What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

Please elaborate.

As Malthus says both sides seem to have something of a view that society is in need of redemption, both sides love conversion stories, plus the individual experience is really important etc. I think it's not just politics - I think that Protestant stuff is wound up in American culture.

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.

But there are progressive and conservative technocrats? Unless you mean all progressives are populists (Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, Obama?)

My take is technocrats work in areas where there is broad consensus because the political decision is decided. The end goal is known and the technocrats can decide what works. It works in central banking. In the UK it works for pension reform - a boring subject where there's broad consensus. In Europe it works for trade.

But if you apply technocracy to other political issues - you end up with one side is legitimate because it's actually interested in what works, while the other side isn't because it's hidebound, ideological and just appealing to emotion. That's how Tony Blair positioned himself all the way through his time in office - and it's incredibly effective when it works.

And in that way I think it's fair to say that technocracy is actually quite like populism - again Tony Blair, or Macron - one side is correct and their opponents are wrong. Edit: And of course technocrats and populists both thinks that elected politicians/politicis as usual is what stands in the way of smart, successful polices/delivering what people want.

But it avoids the core political question of what type of society do we want to live in - what is the sort of teleological purpose of those policies? There is no pure centrist technocractic answer - someone on Bill Clinton's team will come up with different, effective solutions to someone from, I don't know, Mitt Romney's (I can't really think of the last time the GOP had a technocrat) would have very different solutions. It's just something people think to reassure themselves that they're virtuous and interested in solutions not the grubby ideological bit of politics.

In a similar way populism can actually avoid politics - they're just vessels for the people. Whether that's through plebiscites or the M5S's magical blog.

[Admiral Yi]

I think those people you mentioned are all pretty centrist.

[Sheilbh]

I think those people you mentioned are all pretty centrist.

I think all of them would say they're progressives. And that's the difference between them and, say, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Glenn Hubbard.

They'd pursue very different policies.

[Malthus]

Heh there is a real problem defining what conservatism really is. The term is used for such irreconcilable things these days, depending on where you are!

In the US, the current Republicans are not "conservative" in the sense of Burkean traditional conservatism - the distrust of revolutionary change, the desire to make incremental improvements, these aspects of Burkean conservatism have in large part migrated to what I have called non-progressive liberals.

How then do non-progressive liberals differ from traditional conservatives?

Simple - traditional conservatives were not just about an incremental approach to change and a distrust of revolutions, they were first and foremost about grounding society in tradition and establish custom and considered existing hierarchies and institutions as proper; all based on a moral order that emphasizes society over the individual. That does not describe modern liberals well at all.

For better or worse, actual traditional conservatives such as that have no real political home in the US any more. The current Republicans spit on any notion of a traditional moral order, otherwise they could never have come to approve of an immoral grifter like Trump. Trumpites are not "conservatives", they are radicals; they want to reorder society, and have nothing but contempt for existing institutions.

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf:

You think Larry Summers would self describe as a progressive?  He fired Cornel West at Harvard!

And there was a time when Hillary was asked during the primaries or the general if she considered herself a "liberal," and she just puked all over herself.

edit: And Bubba helped found The Democratic Study Group, or The Third Way, or whatever the hell that was called.

[Jacob]

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.

By that logic you shouldn't really worry too much about what the woke left does either.

Maybe a better angle for you to take with the woke folks who bother you is not to try to reason them into taking less woke positions, but use them to make your own more centrist positions more palatable to a broader spectrum by contrast.

[alfred russel]

I really don't get what Berkut wants. The DNC can tell people not to vote for Tlaib because she doesn't represent their values and she will win her primary (and general election) anyway. Bernie Sanders made a serious run at the Democratic nomination but was (and is) not even a democrat in the senate roster.

You can refuse to let those sorts of people join the caucus with you: in which case you will be back to being a minority now, or you can try to eliminate the primary process when choosing candidates and hand pick them at the DNC (good luck with that). People like the squad members and bernie sanders are getting elected because they are popular in their districts, just like Trump nuts are winning on the GOP side. It is obviously a much bigger issue on the republican side.

[Berkut]

I really don't get what Berkut wants. The DNC can tell people not to vote for Tlaib because she doesn't represent their values and she will win her primary (and general election) anyway. Bernie Sanders made a serious run at the Democratic nomination but was (and is) not even a democrat in the senate roster.

You can refuse to let those sorts of people join the caucus with you: in which case you will be back to being a minority now, or you can try to eliminate the primary process when choosing candidates and hand pick them at the DNC (good luck with that). People like the squad members and bernie sanders are getting elected because they are popular in their districts, just like Trump nuts are winning on the GOP side. It is obviously a much bigger issue on the republican side.

I think the originaly article/interview with Carville that sent garbon Et Al into such a rage elucidates very well what I want.

I am pretty sure nothing I said aligns to your imagination of "what Berkut wants" since I certainly never suggested that the DNC tell anyone how to vote, and I don't think Sanders is even remotely the problem (some of Sanders followers, however....)

[Admiral Yi]

I think your error Fredo is in assuming Carville meant the powers that be should impose discipline.  I read it to mean members of the party should discipline themselves.

Please note I am not endorsing what Carville wrote.

[jimmy olsen]

I'd probably go alont with the only goal of a party is to win - I think that might be the secret to the success of the "natural parties of government" around the world (Tories, Liberals, CDU, LDP, historically Fianna Fail). They may have sort of guiding principles but they never allow the theological debate around that to distract them for winning - or at least not for too long.

I think that kind of has to be the only goal in big-tent, two-party coalition politics like the US because otherwise what's the point of the big tent? The only reason is because it's a two-party system and the purpose is to win.

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power." --- Eisenhower

[Sheilbh]

@Shelf:

You think Larry Summers would self describe as a progressive?  He fired Cornel West at Harvard!

And there was a time when Hillary was asked during the primaries or the general if she considered herself a "liberal," and she just puked all over herself.

edit: And Bubba helped found The Democratic Study Group, or The Third Way, or whatever the hell that was called.

This is a slight tangent, and I could be wrong.

But I swear politicians on the centre-left in the 90s and 2000s used to be more comfortable describing themselves as "progressive" because it didn't carry the same legacy of "liberal". Now it's sort of switched and the left own "progressive" while mocking centrist "liberals"?

In the context of progressives now - probably not (though that is something Hilary said in 2016). In contrast to equivalent conservative/right-wing technocrats - yes. The goals of their policies are different. There is a reason why Larry Summers is neo-Keynesian and has worked for Democratic administrations. It isn't because he thinks they'll be more receptive to his technocratic ideas than a Republican administration, but because they disagree on fundamental points.

[alfred russel]

I think your error Fredo is in assuming Carville meant the powers that be should impose discipline.  I read it to mean members of the party should discipline themselves.

Please note I am not endorsing what Carville wrote.

I was assuming that Carville was just talking.

I was assuming that Berkut wanted the party to actually do something different. Berkut mentioned that he thinks dems should be more disciplined...considering there are democratic districts where the messaging that wins the district is not the type of messaging the Berkut & Carville consortium want nationally, self discipline isn't going to get there.

[frunk]

Thinking about it, more party discipline is not the answer.  I think it would have the same deleterious effect it had on the Republican party, where the loudest, dumbest, media attention grabbing ideas become the strongest.  If the party enforces a single message it means the crazies will fight much harder to take over the party to avoid being kicked out and to increase the strength of their message.  The way the Democrats are currently constructed the extreme versions get the play, but the rest of the party is able to continue without being sucked in that direction.

[alfred russel]

Thinking about it, more party discipline is not the answer.  I think it would have the same deleterious effect it had on the Republican party, where the loudest, dumbest, media attention grabbing ideas become the strongest.  If the party enforces a single message it means the crazies will fight much harder to take over the party to avoid being kicked out and to increase the strength of their message.  The way the Democrats are currently constructed the extreme versions get the play, but the rest of the party is able to continue without being sucked in that direction.

What is a little odd about Carville's statement is that he was a Clinton guy and Bill Clinton very successfully used the louder voices on the left to position himself as a centrist (the third way) and he wound up being a two term relatively popular president.

[alfred russel]

I think the real reason that the democrats are a gerontocracy is because the base of the party has two conflicting desires:

1) win elections
2) push hard toward progressivism - the status quo is not acceptable

But at the same time can reflect on the past several decades and recognize significant progress on a lot of fronts.

So a more moderate guy like Joe Biden can win because, while his track record may have some stuff that is problematic to the base, he can overcome that because he has a track record of being an ally when things were actually getting done and progress getting made. But such people are simply old now.

A younger guy who was just starting out in politics 15 years ago and not supporting gay marriage at the time is not going to have that same credibility--that attack will cut much deeper. And of course your more activist members are going to have problems winning elections.