I’m really not sure it is.
Trump has been vastly incompetent at his job. He hasn’t appointed almost any administrative appointees, he’s embroiled in endless scandals, and he’s basically outsourcing policy to Rand Paul and various thinktanks.
Not that he isn’t doing bad things, but the main thing is that he’s very ineffective and he’s his own worst enemy.
(I am not in the least concerned that a man who hasn’t filled almost any DoD posts is going to launch a coup, so I don’t consider this fear a reason to impeach him.)
Now, there is an argument that he should be impeached simply because, well, he’s committed impeachable offenses. Starting, in my opinion, with the emoluments clause: He very clearly receives money from foreigners every day.
But in political terms, he’s ineffective, and there’s good reason to believe that Pence would be much less ineffective. Pence is a theocrat’s theocrat and will push a set of horrible policies. Plus, Pence doesn’t have foot in mouth disease. Pence will fill up all these administrative slots post-haste with a combination of Christian college graduates and the regular Republican apparatchniks, and he will have enough sense to perform basic tasks properly, like have lawyers check over administrative orders thoroughly.
In short, Pence will be much more effective at doing harm than Trump is.
I think, in terms of harm reduction, a badly wounded, unpopular Trump is far less dangerous than Pence.
The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
different clue
We didn’t impeach Bush Junior for numerous things, including War Crimes ( including the Crime of Aggressive War), Crimes Against Humanity, and other things. Even though he proudly bragged on TV about supporting waterboarding.
And we didn’t impeach Obama for refusing to enforce many important laws, including all the laws most likely broken by the FIRE sector perpetrators in their engineering of the Crash of 2008 so they could profitably root through the ashes. Nor did we impeach Obama for letting the Bushites get off scot free for their brazen violations of solemnly-entered-into Internationa Treaties and Conventions.
So what exactly would we be impeaching Trump for? Because the Democrats didn’t get their Precioussss anointed one Hillary elected? And they wish to overturn an election by quasi-legalistic means? A coup of that sort would get the Trump side ( the side with all the guns) just as upset as the Scalia-Court-theft of the election for Bush Junior got the Gore side ( the side without any guns) upset. Is it worth it just for the LULZ which would flow therefrom?
So let the investigations go forward and see what emerges. If the unavoidably Impeachable gets revealed, then we have no choice. Till then, I am not interested in seeing Impeachment happen. Especially given the FACT that the Clintonite Shitobamacrat Senators will all vote to Remove in order to get President Pence, whom they affect to dislike but whom they secretly accept as being a “Dark Side Clintonite” after their own sick and twisted Clintonite Shitobamacrat hearts.
Creigh Gordon
The Democrats should not block Trump’s impeachment, but they should definitely not be driving the bus. Trump is the Republican’s problem, and Pence would absolutely be worse.
jcapan
I won’t blather on about the “prevailing sentiment of most Usians” from Asia, but I would venture a guess that most on the left agree with this post. It’s the Dem partisans, who’ve always been the true sufferers of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, who will pursue this as long as possible. Anything/everything to avoid admitting they’re (at best) Rockefeller republicans.
Trump vs. Pence is incompetent and evil vs. competent and evil. Which would any sensible person choose. Going into next year’s midterms and 2020, having a blithering ass in the WH should be electoral gold for Democrats. That is, if they embraced the economic populism their base and the working class throughout the country is gagging for. But they’d rather exact revenge and maintain the legacies of the Clinton-Obama wing of the party.
Synoia
I wish for 8 years of Trump, enough time to clear out the Hillery generation of Democrats.
And someone similar to Zephyr Teachout to become a rising D star.
different clue
@jcapan,
I have begun calling them the Klinton Koolaid Kult ( KKK) in hopes the acronym will stick. If anyone likes it, feel free to use it.
Away with Hillzebub and Billzebub! Away I say! !
#NotOneMoreClinton
#Never!Ever!
#NotMyResistance
BlizzardOfOz
Geez, Ian … I hate to say it but it seems like the dread Trump Derangement has finally metastasized in this distant outpost. I thought you’d be better than this clown-tier analysis:
For reference, this is the “emoluments clause”:
Remember – in contrast to the vast majority of holders of the public trust in today’s US – Trump made his money *before* taking office. He’s not profiting *from* the office, and is extremely unlikely (to say the least) to get the now-standard ex post facto bribe.
different clue
@jcapan,
Where in Asia are you at? In a roughly general way?
Ian Welsh
His businesses are accepting money from foreign states. Diplomats stay at his hotels, for one.
Kim Kaufman
The Republican congress is not going to impeach Trump. They’re pushing crap through… they got Gorsuch, they’re confirming more horrible justices and just wait for the new health care bill they’re keeping secret – and can because Trump is sucking all the air out of the media. They’re doing plenty of damage.
#getPence first
nihil obstet
I oppose impeaching Trump for two reasons. The first one you’ve explained in this post. The other is that I’d reserve impeachment for crimes that cannot be addressed in any other fashion. I would have supported impeachment of Bush and Obama for war crimes, since they were carrying out illegal policies in defiance of Congress. I’ve seen a lot of incompetence, silliness, and minor legal infractions from Trump, but nothing that overthrows legislative or judicial authority. The big movement for impeachment appears to be simply that he’s a silly man who doesn’t observe elite etiquette towards those who regard themselves as his peers, and I don’t think that’s good enough.
jcapan
Kobe, Japan
anonone
Trump is doing everything illegal that Bush and Obama did and more! Much More!
Come and see!
It is the greatest reality show on earth!
marku52
If you actually needed more evidence that the Dems have no interest in improving the lives of the citizens, then this ought to push you over the edge.
Bush should have been impeached and tried in the Hague for multiple war crimes. Pelosi and Obama said NO.
Obama should have been impeached for killing US citizens without due process (and more war crimes)
So now Dems want to impeach Trump for what? Talking to the Russians, the same as Hillary did?
Nah, it’s just cuz he aint a proper club member. Just like old money used to look down on new money.
If there was any concern for the citizens in there, then they would realize that Pence would actually be effective, which Trump will never be. I think they are looking forward to making “deals” with Pence, just like Obama was ready to cut SS. Only the intransigence of the Tea Party saved us from that Obama sellout.
Ché Pasa
Impeachment is a political not a legal process, though it has legal aspects and consequences.
The three presidential impeachments that have gotten as far as committee recommendations or trial — Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton — have all been political acts with a veneer of legal justification. Johnson was accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act; Nixon for Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power, and Contempt of Congress;and Clinton for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury.
In each case, members of congress believed that the president had been weakened to such a degree that his removal from office was likely or necessary, yet none was actually removed by the senate. Johnson and Clinton served out their terms; Nixon resigned, though a case can be made that Nixon might well have survived in office had the impeachment process been undertaken fully.
The impeachment of other presidents didn’t happen for political not legal reasons. Bush2 wasn’t impeached, despite manifest evidence of war crimes and worse, for the simple reason that congress largely agreed with or went along with his crimes. As a political matter, there was no way to impeach him. The same was true of Obama.
Whether Trump is eventually impeached is an open question. Politically, it’s not possible at this time, but as accusations accumulate, that could change. Congress does not pledge fealty to the president, and should the need arise, he could face impeachment for any number of political reasons. However, I doubt the senate would be inclined to convict. Unless, of course, their political advantage was enhanced by doing so. So long as Trump is a lightning rod for public outrage and contempt while being hamstrung from doing (too much) harm — beyond what the Republicans in congress want — he’s more valuable in office than out.
Stirling Newberry
First thing first – get your own house in order. The means voting in primaries.
Tom_b
If Pence was in on the Russian treason, you could be talking next-in-line, Paul Ryan. But, we already know Ryan joked about Trump’s numerous Russian connections mid-2016. Maybe Ryan “knew something”. We could be talking Orrin Hatch — who’s after that– Ford Prefect?
Webstir
“Pence is a theocrat’s theocrat … .”
Yup. Right there with Ted Cruz. And I would vote for Trump as lifetime dictator of the world before I’d sign off on either of those two fucking God botherers for PTA.
Lorenzostdubois
Points all well taken, but I have a counter for you:
Nuclear Armageddon.
Honestly I have no idea which poison is worse.
Tomonthebeach
Edvard Munch nicely summed up our current Trumplemma in his painting “The Scream.”
Stirling Newberry
Nuclear Armageddon is always with us – it is a Nash equilibrium. If one side backs off – Another one charges in. For example, North Korea.
Herman
I agree with everything in this post and would add that Pence would be treated as a normal Republican and many people who are currently being galvanized into being interested in politics would go back to being passive. Trump has been good for getting people interested in politics again.
Also, the media would almost certainly treat Pence as a Very Serious Person, just like they do with Paul Ryan, which lends them credibility they don’t deserve. At least with Trump the media seems more open about pointing out how terrible he is although I think sometimes they are unfair to him too. But that is better than giving the president a pass like they did with George W. Bush which led to disasters like the Iraq War and Obama who was often treated with kid gloves outside of right-wing media outlets.
Ché Pasa
@Sterling
Unlike some, I don’t think voting is completely useless, but as a rule it’s not going to get you what you want — assuming what you want is different from what the High and the Mighty want.
Of course if what you want is aligned with what they want, voting will get you there — eventually.
Will
Che: I would humbly offer that it hasn’t ~always~ been that way. The political system in general, and the party apparatus in particular, has changed substantially in the last 60 to 80 years. The old smoke filled back room dealing had some really bad aspects to it but one really good one was that the system tended to deal with problems from the bottom up. There was an effort made to restructure them in a more ~democratic~ way… it ended up producing a sort of consumer politics where the bottom of the party apparatus became extraneous and the decisions were made from the top down. Add an almost unlimited supply of money and you end up with what we have: probably the most corrupt political system that goes under the banner of democracy.
As to impeaching Trump? I’ve got to say that this has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have heard in a long, long time. Go ahead. Do it. The people who are pushing this insane fever dream of “Russian interference” think that this would result in short-circuiting the populist movement. I honestly cannot think of anything that would be more likely to add fuel to the populist fire. And don’t think for one minute that any effort that looked serious wouldn’t result in Trump suddenly remembering his more popular populist campaign promises. He’d play that chaotic mosh pit like a Stradivarius.
Will
Stirling Newberry
If you can’t spell my name – your thought on politics does not call great attention to themselves.
karenjj2
If people would read the “1600 Daily” at Whitehouse.gov, they might conclude as I have that President Trump is performing his duties as he promised during his campaign. His first promise was to shelve the TPP that granted a globalists’ tribunal sovereignty over US law permitting corps to sue Nations while not permitting Nations to sue corps. His second promise was to renegotiate Bush1-Clinton1 NAFTA that made corps equal to Nations with all but people free to cross borders and corps equal to Nations with freedom to sue Nations via the WTO. Two rulings from that globalist body: The “dolphin safe tuna” label is an “unfair trade practice” and labeling the orign of meat in US grocery stores is an “unfair trade practice.” The US congress complied with the ruling. Trump’s third promise is to work on behalf of the United States first and foremost and negotiate with National leaders with RESPECT toward them as equals. Toward that end, he has personally met with 85 or more Heads of State not to mention the 100 Arab leaders that gathered in Saudi Arabia and respectfully listened https://youtu.be/l7TnMn29nZE to his Nationalist agenda and his expectation that they would join in eliminating the funding of terrorism as well as eradicating existing groups. FYI re NGO’s importing African men to continue the destabilization of EU countries. https://youtu.be/AfG1myglfhY
Ché Pasa
Just so, how often do I see reference to “Che”?
@Sturling
Get over it. You’ll survive.
Stirling Newberry
Ché – misstepping a letter in different from the wrong keyboard.
Ché Pasa
@Will
I agree that the way our politics works has changed significantly in the post WWII era, some for the better, some for the worse. The changes for the worse have accelerated in the past 40 years or so.
However, I would submit that the political system was purpose-designed to serve the Right Sort of People — ie: the rich and powerful — to the general detriment of everyone else. That’s why the Rabble has to fight constantly to gain or preserve any rights and benefits. It’s a constant struggle, never-ending. And it’s baked in.
Who benefits from this system changes slightly over time, but the primary beneficiaries are always the best off and most powerful in any given instance.
As for impeachment, there have been any number of opportunities to remove Trump or prevent him from assuming the presidency. Those who might have done it whiffed every time.
The Republican congress is not about to impeach him — unless their political fortunes would benefit by doing so. That point hasn’t been reached, and unless something radical happens (like the shooting in Alexandria this morning?) it probably won’t be.
On the other hand, if Democrats by some miracle become the congressional majority in 2019, we can be almost certain they wouldn’t impeach Trump — because they don’t do that sort of thing, too impolite, yadda yadda.
So he stays.
peteybee
I agree with this completely. Democrats control no branch of government at this time, to imagine they would have a significant voice in shaping the character of a Pence administration is fantasy.
As best we can tell, the Clinton campaign preferred Trump vs the others as their opponent due to how easy it is to ridicule him – and this calculus remains true even with him in the White House.
Getting rid of Trump would simply clear the way for a more palatable, likely more socially regressive, and likely more national-security-obsessed (i.e., belligerent) Republican.
karenjj2
By the way, Ian, you are behind the times with the “is impeaching Trump a good idea.” The past few months have escalated “music and comedy skits” of shooting Trump to the more recent ISIS-like beheading of Trump to the rave reviews of the “modern Shakespeare Caesar play” depicting the assassination of Trump to the audience’s delight last week.
People are becoming acclimated to the idea of Trump’s assassination.
From July 2016, the media has been on a 24/7 anti-Trump message escalating to the anti-Trump “women’s march” on Inaugural Day and weekend to national anti-Trump rallies and marches featuring black-clad, masked and increasingly violent “protestors” to the recently announced change of the California Gay Pride parade to an anti-Trump parade.
Basically, Trump has put a monkey wrench 🔧 in the culmination of the New World Order initiated in the 50’s inexorably leading to today’s Mideast chaos, the inundation of the EU by 60 million “refugees” (war by other means; similar to the USian embargoes including Yemen as well as total embargoes of 3 Nations: Cuba, Libya and Syria) and the continuing impoverishment of North, Central and South Americans.
The change from the 11-month old anti-Trump message to the assassinate-Trump message may have come out of the recent Bilderberg Group meeting of the globalists the first weekend of June. https://youtu.be/6umAqxvP8to
Will
Ché: Please excuse the lack of accent on my posts referencing you. It was an oversight on my part and I wasn’t trying to insult you. I disagree with most everything you write but what the hell, that is true of most people and I’d go crazy trying to insult everyone who had a different opinion than myself. :p
On the impeachment I kind of agree. We’ve been shown time and again that one of the most useful things about being the minority party is being able to showboat and take stands that may be popular with your base… only to do a complete about face when regaining power. Scorched earth has its price however and I think you see it all around. One of the things about continual exposure to corrosives is that they are, indeed, corrosive. Given time they will weaken and eventually take down just about anything. Decades of graft, corruption, hypocrisy, and the rest have done their work. We’re running on fumes.
As far as the part about the system always being slanted. Well yeah, I do agree somewhat. But I think you can go past honest assessment and into the realm of hard cynicism. And I think you might be there.
Sure some of the founders were completely comfortable with having an elite running things. But it wasn’t across the board and it wasn’t for all issues. Could you honestly say that Franklin wouldn’t be pleased as punch to see the widespread voting rights we have now? I say he’d smile. Hamilton would probably have a heart attack. Jefferson and most would be appalled at the way big money has corrupted things. Madison would be outraged to see how large we have allowed banks to become. Just about every one of them would probably cringe at the empire we have created. Especially one so constructed as to kill US independence and self sufficiency.
If it makes you feel any better the folks around in 200 years will consider our beliefs to be just as reactionary, implausible, sentimental and naive as we do those of the people who lived through the founding of this nation.
Will
Kronos
Currently, there is not enough to impeach. But why rule it out? Impeachment is not just a pragmatic operation. Sometimes you gotta impeach on principle. It’s simple deterrence theory in action. It sends a message that we, as a country, have some standards for our president. If we tolerate corruption, ineptitude, and all other kinds of deficiencies now what will we tolerate in the future. And let’s be honest, not impeaching Trump will not stop the GOP from trying to impeach the next Democrat president. That’s not how they operate.
Let’s also be honest that impeachment is not the end-goal. The goal is to operate by the GOP playbook. Keep up investigations that create subpoenas and testimonies under oath. In other words, keep the heat on as a form of obstruction and leverage. The GOP has mastered this and made this the norm.
Ché Pasa
@ Will
No problem. My real life surname sounds like a common word in English, but it’s not English, and it’s been misspelled all my life. One abides.
I don’t think our founders knew any other way to set up a government that would satisfy their elite needs and keep the Rabble more or less tame. Given their colonial experience and the history of the English Civil War and the Protectorate and Restoration — all of which was very much on their minds — what came out of their efforts was about as good as could be expected.
But it wasn’t for the masses, and it still isn’t, despite improvements over the centuries.
I’m an optimist, though. Hardly a cynic at all!
Dan Lynch
Ian, in light of the shooting today by a Bernie bro, your October 17, 2016 post “You Can’t Scream Holocaust or Fascist Without Consequences” deserves a bump.
Peter
Now that Ian has joined the Optimists because the Corbyn Commies have done so well in the UK, delivering trainloads of Hopium to the needy left I hoped we would see inspiring fantasies about a collectivist future. Corbyn’s manifesto had plenty to work with including, free parking, nationalized oil, plenty of tax/borrow and spend along with children voting.
Instead we get this passive-aggressive snowflake drive-by to highlight the Clintonite loser impeach Trump meme. The Clintonites in congress have filed a court case aimed at forcing Trump to ritually destroy his life’s work and family legacy because of some petty transactions involving foreigners enjoying classy hotel room rentals. The Clintonites don’t have any real power or ideas and this action just shows everyone that sore losers and sour grapes is all they will ever have to offer.
I don’t think the climate Warmers or free trade worshipers think Trump is ineffective and even those people trying to save the crumbling Obamacare can see their defeat on the near horizon.
Willy
Peter, what the hell is a Clintonite? Why are they even relevant any more?
realitychecker
@ Will
Bravo. Reasonable, rational, balanced. Much appreciated.
someofparts
Regarding the prospect of Nuclear Armageddon, I spotted this in comments at Suburban Guerrilla. Maybe this became unavoidable when Trump declined to staff the Dept of State? It frustrates me even more that our misleaders want to hand these guys even more money than the fortune they already get.
>Gen. John W. Nicholson, who is running the war in Afghanistan, made the decision to drop the Mother Of All Bombs all on his own. Trump found out that the MOAB had been dropped while watching FOX news. Gen. Nicholson is demanding that Trump send him an additional 10,000 American soldiers in order to “win” a war that Bush lost when he invaded the country in 2001
>Adm. Harry B. Harris runs all Pacific rim operations. Harris indicated to the administration that he would be sending an “armada” of US naval ships to North Korea. Trump publicly announced that an “armada” was steaming toward North Korea as he spoke.
In fact that “armada” was actually sailing toward Australia.
Ooooooops.
>Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend runs the wars in Syria and Iraq. Anything that occurs militarily in either of those countries, Lt. Gen. Townsend has ordered to happen without any input from Trump. Townsend, like Nicholson, wants an additional 10,000 US troops. 5000 for Syria and 5000 for Iraq.
The military brass is formulating our military and foreign policy – not the Commander-in-Chief [or] the State Department. They are relying heavily on Israeli intelligence in their decision making process.
realitychecker
Apologies if this is too far off topic, but what do folks think about the Bernie supporter doing all that shooting this morning?
sid_finster
It’s not that Team D expects to influence a Pence Administration, it’s that Team D has a playbook for people like him.
Pence can be counted on to color within predictably partisan lines, leaving both legacy parties free to squabble over wedge issues whilst coming together to plot more wars and carve up the remnants of Social Security and Medicare in a “grand bargain”.
Mandos
The principal means of politics in a highly structured, hierarchical representative democracy is via High Drama. Drama creates emotion, emotion creates engagement, engagement creates votes. Impeaching Trump is up to the Republicans, without them, it’s just drama, and that drama is smart politics, from the point of view of those poised to reap the benefits of it. So the question is, how to reap the benefits of the drama for positive change, and if that is not being done, then why not?
Stirling Newberry
Not surprised: the liberals need to be organized, the conservatives need to demand more. Otherwise the radicals will rebel: because they are dying. Death is a powerful motivator.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
So, the “drama” appears to have gotten heightened this morning in Virginia.
Are you happy, sad, indifferent, what?
Should the anti-violence agenda now be eclipsed by the “Let’s Kill Trumpies” agenda? With all that implies?
Untwisting their own rhetorical knots is what the left will now be compelled to begin to do, and it is long overdue for THAT to happen.
bob mcmanus
…but what do folks think about the Bernie supporter doing all that shooting this morning?
50 shots fired and a half dozen minor injuries?
I think we need more and better Democrats.
Willy
@Trump vs Pence
If the conditions creating the growing populism are real, does it even matter? With Trump we get to observe a con artist adept at taking advantage of average people for personal gain. With Pence we get to observe an unwitting dogmatic working on behalf of elites adept at taking advantage of average people for personal gain. Either way, things will continue to get worse, for more. And more people will be forced to figure it out. I don’t know if between Trump or Pence, who would speed up the process more. Maybe elites will have to create newer better versions of Obama. Or another fake populist. But I’d think that eventually, if the mob cannot know who to trust, they won’t trust any of these people at all.
Anybody know of a this-side-of-the-pond version of Corbyn before that all happens?
Heliopause
It would certainly be a bad idea to impeach Trump for the reasons you give, but the point should be made that he really can’t be impeached for at least the next 18 months or so, barring a truly extraordinary development. You see, his approval rating amongst the GOP base is still sky high and these are the people who reliably vote in midterms, so virtually nobody in the House GOP caucus has an incentive to do anything this drastic. If the Dems take the House in ’18 or Trump suffers a virtually unprecedented drop in his own party’s approval then maybe, but neither of those things seem highly likely at this point.
The Stephen Miller Band
I think he took your advice and performed his own violent revolution. You have more influence than you think. How many more who have taken your advice are in The Pipeline waiting their turn, I wonder? Only time will tell.
Of course, if he had taken my advice, he wouldn’t have done what he did. It was senselessly tragic. Violence is not the answer, it’s the result THEY want. They’re conjuring it. Enabling it. It’s Violence by Numbers versus Painting by Numbers, meaning the perpetrator just has to relinquish his/her mind to the awesome power of persuasion and the rest takes care of itself — it’s that easy.
The Media will tell you what to do. Just trust it. Hell, you don’t even have to trust it and it will still tell you what to do, and most will do it.
realitychecker
@ bob
“I think we need more and better Democrats.”
Interesting point to ponder. What would the values of those Democrats look like?
I submit that “incoherent” would be a good response to that query (guns, violence, rule of law, etc.), but that’s just me who does simple logic lol.
Seriously, why can’t more lefties address and reject all these obvious contradictions in their own professed positions?
Can’t build a superior moral or ethical position by embracing these kinds of contradictions. And the contradictions are legion right now, and very blatant.
Willy
…but what do folks think about the Bernie supporter doing all that shooting this morning?
Based on comments from wingnut websites, there are still too many gun nuts on a mission from a god who is telling them that bernie bros are the real enemy. These people would still make a formidible human shield who would resist any attempt to disable the status quo.
Willy
Violence is not the answer, it’s the result THEY want.
Indeed. Millions of guns aimed at the citizenry (for their own good of course), is what kept the USSR intact for so long.
different clue
I wonder if this morning’s shooter being referrenced up above is a false-flag Clintonite sent to create a media narrative-stub to be used for discrediting Bernie-supporters.
Because after all, it was the Clintonites who were crying Holocaust and Fascist. Not the Bernies.
realitychecker
@ TSMB
Right-e-o, fool, I made it happen. I have that power.
Now, wire me any money you have in your bank account!
In fairness, you are not the only one here who can’t distinguish between predictive analysis and open advocacy for the prediction. People like you don’t deserve to have access to the good predictive analysts that are among us.
Because you are apparently more comfortable with superstition than analysis.
NOTE TO GROUP: History is going to do what history is gong to do. I won’t be changing it, and neither will you. But it’s probably smarter to want to see what is coming. Just sayin’.
Heliopause
“what do folks think about the Bernie supporter doing all that shooting this morning?”
Hmm, not sure. What do you think of the Obama voter and Rachel Maddow fan who did all that shooting this morning?
realitychecker
@ Heliopoise
“What do you think of the Obama voter and Rachel Maddow fan who did all that shooting this morning?”
Do we know those facts yet? I don’t. Wouldn’t make any difference to me, anyway. Why would it, in your opinion?
(You may have a serious misconception about where my sympathies lie.)
Heliopause
“Do we know those facts yet?”
It’s in the same reporting that indicates “Bernie supporter.”
“Wouldn’t make any difference to me, anyway. Why would it, in your opinion?”
It doesn’t, no thinking person would blame Bernie or Maddow or Obama for his actions.
bob mcmanus
Can’t build a superior moral or ethical position
Bourgeois narcissism, this isn’t about scoring Brownie Points with whatever Daddy will approve of your rational, cautious, well-balanced optimism.
This is about preventing people we like and people like us from getting murdered by people not like us and who don’t like us, the Republicans. They want me dead, and are taking pro-active steps to make it happen.
This isn’t about universal principles that will stand for all time and places. I look out and 1/3 of what I see are existential enemies who will likely cause the death of billions. AGW.
I am not comforted by a future prospect of a dead world and my moral righteousness. This is what is “as bad as them” not taking up arms to stop them.
Will it work? Will the consequences be all roses and sunshine, and should I develop my perfect plan before I stop the racist starving the children?
I have neither the right or responsibility to determine what happens after. I’m not in charge.
realitychecker
@ Helio & bob
You guys need to get together on this, you seem to have opposite POVs, and neither matches up very well with my own.
In truth, my POV is a work in progress, and I think we are just getting to the interesting part of the conversation I’ve been trying to have for a long time; enough premises are in place now that I should not have to lay a new foundation for believing in the consent of the governed, and other such basic concepts.
But here is where it gets interesting; those who approve of shooting the “bad guys,” vs. those who just don’t want to take the blame for it.
In here lie the true moral challenges. I’d like to see some serious responses, for a change, Just as a matter of analysis ( for the millionth time).
Hugh
The Republicans, and their leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, don’t have the stones to impeach Trump. It is not like Trump planned it that way because he doesn’t plan much of anything, but Pence is excellent anti-impeachment insurance. Trump chose him as an easy bone to throw to evangelicals during the election, but his steely-eyed religious nuttery makes for a very effective impeachment repellent. Then there is Elaine Chao, Trump’s Transportation Secretary and Mitch McConnell’s wife. If there is one thing Trump understands, it’s nepotism. And that bit of grease he delivered to McConnell has the added benefit of keeping the impeachment genie at bay.
Then there are the Democrats. They have absolutely nothing to offer voters, except that they are not Trump. If Trump goes away, they won’t have even that. They want Trump, the clown, the fool, the liar, to be front and center because it takes the spotlight off them and their moral and policy bankruptcy. And at the same time, Trump does their work for them. How could they hope to top a spectacle like Trump’s Dear Leader meets the Twilight Zone first full Cabinet meeting? They could not make up cringe-worthy, grade school, supine sucking up like that in their wildest dreams.
Our system is broken, and Trump is the personification of its brokenness. If Trump were impeached, it would not be to repair anything, but to create and exploit breaks elsewhere. Should Trump be impeached? Of course, along with our whole political class. But the one is as unlikely as the other, for now.
realitychecker
@ Hugh
” . . . along with our whole political class.”
How hard it is to get folks to accept that focus.
bruce wilder
It hardly makes any more sense to remove Trump from office than it did to put him into office in the first place. The deep problem remains: the unresponsiveness of the political system to the mass public interest.
Both political parties are almost fatally out of touch with their popular electoral bases. That’s how Trump rolled to the Republican nomination: he was the only one on stage who could even sound intermittently as if he was in touch with reality.
If you want to hear what insanity sounds like, survey the numerous explanations offered by Saint Hillary for losing the election, or hand-wringing among Democrats on the discovery that 8 years of the President from Goldman Sachs had left the Party out of power in the States, in the Judiciary, in Congress as well as the Executive. And, there was only a primary contest because a 74 year old non-member of the Party was willing to run — no one else stepped forward!
There’s a lot of sound of fury in the media-driven tribalism of American political theatre, but escalating that kubuki to an impeachment proceeding is just intensifying the disease, not curing it.
I do not know if political organization is possible in the fishbowl of Facebook. Somewhere we need to find the space for people to think thru policies that might matter and to defend sensible proposals from the inevitable “alternatives” designed to sink positive change.
realitychecker
@ bob mcmanus
“Can’t build a superior moral or ethical position”
What I meant by that phrase was that the Dems have made a living all my life from posing as the superior party morally and ethically, and that these recent behavioral and rhetorical contradictions are a big problem for them.
Hugh
Re grounds for impeachment, the emolument clause of Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution has already been cited. There is also obstruction of justice and abuse of power with regard to the Russia investigation and the related firing of James Comey the FBI director.
More specifically, I have previously pointed out 18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness: (b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both
and
18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
Hugh
Pardon: the Emolument’s Clause is Article I, Section 9.
Heliopause
“You guys need to get together on this, you seem to have opposite POVs”
I don’t think we have opposite POVs, maybe a disagreement on the utility and necessity of political violence.
“But here is where it gets interesting; those who approve of shooting the ‘bad guys,’ vs. those who just don’t want to take the blame for it.
In here lie the true moral challenges. I’d like to see some serious responses”
Okay, but I’m not sure what Bernie (or Obama or Maddow or the many other influences in his life) have to do with it.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking but I’ll say this; political violence is the most profound action a human being can take. The bar for resorting to it is very high. The moral obligation is to consider the likely consequences of the action for the universe of people likely to be affected. Since, given the current context, the likelihood of anything positive coming out of Hodgkinson’s actions are basically nil (even if I find some of his intended victims reprehensible), and it is easy to imagine a host of negative consequences, I judge his actions indefensible. This is all very basic stuff and I’m not sure it’s what you’re even asking, but there it is.
different clue
We have two different theories of who and what the members of the politisphere want. Hugh thinks the Democrats would rather keep Trump in office as a handy foil. I think the Democrats would rather have Pence for President because he is a part of their political establishment and he supports the same Free Trade Treason Agreements and the same Global Axis of Jihad agenda for Assad-must-go and the same desire for a new cold war with Russia that the Clintonite Democrats share.
So I suppose we’ll see who’s right based on what happens over the next 3.8 years.
Willy
One might be able to determine the degree to which a particular media outlet is in league with The System, by how they present the ‘bernie bro’ angle. Fox news will obviously blame Democrats, MSNBC may imply radical left websites are to blame, etc…
Represent.us has suggested that theoretically, if citizens can remove the reason$ for corruption to be in DC, that corruption will go elsewhere and be replaced by integrity. Of course many here believe that corruption will simply find new weapons to use, including the ruining of that organization. But I believe that regardless, organizations like that provide a locus for System fighters who could move on to other… methods of corruption removal.
Peter
@RC
I don’t know what to think about this now dead shooter or the leaker Reality Winner except that they both had similar partisan blinders on and one is going into the ground while the other goes to prison. It’s possible these incidents show the beginning of the break in the dam of denial holding the snowflakes back from acting out on their anger and rage at waking every morning to a new President Trump tweet.
This is an unstable group of people and as Hugh demonstrates above many have guzzled the Clintonite Kool-Aid parroting fake news about Trump’s supposed crimes.
The Stephen Miller Band
Or, The System is working as it’s meant to work, just not working for The Little People. It’s why I said in another thread…..
Take note that James Hodgkinson went to Washington D.C. presumably to protest. They showed him carrying a large sign saying we should tax The Rich. Anyone who says anything negative about Thew Rich from hereafter is suspected of being a potential shooter. Soon enough, it will be illegal to say anything negative about The Rich.
Type his name RC and piss your boss off. The FBI Agent in charge, in the Press Conference, said he would only mention Hodgkinson’s name this one time indicating the FBI has a policy of not repeating the names of shooters. I noted that RC didn’t mention Hogdkinson’s name in keeping with FBI policy.
The Stephen Miller Band
Peter, The Shooter‘s name was James Hodgkinson. Let me hear you say it. Slowly. Clearly.
I know the last name is tough because it’s three syllables and anything greater than one gives you fits, but I know you can do it if you just take the badge off and put it in the other room for now.
realitychecker
@ Heliopause
First, please accept my abject apology for mis-producing your name above; I should wear my reading glasses more often lol.
“I don’t think we have opposite POVs, maybe a disagreement on the utility and necessity of political violence.”
Precisely. You two are promoting opposite POVs on that precise issue, and that is precisely where the nitty-gritty is on this issue.
Actually, as I’ve urged previously, a rational discussion would start with the “necessity” part, and only secondarily have to explore the more difficult “utility” part.
But these online folks like to jump ahead. (Even to thinking they already know what my ultimate conclusions might be, when I don’t even know for sure yet lolololol.)
I think that makes a coherent discussion less productive and more risky, personally.
realitychecker
@ STMB
Dat be some real crazy there, brah.
Ya can’t fool me into saying Hodgkinson, No suh.
(STMB stares lovingly into the mirror, and purrs to himself, “Right again!”) 🙂
Willy
That’s it? You get your big chance to be the Ted Nugent of the progressives (at least around here), and you talk about risk? WTH kind of facilitator are you? Why not answer your own question to keep it moving?
Heliopause
@realitychecker
I still don’t think “opposite” is quite the right word but I also don’t think it’s worth arguing about.
Paul Anderson
Ian,
Although I understand your reasoning, the failure to prosecute and impeach a whole line of presidents and their conduct is part of what brings us to this pass.
Pence would undoubtedly be worse, but a Mike Pence (or Obama) for whom impeachment and prosecution would be a meaningful (and fresh) prospect, might be less unaccountable.
Mallam
Absurd to view impeachment in a vacuum as if a president Pence is not contaminated and damaged himself. An impeached and removed president would leave a weakened and destroyed Pence, Ryan, or even if we get down to it, Hatch. Trump is an immediate danger no matter how incompetent he is. He needs to be removed ASAP. Of course Republicans control his fate, so what liberals/leftists/etc say is irrelevent until they see danger. Impeachment is political, so for now the left should be yelling impeachment while elected officials say “cross this line and then impeach.” In this case it should be “fire Mueller and we impeach.” He’s already being investigated for obstructing the investigation. Can’t get worse unless he pushes it.
realitychecker
@ Heliopause
OK, but can we at least agree that I articulated the issue accurately?
Hugh
I should point out that Trump also has a real danger of perjury as yet another impeachable offense. The risk comes the moment he is deposed under oath, something that has yet to happen, because the man lies like a rug. He can’t keep his story straight from one day to the next, and sometimes from one moment to the next. Written interrogatories can be managed by his attorneys to minimize this risk, but only in so far as Trump tells them the truth. Not a given. In a oral deposition, his lawyers would need to keep him on a very tight leash, and it is by no means a certainty that they could. But they would still have the problem of reconciling all the different stories Trump has told which a deposition or interrogatory would certainly get into and which would be a perjury minefield. The task is made even harder when you consider that Trump went with a lawyer (Kasowitz) he knew instead of a lawyer he needed (top tier Washington).
Mandos
Nonsense. No point in talking about whether something is needed, if you haven’t decided that it’s useful. If it’s not useful, it can’t possibly be needed.
Hugh
Continuing my previous thought, so if you hear Mueller is going to interview Trump, no oath, no recording, this would largely obviate the perjury danger, but also mean the fix is in.
jackiebass
The biggest threat is in the republican controlled congress. Especially the house but also the senate because of who is their leader. Trump will sign everything, even if it contradicts his campaign promises and beliefs, what ever they happen to be. The only check is in the senate where there are a few centrist republicans. That’s shaky because the leadership can exert tremendous pressure on them to tow the line. It is a bad thin to haven party to control all three branches of government. This applies to both parties because you get extremes. I don’t know the solution because we have become so polarized that compromise is almost impossible. It’s compromise that produces better policy for all.
Hugh
jackiebass, we live in a kleptocracy, rule by thieves. We can be robbed by Republicans, or Democrats, or both, but we will be robbed. Under such conditions, what does compromise even mean?
realitychecker
@ Mandos
First, it would be good to discuss the necessity, aka the justification, for armed resistance.
Only a moron would argue that this should not be done before exploring whether there are tactics that could allow a revolution to be effective, i.e., the utility of doing it. The utility only becomes relevant if one is first open to the idea of resistance in the first place, then it makes sense to consider whether specific tactics offer more upside than downside, i.e., cost vs, benefit.
But all the geniuses here insist on discussing the tactics first; by ‘discussing’ I mean dismissing the whole topic, without even having any understanding of what kind of tactics might be available.
Many even go the next step and assume they know what my position would be at the end of a proper discussion, which is false. I only seek discussion when I think there may be things to explore that could determine my final position.
Unfortunately, what I see here, and elsewhere, is a flat refusal to consider either leg of the issue with any sincerity.
OK, now we have the events of yesterday to add to the fact pattern. Do we support the kind of thing that happened yesterday, or not? If not, why not?
At the least, it may help people who are blinkered ideologues to deal with the reality of where we are, and where we are heading. It is not a place where snowflakes will thrive.
Ché Pasa
RC
Almost everything you write in that comment is false. That being so, a “discussion” — as you call it — with you about Revolution is impossible. You simply refuse to accept what anyone has to say about the topic unless it aligns with your preconception. What you’re doing is transparent and not benign.
As for the actions of Mr. Hodgkinson yesterday, so? That’s what you get when the Pandora’s Box of violent political rhetoric and incitement to violence is opened as it was during the campaign last year.
The wonder is that there haven’t been more actions like his against more of the political class. The street brawls have become mundane. The lack of politesse or even common courtesy toward and by politicians is widespread, and there was the spectacle of a Republican congressman on my teevee yesterday crying and pleading “we’re all family” — can’t we just get along? Pleeeeeese?
Revolution? No. This is a natural, predictable, inevitable consequence of the Chaos following in train with the political spectacle in DC and around the country and well beyond.
Revolution occurs quite apart from this mess.
And this mess is precisely what you and many other Trump devotees voted for.
We must heighten the contradictions…
Mandos
Nope. If something is not going to work, it’s besides the point to talk about whether you need to do it. We really need cheap interstellar travel, I mean, like yesterday, but since it’s not technically feasible and probably will never be, discussing why we might need it is besides the point.
Mandos
Precisely. RC imputes bad faith to everything that does not fit a narrow structural template which he has decided in advance for reasons only fully knowable to him. He is but a very vociferous exemplar of the failure of a certain kind of progressive politics.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
You continue to be a moron.
@ Che Pasa
You are so dishonest, it is almost admirable lol.
We have never even BEGUN any sincere discussion of revolution here, or elsewhere, where any significant participation occurred. (Excepting only Willy, who says he comes here to “troll” me, so hardly a sincere discussion there.)
I challenge you to provide any evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, an apology for an honest error on your part would be appropriate.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
For clarity: You’re a moron because your way necessarily implies a permanent acceptance of slave status.
You have no way to effectuate the consent of the governed principle. I’m a fucking savage, I guess, because I still believe that is the basic principle that determines the legitimacy of any governmental authority.
I just wish you could be more honest about it.
Ché Pasa
RC
Transparent falsehood.
That’s it. Done.
realitychecker
Give us some quotes, Che Pasa you asshole, or be revealed for the sloppy propagandist you are.
Your choice. Asshole.
Mandos
Before talking about “effectuating the consent of the governed”, one must first talk about where that consent comes from. Then we can talk about effectuating it. Talk about reason, eh?
realitychecker
@ Mandos
Go ahead, then, and tell us where that consent comes from, in your POV. I would have thought that the opinions of the voters would have been a good enough answer, but you are the Master of Mindfuckery, so, go ahead, have at it.
You do know about the Northwestern study a few years ago that found ZERO correlation between what people voted for and what their elected reps gave them, over a period of decades. don’t you?
ZERO CORRELATION!
Please account for that FACT in your explanation. I can hardly wait.
Willy
Excepting only Willy, who says he comes here to “troll” me, so hardly a sincere discussion there.
No, the sincere discussion is happening here now. You’d still be doing the snapping turtle at passersby if it wasn’t for my snapping at you.
I have already accepted “necessity”, and explained why many times (you blew it off as “cynicism and cheap humor”). The “utility” part involves form, as ‘in what form should this thing take for best odds of success?’ But again, you blow off all of my comments which imply that utility must consider the variable of our current culture.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
You know, it’s always a bit of a challenge to find a lowest common denominator that all can agree on as a place to begin a complex discussion/analysis from.
But only one such as you can signal that consent of the governed is not a low enough common denominator for us to begin from.
I guess you want to have an extended exploration of the theoretical underpinning of the political theories about whether the governed deserve any consent?
Or can’t we assume that in a system where the vote is the accepted formal mechanism for the People’s input, some efficacy for that vote is the standard we can reasonably demand?
Whatev, right? Go ahead, dazzle us. Don’t forget to get around to that ZERO CORRELATION FACT.
realitychecker
@ Willy
OK, the turtle image made me grin. Point for you. 🙂
The funny thing is that you’ve said many things I agree with, and I’ve indicated that, but you mostly want to joust with me, and that is not what I come here for. So, I don’t feel like you are worth getting serious with, and I don’t have much trust for your judgment in a conversation which is by its nature a bit edgy.
Typing is a chore for me, and I don’t want to waste my energy. I hope to learn, to teach, and to explore. I grew up in Brooklyn, I can play the verbal abuse game as well as anybody, but it is a waste of time for me.
I’d prefer to stay civil, and focused. But if you don’t play that way, don’t go crying to the host because I amused myself by calling you a name or two. (Names you can’t even type without laughing yourself!)
We’ll see.
Mandos
This is your rudimentary error, but there is no shame in that, as it is a common one. The root of the problem is that representative democracy — isn’t. That is, if you mean “democracy” to mean implementation of the majority policy preferences, then representative democracy isn’t that and was never intended to be that. That was the whole point. That is also why the system is so complex and hierarchical.
When you are electing a representative, you are giving consent to that person to participate in governing you. ie, to specialize in the forms of knowledge and the daily tasks of decision-making, because the whole point of representative “democracy” is that you and I are not deemed competent to make those decisions, but instead choose someone we want to do that on our behalf for whatever reason. That is the consent a voter gives when she votes. That is how the popular will is effectuated — by the installation of someone who is entrusted with developing the skills to obtain influence to benefit his constituents.
Is that right? Maybe not. I have personally a stronger belief in the ability of the public, when it is used to exerting collective power, to make decisions en masse. But there’s no reason, even under the best of conditions, to assume that there will be a strong correlation with the policy preferences of individual voters and what happens when the representative assemble.
That is why in previous threads I have emphasized that the correct unit of political analysis is not the policy option but the political career, when discussing matters specific to representative democracy.
Mandos
*snort* *giggle* *hic*
different clue
About Trump facing perjury risk if he says anything under oath . . . he ( or his lawyer) could say he can’t tell the difference between truth and perjury because of early stage Alzheimers disease.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
You say:
\”This is your rudimentary error, but there is no shame in that, as it is a common one. The root of the problem is that representative democracy — isn’t. That is, if you mean “democracy” to mean implementation of the majority policy preferences, then representative democracy isn’t that and was never intended to be that. That was the whole point. That is also why the system is so complex and hierarchical.\”
You are the one in error, because once again your argument proves too much. It would allow ZERO correlation between what the governed consented to with their votes, and what their \”representatives\” delivered. Even on basic domestic issues. All the time. Forever, if they choose it. Ridiculous. Very ridiculous.
My position is that common sense requires the interpretation that there must be SOME REASONABLE amount of correlation between what the people vote for, and the results they get, or even the paradigm that the elected officials are our agents fails entirely. And the government loses its claim to legitimacy. I am pretty sure I have the better side of that argument. Others may weigh in, if they care.
BUT OK, for now, you go ahead and propose a better way to measure when the consent of the governed is or is not getting an acceptable amount of respect and deference. Because right now you are saying that that consent is irrelevant. Pretty radical, I\’d love to see you defend that. Perhaps you are rejecting the Declaration of Independence in its entirety If that is where you want to go, have at it.
But don\’t think I haven\’t noticed how far you are trying to take this discussion from the overall topic we started with. We are still searching for that lowest common denominator that we can agree on, apparently, before discussing whether a revolution is justified. Just searching for a starting point.
You have the ball in your court, all eyes are upon you.
Why is it legitimate for the government to exert power over us?
hvd
Because we silly people need governance and we tolerate our governors. Until we don’t.
hvd
That was an attempt at describing American legitimacy/consent. It is very different, for instance, in Switzerland where they actually understand something of the social compact and legitimacy comes from an interlocking pattern of responsibilities and obligations that the public participates in granting and taking on.
Still other explanations apply elsewhere.
realitychecker
I would say that consent of the governed has been the essential element of governmental legitimacy in what has been referred to as “Western civilization” for the last few hundred years or so.
I can’t believe you guys don’t accept that as a bedrock principle. That consent gets watered down thru the representational device, but ultimately the device must represent the interests of the governed to a reasonable degree, or the whole thing becomes a farce and a fraud.
The theory was laid out in the Declaration of Independence. You might be able to find it online.
Really, I’m shaking my head.
Hvd
I would say so as well. However principles and reality don’t always match. That is why I cited the Swiss as an example of that principle being acted upon in the real world. In the U.S., however, where we all just want to be left alone, sadly, the principles don’t really mean very much. We really don’t understand contracts in America. That’s why the republicans “contract with America” was bracingly ironic.
Mike P.
Sometimes we must look at the obvious when it strikes us in the face as often as this does.
While many Democrats are triumphant at the possibility of doing damage to Trump, and think that, by that, they would do damage to the Republicans, I am imagining the following scenario:
1) Trump is impeached with Republican cooperation (which is obviously necessary).
2) President Pence becomes the “adult” in the room, and proceeds to garner enough Democratic Party
support to achieve more than Trump would imagine.
3) Democrats are then allowed to claim this was inevitable; they could do nothing, but they tried.
4) Their election possibilities are enhanced due to the obvious destructive results of step 2.
5) Democrats do not undo the Republican policies; they take advantage of them to increase power.
6) We are trapped into the further bipartisan authoritarian government we all fear.
Could this be the Democrats’ unstated goal all along? It does accomplish all we have seen so far in their behavior. It is simple, and does not ascribe weakness to them, as the pundits do erroneously.
different clue
@MikeP.
Yes, this would explain the current DLC ThirdWay Neo-Liberal Clintonite Obamacrat Party that we now have. This would explain why they fraudulated the primary process so hard to make sure that Sanders would not win the DemParty nomination.
And the predictive power of this analysis will be tested by whether or not the Clintobamacrats work with just-enough key Republicans to get Trump removed in favor of Pence. If they do, then that proves that “they are what we thought they were.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmQbk5h86w
Ché Pasa
The only way that would happen is if A) Pence wanted to be president rather than sucking up to Glorious Leader; B) He made a deal — which of course he would break — with a sufficient number of Dems and disaffected Rs to enable impeachment in the House (no easy task at this time) by assuring them that he would not be too much of a god-botherer while on the throne; and C) Trump screwed up too many times in too many ways to be tolerated by the government’s sponsors and owners.
So far, that isn’t even close. Trump provides endless entertainment for the rubes, unprecedented profits for the media, only a modest uptick in the killing spree domestically and overseas (though that looks to be changing for the worse) and superb enhancements to the wealth and power of the highest of the mighty.
He’s also almost completely hamstrung from doing anything substantial that his own owners and sponsors don’t want him to do. He’s more useful to them in office than out.
Ché Pasa
Oh dear. Looks like Pence is in the crosshairs too. Surely no one is grooming Ryan. But then there’s always Hatch. Grandfatherly, isn’t he? Or maybe some Colonel or other… you never know.
Mandos
OK, I decided to actually take a look at the Northwestern study you mentioned (I had heard of it in the past but not read it in detail). I *think* you are talking about Gilens and Page, 2014, which anyone can find easily via a search engine. The paper is extremely interesting and confirms empirically the influence of wealth on policy outcomes — although that is not surprising. But “zero correlation” does not mean what you seem to think it means, which the paper itself obliquely points out.
Positive correlation -> the policy view of an individual citizen has a greater-than-chance likelihood of being reflected in policies chosen.
Zero correlation -> the policy view of an individual citizen has only a chance likelihood of being reflected in policies chosen
Negative correlation -> the policy view of an individual citizen has a greater-than-chance likelihood of resulting in the policy *not* being chosen.
Zero correlation is what you would expect if the system is aggregating preferences across very disparate viewpoints. If correlation with citizens’ viewpoints is the only criterion you apply to legitimacy, then the system is “fair” at zero correlation. This is probably not the legitimacy criterion you want to apply.
(The paper really is worth reading. For example, the aggregate policy preferences of mass popular movements as a whole also has zero correlation with overall public preference, and even the policy preferences of *elite business advocacy groups* has a near-zero negative correlation with the policy views of *business elites*. This does not mean that business elites don’t have *vastly* outsized influence; it merely means that advocacy groups are aggregating a very diverse constituency, at all levels. Important to note, as the paper does, is that there is an extremely high correlation between average citizen policy preferences and economic elite policy preference, citizens agree with elites most of the time…)
What the paper says is that in bivariate analysis, the popular will is indeed highly correlated with public outcomes, but in multivariate analysis, where the popular will is matched up against elite will, elite will is a massively stronger predictor, and the situations in which the popular will is being served are wholly explained by elite will. *Interest groups*, including broad based ones, have smaller, but high correlation with policy outcomes, but interest groups also have, overall, zero correlation with the public (see above), even if they may represent broad altruistic interests.
But this result is wholly in keeping — again as the authors point out themselves — with the aims of a hierarchical, complex system of representation. Indeed, the geographically-based FPTP electoral system that the US shares with Canada and the UK is explicitly intended to represent shared interest by class, with land/home ownership as proxy, better than any other interest.
There is a correlation, as the paper said, it is merely that, when popular preferences conflict with elite preference, there is a slight (-.1 correlation between public views and business group views) tendency for elite preference to win. Entirely and explicitly intended by the American system — it is working as its designers wanted.
This is a bit strange. It’s as though “consent” and “legitimacy” were magic tokens, and you are demanding from me an explanation of the right magic ritual to confer these tokens. This is easy at an individual level — what an individual agrees to, is consent. At a collective level, we need systems to confer it, and the USA has a very specific kind of system that leads to particular outcomes, and those outcomes are relatively predictable from the choices of the designers, as the Gilens and Page study confirms. So, as I said on a previous thread, your choices are either to attempt to (1) optimize how one uses the system or (2) supplant the system — I have given suggestions about what is necessary for (1), but you call me names for it. And avoid telling me, what you’re going to do for (1) or (2). Because the “ball” has always been “in your court” on that.
No, you made the assertion that necessity was prior to utility in terms of discussion. I disagreed with that. There’s no point in talking about whether you need a revolution unless a revolution is something you have a way to succeed at, whether it will do any good, etc. I need a time travel machine, you know.
I think not, except insofar as I may provide entertainment or education to others.
Apparently, it just does.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
Well, Mandos, congratulations. Your efforts here have succeeded in proving that nothing matters except to keep sitting at our keyboards and blathering nonsense at each other.
You leave us without a stone to stand upon.
Not even respect for the consent of the governed. The government oppresses because it can, learn to love it. Amirite?
The Masters cannot rule without their Resident Mindfuckers. Mandos is the Master of Mindfuckery.
Not worth typing all the pages that it would take to correct all this errant bullshit you’ve offered up to deny the obvious, which is that the People are told they own the country, but they get nothing done the way the People want. There are clear numbers on major policy preferences that get ignored by our legislators decade after decade.
There is no consent, but Mandos says it doesn’t matter anyway because the government will just do what it wants. We are and must remain helpless.
And don’t even have a right to expect more. IOW, we are slaves.
Let’s all follow Mandos into perpetual slavery.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
From Ian’s current post:
“I am reminded of what Mark Twain wrote about the Terror.
“THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
‘Nough said.”
Your positions seem to leave seem to leave us in a very hopeless place, constantly accepting meaningless symbolic crumbs, and never getting anything substantively close to what we want.
You do not seem to understand the difference between form/style/symbolism, and substance. You are constantly seen to be raising the former above the latter in importance.
And the collateral damage of that is that you succeed in moving us away from even having the discussion about revolution.
Because you’re not sure what legitimate cause is, and because it would all be doomed to failure anyway.
That is why we keep disagreeing. And that is why you are nothing but a rhetorical tarbaby.
My bad for choosing to touch you. 🙂
realitychecker
For any who care about views that differ from Mandos’:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
And, the authors’ own concluding sentence from their abstract:
“Multivariate analysis indicates that economic e
lites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts
on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence.”
Wake me up when we get to the part where we can start a discussion from an agreement about the primary and essential importance of the consent of the governed.
Putting off the dangerous conversations is the eternal function of the Mindfucker Class. The CIA knows that. No reason why we should not know that, too.
Mandos
No, not at all. First you must understand what it is you’re confronted with, ideally without dependence on overburdened metaphysical concepts (like the conference of “legitimacy”), before deciding whether some particular means of action is called for. Which is what we were arguing right at the beginning. Right now you are confronted with a particular system that leads to particular outcomes.
It turns out that those outcomes are (surprise!) what the system was designed to produce given the inputs it has. That is the result of the Princeton/Northwestern study, basically. So you have options. Those options are, find what advantages you can inside that system, or find a way to supplant that system. For example, when you have a way to supplant that system, then we can talk about whether it is necessary to apply it. Again, that was the basic discussion, and what I’m saying is really quite elementary, but you’re focused on rooting out the (seemingly) ideologically impure, it seems.
Your only route to getting the “substance” you want is finally to accept that it is not easily separable from the symbolism to which you seemingly wish to blind yourself.
Read it carefully, which you seem to be unable to do. Independent influence. Meaning, influence over the comparatively residual left over from the very large proportion of things on which all groups agree. When that zone of agreement is so large, it means that the public actually believes things that are self-harming in the first place, so independent elite influence is not that significant.
Again, if you want to understand where you really stand here, you should first check this kind of political metaphysics at the door.
Not only should you know it, you should also know how to shape the public discussion, because you’re leaving a major battlefield to your opponents.
I look at the great performance of Jeremy Corbyn, and I see that in part he has the backing of his own (good) propagandists, like Ken Loach. I watched Loach’s heartbreaking film from a few months ago, and I knew when I heard that he was backing Corbyn that Corbyn had, among other things, the big guns on his team for once. He didn’t leave that flank uncovered.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
“overburdened metaphysical concepts (like the conference of “legitimacy”)”
Unacceptable on its face. Your brain just goes down some very strange rails. There is always some generally shared concept of legitimacy, even if it is legitimacy by divine right or by brute force.
We usually honor consent of the governed as our yardstick, but you can’t do that for some reason.
“. . .when you have a way to supplant that system, then we can talk about whether it is necessary to apply it.”
Mandos, wrong again. The tactics involved would have to include a lot of very ugly stuff, no reason to wade through all that stuff and bring unwanted attention to ourselves if there is no legitimately agreed on reason to think about having a revolution. There is some overlap once the discussion begins, but initially one must decide if one needs, or cares enough to, fight for one’s freedom. That invokes a combinations of morals/values and also of pragmatism, i.e., what can be done, what would the results be.
Again, both of these points of yours just serve to delay the discussion and keep us unfocused (like the Masters want, btw).
I won’t read your comment any further, except that, form/style/symbol always shares some reality-space with substance, it is the prolportions that count. You are too heavy on the symbols, and way too light on the substance. e measure substance by results, not by intentions or rhetoric.
realitychecker
Edit: “proportions that count”
“We measure substance by results”
realitychecker
Where the fuck did Mandos go?
Mission accomplished? Discussion derailed?
This is what the left intellectuals have become. Legitimacy and consent of the governed are no longer relevant.
Relentless mindfuckery.
Mandos
I, uh, do sometimes have other fish to fry. And you said that you “wouldn’t read my comment any further”, which I took as a cue that you had lost interest in my responses. In any case, we would go around in circles because I would answer your latest missives with things I had said upthread.
realitychecker
@ Mandos
This time, you’re right. 🙂
realitychecker
@ Mandos
I’m off to tend a friend’s farm for awhile, so probably won’t be here very much.
I do want you to know that I don’t think you are malevolent, just miscalibrated. I hope I at least prompt you to consider some alternate thought-paths. 🙂
elkern
I strongly agree that we (Progs/Dems/Greens/Lefts/whatever) should stop focusing on Impeaching Trump. Yes, he’s all the foul things that people claim; but as chronicled in the original post, his incompetence is protecting us all from his malevolence. More importantly right now, it’s protecting us from the organized malevolence of the GOP.
Trump’s insecurity & narcissism drive him to require personal loyalty from all appointees. This has prevented the GOP from quickly stacking the bureaucracy with their apparatchiks, which is great (especially when compared to Reagan or Cheney regimes). And many of the people he’s hiring have ZERO experience in bureaucratic fighting, so they won’t be able to destroy the agencies they “manage”.
Plus, impeachment is a political minefield – for either party – and the Democrats should let the GOP go there alone. If Democrats lead the process, they will get “blamed” for it by the people who (stupidly) voted for him. Let the GOP take that heat! In this case, Dems can have their cake & eat it too – by asking questions that illuminate the truly impeachable offenses , but letting others draw the conclusion, rather than pushing it.
The GOP is stuck with him. Pence would be a reliable tool; but if they impeach Trump, they’ll lose the Populists which put them in power.
So, at least wait until during/after the 2018 midterms, OK?
realitychecker
@ elkern
OK, but right now you should recognize that the Clintons and the Bushes also expect and get “loyalty” from their adherents.
Why would a leader ever want someone close to the seat of power to have mixed motivations while working for him?
Justified or not, loyalty gets demanded by everybody in power.