Jump to content
WYO1016

Biden Administration Inaguration Thread

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I disagree with this. There's some truth to it if we limit that statement to presidential politics, but rural communities often contrast greatly from county to county let alone state to state. 

But, even assuming what you're saying is more true than what I am saying... There's a strong argument that the EC obscures the clear economic issues in rural communities where you have just as wide divisions between the haves and have-nots by pitting those voters against urban voters. To what extent does the EC push things in that direction and exacerbate the problem by incentivizing presidential candidates to consolidate all rural or urban voters under a handful of central culture war issues? If you're only worried about the rural populations of a handful of states, then those states get to set the standard for what count as rural concerns.

The fact of the matter is that the interests of the "rural" voter from someone who's lived and worked in rural communities all my adult life looks looks like the interests of a particular kind of rural voter who cares about a handful of particular issues. That's gotten worse under the EC. Maybe you think it's gotten worse despite the EC, but the fact of the matter is that Trump won in 2016 with the EC by using culture war rhetoric to galvanize a rural voting base largely in the Southeast and Midwest whose governing priorities (trade restrictions and immigration restrictions) are in direct conflict with the interests of a whole heap of rural communities in the West. Those communities are largely made up of immigrants or families of immigrants whose jobs depend heavily on of the free flow of agricultural goods between the US and other countries. To the extent that he tried to govern for our rural communities, it was for a certain segment of our rural communities - the people who owned the farms. Again, the actual role of the EC in that dynamic is complicated, but I don't believe it's as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

A number of concerning trends in American politics have gotten worse in recent decades under the EC. Power has shifted disproportionately to the executive. Our politics have nationalized, to the point where the term "All politics is local" has gone from being a truism to being an anachronism. Rural/urban electoral concerns have consolidated under left/right cultural issues like guns and abortions. And European style populism has ingratiated itself on both the left and the right. All of this has happened under the EC, and seemingly during the same timeframe that the EC has become a central issues to both the left and right. At what point do we start looking at the role the EC has played getting us to where we are now, instead of looking at what might happen if the EC wasn't there?

I'm personally pretty torn about the EC. I actually agree with some of what you've been saying here, especially the concerns about populism but more importantly about the fact that a lot of these concerns are just not that big a deal if the Legislative branch actually acted like it is supposed to act - as the branch that matters the most for passing laws and thus setting the parameters for the chief executive. At the same time, I find it harder and harder to defend the EC as an important safeguard against oppression for rural folks when 1) the Senate already does that and 2) the Executive branch increasingly is the branch vested with the most power for governing. If Senate + President is all that really matters for governing, (as opposed to Senate+House+President) then it increasingly looks more like minority rule under the EC than protecting rural interests. It looks like mostly white rural people are given inordinate power over what happens in America's cities.

 

This is the line of thinking that intrigues me most in the EC discussion.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Honestly, this probably has more to do with technological advances than with electoral systems. The ability for the entire country to be aware and part of singular policy discussions online is the biggest culprit. But I think there may be a correction... I wonder if the end of COVID (hopefully this year) sends people back into their communities with fresh eyes. 

I also am uncomfortable with a pure popular vote. I want to see strengthening of alternative parties and I want to see the Legislature take some of its power back from the executive. What electoral system gets us there? The reality is that we have to find a way to get there under the one we have, because it's not changing. 

 

It starts with people like us on this board encouraging people to vote, to become educated on their local issues.  To write their congresspeople.  The neutering of the legislative branch is on we, the people, who have become apathetic to it.  Social media plays a big part as you stated.  

It's why I support the changing of the number of SCOTUS justices on the condition it is done in a way like Mayor Pete advocated for and not as political retribution, while keeping in mind the norms and reasons for it changing.  It's why I support this current impeachment.  Congress is terrified of the mob right now and in doing so refuses to challenge the leader of their party.  We saw this with Obama, we saw this with trump.  Giving more power to the mob is not the answer.  Not sure what is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

So you think the birther conspiracy was directed at a large number of Americans as opposed to just Obama? If so, we can agree to disagree on how we remember it.

I'm sure it would have been directed at anyone with a funny sounding name.  Anyhooski, these debates on who fired the first shot are futile and pointless.  My bad.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Please tell me you were about to drag Tom McClintock...

I was and I did. ... just in the right thread this time!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

Why are large population centers predominantly Democrat? 

This is a good question. Do you have a theory?

 

I believe it has to do with the fact that denser populations require significantly more infrastructure, e.g. water and sewage treatment, schools, parks, etc. and the bureaucracy to administer and manage said infrastructure.  Of course these things all cost a significant amount and maybe Democrats are more willing to tax and spend than Republicans and are able to convince their constituents that the infrastructure is necessary and desirable.

Just my thoughts :shrug:

Yours?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I was and I did. ... just in the right thread this time!

The best part of leaving the biz was not having to deal with that guy anymore. I mean, he's a man of his convictions (hates trees and lefties) but what an effing blowhard. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

The best part of leaving the biz was not having to deal with that guy anymore. I mean, he's a man of his convictions (hates trees and lefties) but what an effing blowhard. 

Not surprised. Congressmen and women are the worst. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, toonkee said:

I'm sure it would have been directed at anyone with a funny sounding name.  Anyhooski, these debates on who fired the first shot are futile and pointless.  My bad.

 

My penis is more throbbing than yours!

Okay, maybe we’re just the North Going and South Going Zax. But I hope you know that I respect you and your opinions, even if we see things slightly differently sometimes. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

comes running up panting

GREAT NOW I'M AROUSED

@mugtang - we need an AROUSED emoji! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the EC really protecting rural voters well? The quality of life is subpar in many rural areas. Farmers are subsidized, but family farms aren't as prevalent anymore. The EC might protect rural areas on cultural issues (such as guns rights), but they often struggle economically.

Is it really a zero-sum game? Some of the Dem's policies would theoretically help rural areas. They're already viewed as the "urban" party now (although too simplistic)

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Maji said:

Is the EC really protecting rural voters well? The quality of life is subpar in many rural areas. Farmers are subsidized, but family farms aren't as prevalent anymore. The EC might protect rural areas on cultural issues (such as guns rights), but they often struggle economically.

Is it really a zero-sum game? Some of the Dem's policies would theoretically help rural areas. They're already viewed as the "urban" party now (although too simplistic)

The EC is protecting rural voters, but I don't believe that Republican Policies serve them all that well.  In a way, I think members of both parties often vote against their interests.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

At the same time, I find it harder and harder to defend the EC as an important safeguard against oppression for rural folks when 1) the Senate already does that and 2) the Executive branch increasingly is the branch vested with the most power for governing. If Senate + President is all that really matters for governing, (as opposed to Senate+House+President) then it increasingly looks more like minority rule under the EC than protecting rural interests. It looks like mostly white rural people are given inordinate power over what happens in America's cities.

3 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Trump won in 2016 with the EC by using culture war rhetoric to galvanize a rural voting base largely in the Southeast and Midwest whose governing priorities (trade restrictions and immigration restrictions) are in direct conflict with the interests of a whole heap of rural communities in the West. Those communities are largely made up of immigrants or families of immigrants whose jobs depend heavily on of the free flow of agricultural goods between the US and other countries. To the extent that he tried to govern for our rural communities, it was for a certain segment of our rural communities - the people who owned the farms. Again, the actual role of the EC in that dynamic is complicated, but I don't believe it's as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

Excellent points. Restricting free trade may be popular in parts of the Midwest, but states like Idaho benefit greatly from trade with foreign countries

As you pointed out, the Senate is already a rural safeguard too. Controlling the Senate is extremely important as of late

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Why are large population centers predominantly Democrat? 

Visible public services, diversity, and cultural liberalism (vs GOP standards). Also educational attainment

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maji said:

Visible public services, diversity, and cultural liberalism (vs GOP standards). Also educational attainment

That seems to be a large political identity divider in any locale, big or small town.  Pretty sure cities have a higher percentage of people with higher ed than rural America.  But now we ask why higher ed makes you more left?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, toonkee said:

That seems to be a large political identity divider in any locale, big or small town.  Pretty sure cities have a higher percentage of people with higher ed than rural America.  But now we ask why higher ed makes you more left?

My guess: It has to do with social liberalism and progressivism (not necessarily economically)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Why are large population centers predominantly Democrat? 

Good question which is one political scientists have addressed and grappled with for some time. You could Google your question and find plenty. 
 

Short answers are the logic of history especially stemming from the Roosevelt Coalition, self-selection especially since the 1970s, pop. density requiring more active government, relatively larger minority populations, and a few others I can’t remember off the top of my 3rd winter ale head. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...