American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

Countries and governments don't have morals, they have interests. Every government can and does do evil to someone. The question really is, to whom and on what scale. Democratic governments at least have better tools available to avoid and/or mitigate the harm they do to their own people, whereas authoritarian governments don't necessarily care about the harm they do to their own people because there are fewer constraints on the pursuit of unchecked power, and because they can always fall back on repression.

Hard to argue with such generalization. Countries and governments, while primarily driven by national interests, operate within a framework of shared morals, or ethical philosophies, such as democracy, human rights, or social justice.

Having "TOOLS available to avoid and/or mitigate the harm they do to their own people" demonstrates moral values.

Right now we are seeing the US administration abandon the use of those tools en masse, in favour of chaos and grift. There is no coherent strategy, only profit-taking at the expense of the public good.

What are the  BETTER TOOLS to deal with this, and will they be effectively implemented?

[Zed-F]

The tools aren't rocket science.
- Don't concentrate too much political power in one place, spread it out and have effective checks and balances. (The US has too much power concentrated in the executive, and Congress is ineffectual at checking the executive when it does misguided things.)
- Political parties need to emphasize their centrist voices and tendencies so they can work together, and build and refine on one another's administrations. They don't have to agree on everything, but there needs to be some degree of commonality of vision. (The US has political parties that are constantly tearing down what each other does, and the party on the right has no vision of what should be done other than fight the left and cut taxes to benefit their rich donors. They don't even stand for reducing debt any longer.)
- Media voices should be centrist, honest, fact-oriented, and provide balanced viewpoints. It is important to treat differing opinions with respect, even if you disagree. That said, giving extremists oxygen only promotes unhelpful division. (Publicly funded news media in other democratic countries is much more widely trusted within their own country than the balkanized media in the US, and less prone to promulgate propaganda. This splintering of the US media landscape with the advent of cable media has been corrosive to public trust in general, and trust in the media and government in particular.)
- People in general need to understand that democratic norms and values are not something to be casually discarded in order to get a political win. They are the glue that holds a democratic society together. People need to feel respected and that their neighbors are just as deserving of trust and respect. If you prioritize personal power, money, or scoring political points over sticking to those norms and values, as people in the US have been increasingly doing, your society will rot from within, as has been happening in the US for some decades.

This is not to say that other long-standing democratic countries don't have their own issues and don't suffer from democratic decline. They do, but in general, much less rapidly and violently than the US.

As far as whether those tools will be effectively implemented in the US, I have serious doubts, and am very much afraid the event horizon has been crossed. I hope I am wrong, but I don't see a path out from here. Other democratic countries have already started the process of backing away from the unpredictable country with multiple personality disorder that used to be their ally.

[greenline]

If the solution is not concentrating too much political power in one place, why does every solution for this inevitably involve granting as much power as possible to the legislative branch and journalists?

[Zed-F]

It doesn't. Checks and balances mean just that.

[greenline]

There are few natural checks to Congress passing a million laws that say, "The previous check used by the executive branch is now illegal". The Puritans had a hard on for overbearing legislative power.

[Zed-F]

Several other long-standing democratic countries have power concentrated in the legislature, and things are working better there than in the US (politically). Having power concentrated in the legislature doesn't have to be a problem.

Regardless, you're pitting a hypothetical problem against a real, existing current problem of the executive having too much power. I'm more inclined to think the US should address the latter problem while keeping the former in mind, than to remain paralyzed by concern about the former problem while ignoring the latter problem that's actually engendering chaos right now. But I have my doubts the US system will really be able to respond effectively.

[greenline]

Several other long-standing democratic countries have power concentrated in the legislature, and things are working better there than in the US (politically). Having power concentrated in the legislature doesn't have to be a problem.

Regardless, you're pitting a hypothetical problem against a real, existing current problem of the executive having too much power. I'm more inclined to think the US should address the latter problem while keeping the former in mind, than to remain paralyzed by concern about the former problem while ignoring the latter problem that's actually engendering chaos right now. But I have my doubts the US system will really be able to respond effectively.

Which countries are you referring to? All these smug European countries seem to be in just as much hot water. Hordes of Islamic immigrants terrorizing regular citizens, declining economies, and arresting tons of people under various anti free speech laws.

Overbearing legislative and administrative power is no hypothetical problem. It's a very real issue that's stuck around since FDR.

[Zed-F]

I don't agree they are in just as much hot water. Comparing the issues you mentioned with what is going on in politically in the US right now is a false equivalence. Of course there are problems to deal with everywhere. But the US has paralyzed itself with division, and now has someone at the helm who has no real idea what he's doing, who has surrounded himself with people who can't help guide him to sensible policies, and who is happy to blow everything up globally to satisfy his own ego. That's a problem on a whole other level.

[greenline]

The desire to blow stuff up globally is shared by a significant portion of elites and the electorate.

Trump is demolishing our European alliances and NATO! OK. Can you or anyone else actually defend those things from first principles, rather than stubborn inertia? What the hell are they actually good for relative to the cost of maintaining them?

[Zed-F]

If you can't see how having good trading relationships, reliable security partners, and political allies around the world has strengthened and enriched the US since WWII, I have to say there's no point in talking to you. All you want to do is argue, and I'm done.