Whither the Democrats?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Elvis:
I will say this: despite being "poor" I now have amazingly complete medical coverage, only because people elected Democrats, and no thanks whatever to Republicans.

Indeed. Too bad the same can't be said for the 'non-poor'. I'd quit my job, but I don't think my dependents would take too kindly to that..


That aside, healthcare benefits for those employed in the U.S. has gotten more expensive/less comprehensive over the last 10 or so years, irrespective of political party in the White House or holder of majority seats.
Pharma lobbies have strangleholds across both parties (among other factors).

[dada]

It will be hard to pick out which siren song claims this temporary prize on a temporary planet without a good contingent of people brave enough to use science.

I agree. I think it does have to do with bravery, I also think it has to do with a widespread misunderstanding of just what is the use of science. Here's my far out, heretical opinion:

I think the Learyean view of tech as an extension of the body/nervous system is misguided. I suggest that tech is a part of nature, to be treated just like nature. Instead, tech is mistreated just like nature: Something to be mastered, dominated. Own it, consume it. This causes all sorts of problems.

Can I just mention how much I hate the word 'problematic?' It doesn't even belong in the dustbin. I'm learning to time travel, you know, just so I can go back and erase any trace of the word problematic. It will be like it never existed.

Anyway, where was I? What's the use of nature? Answer that, and you have the answer for what's the use of Science and tech.

The misunderstanding of the use of science is understandable, I can see how it could happen. People make mistakes, no mystery there. But why are people lacking the bravery to use science? I think the lack of bravery stems from another lack: the lack of a solid foundation. (an answer in the Times crossword this week. The clue: "Compliment to a charity fundraiser?" Answer: "Solid Foundation.")

A solid foundation is the well-spring of courage. I'm not talking about a Chris Hyatt 'Build yourself a fortress and fortify it.' solid foundation. The solid foundation I'm talking about isn't built on Maslow needs. No, not 'laying up treasures in heaven,' either. Sorry, I can't say anymore about it. It's a secret to everybody. (But you should trust me, and not Chris Hyatt. He's dead, but I'm still here. Trust dead people, you're just asking for trouble.)

People try to fill the hole where their solid foundation should be like it's a landfill. They try filling it with all kinds of things, but it just doesn't work. Like, all this hand-wringing about 'epistemological crisis' is all the rage in the duller corners of the internet. There is no epistemological crisis. They're just confusing facts for truth. There's a basic skillset required for recognizing truth, they don't have it. It's kind of sad. Oh, well.

Uh... I guess I should say something about the democrats. But I got nothing. Bit of deja vu. Feel like I've read this conversation before...

You know, you should try a news fast, I say to no one in particular. You'll be amazed at what it will do to your perspective. Unless you're afraid of what it might do to your perspective. I challenge you, I dare you. Chicken, fight like a robot.

[American Dream]

Whither us? I voted for myself- and I think I won- but who will certify the election?

Anyway, back to business:

THE LURE OF ELECTIONS: FROM POLITICAL POWER TO POPULAR POWER




Electoral Campaigns Don’t Take Us Where We Want to Go

It’s often said that electoral politics is the graveyard of social movements, but that always seemed unfair to graveyards. After all, graveyards merely house the dead: They don’t actually do the killing.

Those who enter the front door of elective office are quick to find themselves in the house that capital built. Even those with the best intentions will find themselves boxed in on all sides by business interests and institutional constraints. For local and state officials, they must strain under the weight of a larger political and monetary system over which they have zero control, and which can override their decisions and policies at any time. For national officials, not only are constitutional and procedural restraints ever-present, but looming over every choice is the power of business to influence policy and one’s chances of re-election. Ultimately, the ruling class can always use the threat of capital strike and capital flight: A Wall Street crash, a bond rating downgrade, a panic, runaway inflation, currency manipulation and so on. The particular constraints may change based on what position they’re elected to, but the outcome remains the same.

Social movements that dedicate their limited resources to electing politicians end up undermining the very energy and capacity needed to hold those politicians accountable once elected. The resources spent electing someone would be better spent forcing whoever is in office to concede to our demands by developing popular power that cannot be ignored.

http://blackrosefed.org/lure-of-elections/

[Elvis]

Electoral politics can't solve everything, but in 2020 the president will be either a Democrat or a Republican, one of the two. I choose Democrat. I hope Bernie runs again.

[American Dream]

You may have missed the point.

[Jerky]

Sorry, AD, I'm usually sympatico with you, but I stand side-by-side with Elvis on this one.

Anything else at this current historical moment is an insanely irresponsible pipe dream. It's far easier to push for the kinds of reforms I know you both desire from a center/left-liberal, far more small-d-democratically responsive ruling party than it is from a nativist, reactionary party that has literally regressed so far, they don't just want to dismantle what shreds remain of the Great Society, or even the New Deal, but also the very concept of democratic influence over the state's direction. They've literally reverted to being 'conservative' in the late 19th century meaning of the term, now.

J.

[American Dream]

I do vote. I'm not against it in any way, per se. Where I draw the line is extensive schmoozing with corrupt politicians, where the returns seem limited. Same holds for intense doorbelling for bourgeois candidates or other such stuff.

These are my personal practices and your mileage may vary.

[dada]

You guys are so funny. Elvis and Jerky, I mean.

Good point about the graveyards. "The Democratic Party is where movements go to die." "Electoral politics is where democracy goes to die." These phrases don't quite capture the idea that they're trying to get across. Graveyards are liminal places. And charnel grounds are for rolling around in, like a dog in carrion. Get the smell of death all up on you.

We just call the Democratic Party and electoral politics what they are. Heat sinks. Cults. Weapons occasionally. But anything can be used as a weapon.

[dada]

And I mean funny in the charming way. What I'm saying is I think you're very very cute. Not ashamed of it, I'm confident in my sexuality.

Want to give an example of my view of tech, as opposed to the Learyean view:

Say I want to whack some weeds. I go to the garage, spray for ticks, get out the weed-whacker. If I look at the weed-whacker as an extension of my arm, that's like the Learyean view of tech.

But what if I instead look at the weed-whacker from a purely functional standpoint, devoid of any sentimental attachment, or delusions of grandeur. This thing was designed for a certain function, whacking weeds. But it can't do it without me. And I want to whack weeds. So what I do is, I enter into a contract with the weed-whacker. We work together.

Now you might say, "this is preposterous. You can't enter into a contractual relationship with a weed-whacker." And I would respond to you by tilting my head back-and-forth in the Indian way.

As I was whacking the weeds, I had anther thot. This one was about electoral politics and the Democratic Party.

When going into battle, if you make a fetish of your favorite weapon, you're going to get beat. Try playing rock, paper, scissor, and leaning too heavily on 'paper.' Your opponent will easily catch on to your weakness, and your win average will be in the toilet.

It's like being a poker player with a fatal tell. When they got your number, you're sunk.

[Belligerent Savant]

I do vote. I'm not against it in any way, per se. Where I draw the line is extensive schmoozing with corrupt politicians, where the returns seem limited. Same holds for intense doorbelling for bourgeois candidates or other such stuff.

Agreed.

We just call the Democratic Party and electoral politics what they are. Heat sinks. Cults. Weapons occasionally. But anything can be used as a weapon.

Ottimo.

[Elvis]

Jerry Brown's 1992 presidential primary campaign is an interesting case. Once Brown—the hands-down progressive candidate—started winning a lot of primaries and at times even leading in delegates, the full force of the Democratic establishment and the media was brought to bear against him. During the late primaries, the last-minute selling point was a huge lie about Brown's flat tax proposal, scaring off many voters.

And seems it wasn't only the Democratic Leisureship Council and PBS News Hour aligned against Brown; according to Terry Reed, at a late-night meeting in a rural Arkansas airport shed, the White House man giving the orders told Clinton to the effect that 'Mr. Casey is aware of your political ambitions and he wants you to know he looks upon very favorably you in that regard' with the idea that if Clinton continued to help them, he could look forward to future help in return.

I've talked before about the old Zuni society, where anyone appearing to want authority was regarded with suspicion, and if you blatantly sought power, you might be prosecuted for witchcraft. (I might be for something like that.) A chief had to be talked into accepting the job, usually over a series of meetings until he relented. It makes sense; I gather that the job mostly consisted of settling people's silly disputes.

[Elvis]

One exposé of a small visible portion of the "deep state" is the aforementioned Terry Reed book, Compromised. A parapolitical/deep state "must read" memoir, still relevant. Sometimes it really is just one big party.

[American Dream]

Ironically, Jerry Brown became caught up in a "left" faction of the Democratic Party that represented a functional alliance with CPUSA elements that had been running Berkeley during the time that Gus Newport was Mayor. Jerry got to stream a Pacifica tak show from his Oakland offices at this time, in what appears to me to have been a transactional alliance. The Communist Party folks were only somewhat radical, being electorally open to a Democratic Party strategy but they did have some internal discipline! This all culminated in the Pacifica Radio crisis of 1999, where technocrats inside the Network faced open rebellion for scheming to mainstream the content and sell off stations.

Was this faction appropriately pragmatic? I would argue no, as they went down in flames. So much for working inside the System.

Jerry Brown's 1992 presidential primary campaign is an interesting case. Once Brown—the hands-down progressive candidate—started winning a lot of primaries and at times even leading in delegates, the full force of the Democratic establishment and the media was brought to bear against him. During the late primaries, the last-minute selling point was a huge lie about Brown's flat tax proposal, scaring off many voters.

[Elvis]

Was this faction appropriately pragmatic? I would argue no, as they went down in flames. So much for working inside the System.

The CPUSA wasn't appropriately progmatic, therefore working in the system is futile? Both statements may be true but the logic fails me.

I wonder how they could they have been more appropriately pragmatic.

It's a pity Brown lost because the other side lied, and people didn't know better. It's a multifaceted problem for sure.

[Elvis]

Jerry got to stream a Pacifica tak show from his Oakland offices at this time, in what appears to me to have been a transactional alliance.

I'm not sure what you mean here by transactional alliance, and what the implication of that is in this case.

This has got all me thinking about the Democratic caucus system in Washington state. I attended in '92 when I went to advocate for Brown. Our table, maybe six or eight people, was pretty solidly for Brown, but there was one guy who just kept repeating that, in spite of everything, 'Clinton is just the better candidate'; I'd get him to agree on the superiority of Brown's platform and pursuade him of Brown's electability, but he'd look down at the table for a moment, then repeat, "I just think Clinton is a better candidate." He seemed a little fishy to me.

Anyway, the caucuses are cool because they randomly group people together at tables to talk, debate etc. before electing convention delegates. It's also everyone's chance to be a delegate, if they're into that. All in all pretty democratic, but of course not without some issues.

Why Does Washington State Have A Caucus And Primary? This State's Democratic Process Is Really Frustrating

https://www.bustle.com/articles/163025- ... rustrating