Indy Texas]

The intro to the article is snappy  but ultimately it proclaims our problem is that our politicians aren't corrupt enough. It raises some important points, but I still don't quite agree with the main premise.

We replaced internal dealmaking, which comes with accountability and avenues for relief, with external dealmaking. Now, instead of backroom poker games among congressmen and the Committee to Reelect the President, we have dark money Super PACs and legislation being written in corporate boardrooms and then given to designated lawmakers to introduce as is.