What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

Analogy doesn't work. People voting for Trump & co. is a conscious choice, not a natural phenomenon.

People are a natural phenomenon. It's all natural phenomenons, all the way down.

I think you refuse to see this because you just really like feeling morally superior without any need to take an ounce of actual responsibility yourself. Nothing that happens is because of you or your beliefs, it is 100% those damn bastards evil fuckers who don't agree with you.

Congrats on that - you keep winning those arguments while those assholes on the right keep winning elections they have no business winning, and you can feel outraged by it, and get really mad at the people who actually think trying to get something done is worth some effort and nuanced thinking.

[DGuller]

Analogy doesn't work. People voting for Trump & co. is a conscious choice, not a natural phenomenon.

Doesn't matter, what matters is that you have no control over it.

[crazy canuck]

The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.

I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework.  Is this change worth the cost?  What are the unintended consequences?  How do these measure up against the intended consequences.

That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.

[The Brain]

The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.

I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework.  Is this change worth the cost?  What are the unintended consequences?  How do these measure up against the intended consequences.

That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.

Conservative ideology is violently overthrowing democracy and establishing a rule by certified retards. Conservative ideology may have been something else once, in the Beforetime, in the Long Long Ago, but in 2021? Nah.

[Berkut]

Way I see it, the progressives' best argument for using more extreme rhetoric is that it pushes the Overton window in their direction. It may piss people off, but if everyone is all moderate all the time nothing would ever change.

The other side of the coin though is that shifting the Overton window is a long term strategy and elections are won or lost in the short term. Those on the right are busy shifting the Overton window in their direction with extreme rhetoric as well. If both sides are doing that, what you get is a chorus of cacophony in which nothing can be done - which is how non-progressive liberals tend to see it.

Another problem is that progressives and non-progressive liberals may not, in fact, be on the same "side". This always comes as a surprise to non-progressive liberals, but I think that it may in large measure be true. They differ not on specific policies, but in their whole outlook on society - progressives have a tendency to view current society as basically irreparably broken in several ways (on race, social class, the environment, etc.) and so only a radical reordering of society will work. Non progressive liberals agree that these are all problems, but tend to believe that a lot of progress has been made and will continue to be made - in short, that radical reordering of society is not necessary or desirable, in that it is likely to be rife with unintended consequences.

In this, progressives have something in common with the right in the US - which also believes that current society is irredeemable (while of course disagreeing in every respect with both progressives and liberals as to what the problems are and what solutions should be attempted). The right in the US has so abandoned current society, it has proved willing to actively destroy democratic institutions.

It is natural that progressives should come to define liberals as 'the enemy', despite the fact that liberals tend to agree with them on what the problems are. The liberals, certainly more than the right, act as a brake on the radical reordering the progressives believe to be necessary. The liberals are more plausible than the right in the US and they appeal to a similar audience (the right has abandoned any connection with rationality and so its rhetoric appeals only to itself). That very plausibility can look sinister. If one believes that society is irredeemably racist, for example, then supporting the continued existence of that society and not its radical reordering is basically racist - no matter how much such supporters claim they are not personal racist, believe that racism is a serious problem, and wish to create practical solutions for it.

Liberals of course see things completely differently. To them, practical solutions are most important, which means winning elections, building consensus within whatever systems exist for positive change, etc. For progressives, this just looks like putting a bunch of band-aids on a gaping wound and calling it a day - to the point where they doubt the liberals really care about the problems in the first place.

I think this is a great point, and largely agree with it....the problem I have is....what is it that the "progressives" (I am not sure I like the label, since I consider myself a progressive, but I realize that other terms are fraught and you don't want to damage your credentials by saying the wrong thing around some people) imagine is the means by which they will fix that gaping wound if it is not through getting progressives elected and passing different laws?

What's the alternative? Revolution? The guillotine?

My entire argument here revolves around getting people elected and actually making change. Getting liberals onto the SC instead of right wing proto-fascists. If that is an unacceptable band-aid...then what is the acceptable cure?

[The Brain]

What's the alternative? Revolution? The guillotine?

My entire argument here revolves around getting people elected and actually making change. Getting liberals onto the SC instead of right wing proto-fascists. If that is an unacceptable band-aid...then what is the acceptable cure?

Many many people want revolution. Democracy isn't very popular these days.

[Berkut]

The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.

I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework.  Is this change worth the cost?  What are the unintended consequences?  How do these measure up against the intended consequences.

That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.

No, conservative ideology at its core is that the way things Used to Be was great, and we should not be looking to change, or if we are, it should be in an effort to get back to The Good Old Days.

It is most definitely not centrist.

I consider myself a practical progressive. I think we have *serious* problems that need to be fixed, and I think the world is seriously fucked if we don't make pretty radical changes.

I think that is as far away from "conservative" as someone can be.

So I look at climate change, race, the changing economy, globalization, and a host of problems that are really fucking hard to solve if we DID have a political system capable of making significant change possible, and I despair that our current system can ever reform fast enough to have a chance. My fear is that if we do not, we will become the victims of other historical examples where countries and societies were unable to adapt fast enough, and the change turned violent, often horrifically so. Except now we are talking about potential violent change in a world with lots of nukes and insane over-crowding and a economic system that MIGHT be damn near obsolete.

I am not sure humanity can survive a global French Revolution or Russian Revolution or Reformation or whatever. It won't be localized to just one country. It will be the world, and all happening in the middle of a true global crisis of climate change that could be existential in nature.

I don't think radical violence is going to work. Even if it did work, it would really, really fucking suck for the people who have to live through it.

So what is the alternative to working the system and getting more progressives elected, and more importantly, convincing more people that the conservative/right wing ideas about the world are not just bad ideas, but actually existentially dangerous? They have to be convinced, and hence we have to think about how to convince them. There isn't another alternative that I am aware of - if you have one, I would love to hear it.

[Malthus]

Way I see it, the progressives' best argument for using more extreme rhetoric is that it pushes the Overton window in their direction. It may piss people off, but if everyone is all moderate all the time nothing would ever change.

The other side of the coin though is that shifting the Overton window is a long term strategy and elections are won or lost in the short term. Those on the right are busy shifting the Overton window in their direction with extreme rhetoric as well. If both sides are doing that, what you get is a chorus of cacophony in which nothing can be done - which is how non-progressive liberals tend to see it.

Another problem is that progressives and non-progressive liberals may not, in fact, be on the same "side". This always comes as a surprise to non-progressive liberals, but I think that it may in large measure be true. They differ not on specific policies, but in their whole outlook on society - progressives have a tendency to view current society as basically irreparably broken in several ways (on race, social class, the environment, etc.) and so only a radical reordering of society will work. Non progressive liberals agree that these are all problems, but tend to believe that a lot of progress has been made and will continue to be made - in short, that radical reordering of society is not necessary or desirable, in that it is likely to be rife with unintended consequences.

In this, progressives have something in common with the right in the US - which also believes that current society is irredeemable (while of course disagreeing in every respect with both progressives and liberals as to what the problems are and what solutions should be attempted). The right in the US has so abandoned current society, it has proved willing to actively destroy democratic institutions.

It is natural that progressives should come to define liberals as 'the enemy', despite the fact that liberals tend to agree with them on what the problems are. The liberals, certainly more than the right, act as a brake on the radical reordering the progressives believe to be necessary. The liberals are more plausible than the right in the US and they appeal to a similar audience (the right has abandoned any connection with rationality and so its rhetoric appeals only to itself). That very plausibility can look sinister. If one believes that society is irredeemably racist, for example, then supporting the continued existence of that society and not its radical reordering is basically racist - no matter how much such supporters claim they are not personal racist, believe that racism is a serious problem, and wish to create practical solutions for it.

Liberals of course see things completely differently. To them, practical solutions are most important, which means winning elections, building consensus within whatever systems exist for positive change, etc. For progressives, this just looks like putting a bunch of band-aids on a gaping wound and calling it a day - to the point where they doubt the liberals really care about the problems in the first place.

I think this is a great point, and largely agree with it....the problem I have is....what is it that the "progressives" (I am not sure I like the label, since I consider myself a progressive, but I realize that other terms are fraught and you don't want to damage your credentials by saying the wrong thing around some people) imagine is the means by which they will fix that gaping wound if it is not through getting progressives elected and passing different laws?

What's the alternative? Revolution? The guillotine?

My entire argument here revolves around getting people elected and actually making change. Getting liberals onto the SC instead of right wing proto-fascists. If that is an unacceptable band-aid...then what is the acceptable cure?

There are not really good labels for the groups that are emerging these days. I use "progressives" because they largely use that term for themselves; what to call the liberals who are not "progressives" I am not sure - for now, I just retain "liberals" for them. The term "progressives" does tend to assert those who are not them are against progress!

The problem liberals tend to have with progressives (and I am in this definition a "liberal" here) is that they (we) cannot see that the progressives are advocating any actual road map for how to get where they want to go. They know where they want to go - a radical reordering of society along lines that are more just and equitable - just not how we can get there from here; only that we must try.

This is why the liberal critique of progressivism is that they constantly make the perfect the enemy of the good, with the result that not even the good is actually achieved. The progressive response would probably be that the good is easy to achieve, if it is defined as merely smearing some lipstick on a pig and calling that a beauty ...

[Sheilbh]

The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.

I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework.  Is this change worth the cost?  What are the unintended consequences?  How do these measure up against the intended consequences.

Whereas progressives don't think this way.  They think in terms of righting wrongs, of pursuing THE GOOD.  And since by definition a cost/benefit will at best (from a progressive's standpoiint) qualify the good, hedge it in, limit it, it is easy enough for progressives to view cost benefit as the reaction of evil against the good.

I don't agree. I think there may be an element of what Malthus it in terms of the slight religious overtones. But I think the defining feature of American politics is that both sides feel powerless while the other side thinks they have immense power.

The Democrats even though they've won an election are unlikely to be able to pass the sort of political agenda they'd actually want to on issues like healthcare or gun reform or voting rights because Republicans have the Supreme Court and typically are quite good at winning back a blocking minority position. Even in 2008 they were not able to achieve the political agenda they want.

The Republicans have that blocking minority but they're political agenda is basically just tax cuts at this point. On the other hand despite holding the Supreme Court for the best part of 50 years they have not been able to move politics on culture/social issues. Abortion and Roe v Wade still stand and gay marriage is now a constitutional right. Plus the general sense that they are losing cultural battles.

I think an ideologically coherent two-party system (which is relatively new) is always going to move to zero-sum politics, especially when both sides think they are very weak and their opponents very strong.

I also think the other sort of key axis in politics is more technocratic style politics v more populist styles - and this forum is exceptionally technocratic.

No, conservative ideology at its core is that the way things Used to Be was great, and we should not be looking to change, or if we are, it should be in an effort to get back to The Good Old Days.

I think that's really only in America for the mainstream conservative party. That's pretty reactionary. I'd say conservatism is basically what Yi said - that's not centrism that's maistream conservatism.

It's Lord Salisbury and the Leopard. So "whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible." It's not that things used to be great but that change normally leads to unexpected consequences, the loss of inherited wisdom and experience in favour of the new which will inevitbaly mean losses. Mixed in with that is the Leopard's "if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change." So you change enough to try and preserve what you have and avoid the risks of sudden change or revolution. I think that is actually the core of the right-wing/conservative parties around the world who still try and win elections - the Tories, the CDU, the LDP. They're all parties that in large part react to voters, take advantage and keep the ship steady.

I think the Republicans are a reactionary party with more in common with Fidesz and Lega and RN than mainstream conservatism.

[crazy canuck]

The way I look at it is similar to Malthus.

I personally feel the defining characteristic of the centrist to examine issues in a cost/benefit framework.  Is this change worth the cost?  What are the unintended consequences?  How do these measure up against the intended consequences.

That is not a centrist view, that is conservative ideology at its core.

No, conservative ideology at its core is that the way things Used to Be was great, and we should not be looking to change, or if we are, it should be in an effort to get back to The Good Old Days.

It is most definitely not centrist.

I consider myself a practical progressive. I think we have *serious* problems that need to be fixed, and I think the world is seriously fucked if we don't make pretty radical changes.

I think that is as far away from "conservative" as someone can be.

So I look at climate change, race, the changing economy, globalization, and a host of problems that are really fucking hard to solve if we DID have a political system capable of making significant change possible, and I despair that our current system can ever reform fast enough to have a chance. My fear is that if we do not, we will become the victims of other historical examples where countries and societies were unable to adapt fast enough, and the change turned violent, often horrifically so. Except now we are talking about potential violent change in a world with lots of nukes and insane over-crowding and a economic system that MIGHT be damn near obsolete.

I am not sure humanity can survive a global French Revolution or Russian Revolution or Reformation or whatever. It won't be localized to just one country. It will be the world, and all happening in the middle of a true global crisis of climate change that could be existential in nature.

I don't think radical violence is going to work. Even if it did work, it would really, really fucking suck for the people who have to live through it.

So what is the alternative to working the system and getting more progressives elected, and more importantly, convincing more people that the conservative/right wing ideas about the world are not just bad ideas, but actually existentially dangerous? They have to be convinced, and hence we have to think about how to convince them. There isn't another alternative that I am aware of - if you have one, I would love to hear it.

I think you are confusing what it means in the US Republican party with its real meaning.

Conservative ideology does not deny all change, but is suspicious of change and demands good reasons for doing so, along with a fear of unintended consequences of even changes that are well reasoned.  So pretty much exactly what Yi described.

edit: Sheilbh put it better

[Admiral Yi]

I don't agree. I think there may be an element of what Malthus it in terms of the slight religious overtones.

This sounds very much like my description of progressives.

I also think the other sort of key axis in politics is more technocratic style politics v more populist styles - and this forum is exceptionally technocratic.

This sounds very much like what I described.

[Sheilbh]

This sounds very much like my description of progressives.

I think it affects all American politics not just progressives.

This sounds very much like what I described.

How so?

[Admiral Yi]

I think it affects all American politics not just progressives.

Please elaborate.

How so?

Technocratic is the boring uninspiring business of nibbling away at large, important, seemingly intractable problems.  Populism is the appeal to emotion, an attempt to boil complex choices down to the battle between good and evil.

[DGuller]

Which one is the good one?

[Admiral Yi]

Which one is the good one?

The boring one.