My impatience with their supporters stems not from their deep frustration and desperation but from their unwillingness to subject Trump and Sanders to reality checks. If you're screaming for help from the government, a few rants and blue-sky promises shouldn't be enough to get your vote. You should force your candidate to provide reality-based details to back up those promises.
Our political system was bound to hit this wall of craziness eventually. It doesn't allow the average citizen much voice or input into policies. ...
I guess that I am seeing and hearing things much differently than you.
The people I know who support Trump are not screaming for help from the .gov. On the contrary, they are screaming to get it off their backs and do their job and enforce the laws on the books. For openers ...
Given that new Presidents have made agreements with members of their party who serve in Congress and also with non-political allies (especially the contributing kind), I think you do have a real way of knowing what a new President will do, especially in terms of major policy proposals. Presidential candidates make campaign promises based on what they think they can get through Congress and often calibrate their platforms based on discussions with potential allies in Congress). A presidential candidate is usually supported by his party's establishment and cannot make wild-ass promises that have no hope of realization or contradict his/her party's core beliefs. That candidate is usually a path to predicted, planned and mostly desired political outcomes for his/her party.
Trump and Sanders are outsiders and therefore can make crazy promises (...)
What's considered crazy will depend largely on your own norms and, in this particular context, ideological views. Was B. Clinton's proposal for universal healthcare crazy? Was Obama's proposal of ending of war(s) or closing Guantanamo crazy? Depends on who you ask.
The "establishment" or whatever name is attached to it, is what Madison was talking about.
You can provide all the public information in the world, but people will continue to self-select based on their own ideology-driven confirmation bias. They'll read and defend what they already believe to be true. Someone else can of course do the same for an opposing view, using different data and experts, and believing just as much that the other's proposal is evidently crazy too.
The power of grass roots and collective action has long been acknowledged by said establishment as a danger. As such, actions were taken to prevent them, or to try to control/disperse/co-opt them when they threaten to re-emerge.
It's going to be a weird ride, but leading isn't all of the problem (checks & balances and all that), but representing us on the world stage: that's a problem.
No argument there. How many allies can he alienate in 4 years?... the mind boggles.
He seems to only have respect for powerful dictatorial/autocratic regimes led by leaders with poor human-rights histories. To Donald "Might is Right" is his modus operandi.
You have no real way of knowing what they will do once elected into Congress, or even more relevant, as President (you can no doubt think of many examples from the past, up to and including Obama).
They may, or possibly may not, have a relevant record. They will promise policies, pork, or "change", and some may even come through in certain line items, but in the end of the day they will still need to function as cogs in the system. A system that has safeguards (such as an electoral college, party hierarchies, two party bias) to produce mostly desired outcomes.
Now all of that does not excuse the voter from having a responsibility in making the best possible (subjective) choice in part based on personal views and priorities, and despite of all the disinformation that gets thrown in the mix. And the information shouldn't just be gathered when it's time to tick a box. However, in the end of the day, partly due to the money involved, the conclusion about the current influence of "the masses" on most policies remains largely true.
I agree with your observation that
"but in the end of the day they will still need to function as cogs in the system. A system that has safeguards (such as an electoral college, party hierarchies, two party bias) to produce mostly desired outcomes."
Given that new Presidents have made agreements with members of their party who serve in Congress and also with non-political allies (especially the contributing kind), I think you do have a real way of knowing what a new President will do, especially in terms of major policy proposals. Presidential candidates make campaign promises based on what they think they can get through Congress and often calibrate their platforms based on discussions with potential allies in Congress). A presidential candidate is usually supported by his party's establishment and cannot make wild-ass promises that have no hope of realization or contradict his/her party's core beliefs. That candidate is usually a path to predicted, planned and mostly desired political outcomes for his/her party.
Trump and Sanders are outsiders and therefore can make crazy promises because they don't rely on their party's establishment leaders. They don't have to worry about the consequences of not fulfilling their wild promises until after the election.
My impatience with their supporters stems not from their deep frustration and desperation but from their unwillingness to subject Trump and Sanders to reality checks. If you're screaming for help from the government, a few rants and blue-sky promises shouldn't be enough to get your vote. You should force your candidate to provide reality-based details to back up those promises.
Our political system was bound to hit this wall of craziness eventually. It doesn't allow the average citizen much voice or input into policies. You don't like the incumbent? Wait 'til the next election and vote. Still unhappy? Wait and vote again. That just builds frustration and alienation, especially when your unhappiness stems from structural changes to the economy that politicians can't easily fix, like the disappearance of manufacturing and low-skill jobs.
With all our communication and information resources, we should be able to create a clearinghouse of information about elected politicians and candidates to help voters become more informed. Something like voter referendums, binding or not, might help voters stay interested in politics between elections. I re-read that New Yorker piece that you linked to about the disproportionate political power of the economic elite in the US. I wonder whether that outsized influence would survive if we created a new culture of political participation amongst the non-elite.
This election will suck. Trump and Hillary both suck. But Trump by far sucks more.
A more ill-equipped person to serve as our leader (except for maybe Dennis Rodman) I cannot even conceive.
It's going to be a weird ride, but leading isn't all of the problem (checks & balances and all that), but representing us on the world stage: that's a problem.
I think you do have to blame the people when they elect poor or ineffective political representatives. If you elect a politician based on his PR without looking into the possibility that his/her record doesn't align with the PR, then you've allowed yourself to be suckered and perhaps swindled. (...)
You have no real way of knowing what they will do once elected into Congress, or even more relevant, as President (you can no doubt think of many examples from the past, up to and including Obama).
They may, or possibly may not, have a relevant record. They will promise policies, pork, or "change", and some may even come through in certain line items, but in the end of the day they will still need to function as cogs in the system. A system that has safeguards (such as an electoral college, party hierarchies, two party bias) to produce mostly desired outcomes.
Now all of that does not excuse the voter from having a responsibility in making the best possible (subjective) choice in part based on personal views and priorities, and despite of all the disinformation that gets thrown in the mix. And the information shouldn't just be gathered when it's time to tick a box. However, in the end of the day, partly due to the money involved, the conclusion about the current influence of "the masses" on most policies remains largely true.
Why blame the people? They have very little say in the actual policies (whether in commerce, war, civil rights, etc.) unless they become a menace. They merely approve a representative based on their P.R. If the representative then does an about face while in office...
The assumption is that the members of an elite of a republic that do the governing are at least somewhat rational people and not entirely selfish. However:
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
You have a big problem when a lot of people don't get their fair share (i.e. institutionalized inequality) while others make out like bandits.
I think you do have to blame the people when they elect poor or ineffective political representatives. If you elect a politician based on his PR without looking into the possibility that his/her record doesn't align with the PR, then you've allowed yourself to be suckered and perhaps swindled.
If a friend of yours bought a car or condo based on a slick but uninformative TV ad and then discovered that the ad was misleading, you'd likely blame the ad but also blame your friend for not making a more informed decision. Voters should perform the same research and skeptical scrutiny of candidates, especially when they're running for President.
Many people have lined up behind Bernie and Trump because they're hurting financially and feel that the economy is rigged against them. That's understandable, since Bernie and Trump seem outraged for them and are promising Great Things to help the little guy. But Bernie and Trump's promises aren't backed up by reality, and it doesn't take a lot digging to figure that out. When a snake oil salesman talks a good game about sympathizing with your plight, he's still a snake oil salesman.
Your excerpt from James Madison is interesting. It seems like he was advocating that landholders have a permanent chamber in the legislative body to protect their inherited wealth against a majority attempt at imposing agrarian law (which I interpret as a land redistribution program). The quote likely has implications for any opinion Madison might have had about income inequality in the US today and the struggle of competing interests between those deriving income from inherited wealth and those getting income from wages.
I don't know what Madison's attitudes were about a progressive tax system that effectively redistributes taxed income in favor of the poor and the social welfare system that relies on that tax system. We live in very different times than Madison's.
I found this quote from Madison on the same Wikipedia page a lot more relevant to our discussion of Trump and this general election:
A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
Letter to W.T. Barry (1822-08-04), in Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison vol. 9 (1910), p. 103. These words, using the older spelling "Governours", are inscribed to the left of the main entrance, Library of Congress James Madison Memorial Building.
In answer to your question, Steely_D
"So the question is inevitable: is the USA done as an experiment?" I don't think it is done. My parents and other adults were convinced during the late 60s that America was tearing itself apart and might not last. I'm sure their parents thought the same thing during the Great Depression. Americans likely worried whether the nation would heal and unite again after the Civil War.
Our national politics is in transition. I think that the GOP has lost its identity and reason for existence. It's shocking how irresponsible and irrelevant to governance it's become. Trump's popularity is a sign that the working class is no longer reliably Republican. A segment of that same group wants the Democratic party to move left, and that shift may be permanent. Essentially, supporters of Trump and Sanders want the government to do more for them—just in different ways.
That desire for greater government help and presence in the lives of Americans is fine, but voters need to become more informed and more involved, especially after the election. Trump or Sanders alone isn't going to bring about big changes. Sustained and structured grassroots efforts will push Washington to change and to help the average American more.
It does make you wonder if democracy is such a good idea. Why should everyone have the right to an opinion if it's uneducated? By making America a republic, it was an attempt to bypass that sort of issue. I'm sure they were thinking of the intelligent but undereducated farmer, or whatever, but these days it's the misinformed web surfer. It's looking more lately that America is basically an oligarchy, too. So the question is inevitable: is the USA done as an experiment?
Why blame the people? They have very little say in the actual policies (whether in commerce, war, civil rights, etc.) unless they become a menace. They merely approve a representative based on their P.R. If the representative then does an about face while in office...
The assumption is that the members of an elite of a republic that do the governing are at least somewhat rational people and not entirely selfish. However:
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
You have a big problem when a lot of people don't get their fair share (i.e. institutionalized inequality) while others make out like bandits.
You have to wonder what it'll take for voters to learn about candidates before casting their votes.
1. Terrorist attacks in America and the death of thousands of Americans thanks to a White House that pretended Al Qaeda didn't exist? Apparently not.
2. A needless war we got suckered into thanks to exaggerated and fabricated intelligence, the stupidity of our president and the neocons' fixation on removing Saddam?...Naaah.
3. A near-meltdown of our economy due to almost no scrutiny of home loan applications, the over-rating of bundled mortgages, and the failure of the government to rein in careless investment practices of institutions too big to fail? Ummm...what?
Gosh, reading is hard. Let's just get a 24/7 narcissistic blowhard from TV to be king! Things'll be fine! Donald says so!
It does make you wonder if democracy is such a good idea. Why should everyone have the right to an opinion if it's uneducated? Who would argue FOR having people cast a ballot that might lead to a worse nation? There's a benefit to that?
By making America a republic, it was an attempt to bypass that sort of issue. I'm sure they were thinking of the intelligent but undereducated farmer, or whatever, but these days it's the misinformed web surfer. It's looking more lately that America is basically an oligarchy, too. So the question is inevitable: is the USA done as an experiment?
You have to wonder what it'll take for voters to learn about candidates before casting their votes.
1. Terrorist attacks in America and the death of thousands of Americans thanks to a White House that pretended Al Qaeda didn't exist? Apparently not.
2. A needless war we got suckered into thanks to exaggerated and fabricated intelligence, the stupidity of our president and the neocons' fixation on removing Saddam?...Naaah.
3. A near-meltdown of our economy due to almost no scrutiny of home loan applications, the over-rating of bundled mortgages, and the failure of the government to rein in careless investment practices of institutions too big to fail? Ummm...what?
Gosh, reading is hard. Let's just get a 24/7 narcissistic blowhard from TV to be king! Things'll be fine! Donald says so!
Well, he's not President, so it doesn't make sense to meet up yet.
I just got back from a trip to Europe and while there every European - and every American - would laugh incredulously and wonder what was up with Trump getting the nomination. It's made America a laughingstock, whether his supporters want to accept it or not.
(...) True to the spirit of Trump, Amedia has at least one shady business deal in his past. In 2001, he was granted immunity to testify that he had helped to bribe a prosecutor to drop a case against a car-dealer friend in Ohio who had allegedly been rolling back car odometers. (...)
Pat Bagley