In a civilized society based in democracy, voting for stability and competence is a priority over partisan ideologies. Bad decisions out of ideological reasons left or right are not worse than incompetence that creates nation-wide chaos.

It doesn't matter what ideology or world-view someone has, no one benefits from Trump's incompetence and it doesn't matter who challenges him, as long as they are competent enough to keep stability. Under stability, we have the time and balance to question ideological ideas and debate specifics of politics, but the clusterfuck of incompetence negates that playing field.

No one in their right mind, no one rational who is capable of deductive thinking would ever propose Trump to stay in power, or getting that power in the first place. His presidency was the result of a nihilistic narcissism, greed and boredom in the voters who voted for him. People who wanted to create chaos against others because of a jealousy towards the educated.

The problem might be that there are only two choices in each election. Because when someone like Trump appears, the party belonging to that candidate need to vote for that candidate in order to get the power, even though the candidate is mentally incompetent to lead. So, on one hand, you have the nihilistic people wanting to just create chaos and on the other the republicans who have no choice but to vote Republican since they cannot choose a Democrat.

It's fundamentally broken as a form of democracy, enforcing a demagogical result every time.

It's interesting that any occupation in the world need education before handled, sometimes, in cases of dangerous jobs, it needs a specific license. But in the case of the leadership of a nation, no such certification or license is needed, even though the occupation is one of the most dangerous we have. I would argue that the bar to which we hold the standards of politicians in roles as leaders should be much higher. I would argue that while Plato was wrong in his philosopher-king argument, he is right in that they need to be philosophers.

We need a philosopher-republic instead, in which the ones able to be voted into power can only have that position with the right competence in philosophy and leadership. So that whoever is voted into power, they have a basic competence in order to enforce stability. That way we would minimize the risk of chaos and incompetence in politics that is downright lethal to the people.

Sounds good to me, Christoffer.

Fascists often offer 'stability and competence' which for the most part probably accounts for a great deal of their strategic allure and political success. It appeals to the element of self-satisfaction that simply says: "I don't care what the policies are, I just don't want to be made to feel bad and icky". 'Stability' isn't a political value: it's a value for those who would prefer not to care, but are being forced to. A self-centered hedonistic minima. It's what infants value when prodded out of their sleep. 'Stability' is what middle management offers the executive in the face of strikes. Political garbage and democratic suicide.

Apparently, in a "civilized democracy" not voting for a candidate who doesn't represent your values or the policies you want to see enacted is an unacceptably ideological and nihilistic position that would cause chaos. Democracy means doing what you're told and propping up a failing and corrupt system until a philosopher-king gets into power. Sounds legit, as they say.

Dont be burdened by what you dream of to the point that you cant accomplish anything. Focus.

It was good enough for Frederick Douglass, it's good enough for me. It's an American thing, you dont need to understand it.

I've no interest in these silly face-saving comments. I'm not anti-American and you can give yourself a pat on the head for everything your country has achieved. Now you either have an argument based on something I said or you don't, Frank. So far, you don't.

We can discuss if you like. I dont feel strongly that I need to prove anything to you. And if I did, we'd have to start with basics.

Go on then. Quote me and tell me why I'm wrong. That's all I expect of anyone here.

Fact is, even European conservatives are to the left of Joe Biden on, for example, healthcare. Far-right economics has been normalised in the US. And that's a global anomaly among major developed nations. So, it's more about the systemic corruption that explains that anomaly and makes your elections irrelevant except on culture-war issue — Baden

There is corruption in the US. It's not worse or better than it's always been, though, and somehow elections do continue to shape events.

American history testifies that no election changes things like widespread social unrest. We can't plan for those events though. We certainly couldnt, and in fact wouldnt want to plan for a catastrophe that would radically reorganize the economic structure of the US.

Therefore it makes sense to take these calm in-between times as an opportunity to lay foundations. I think this is view in keeping with traditional English socialism: one step at a time.

I'm on a phone, so I'm brief.

Not sure about "sides", and I don't have to kick anyone's ass since I'm confident, as far as probity & sanity permits, that Putin's Running-mate this fall will lose the "How do y'all like how I've perfectly managed the Democrats' DEPRESSION & China's PANDEMIC?" referendum. :mask: :point: :sweat:

I can modify it to elections are "largely" irrelevant except for... etc and on the economic front that seems fairly accurate to me as the neoliberal consensus has held since it took off in the eighties. Re laying foundations for socialism or whatnot, I would be very modest in my goals for the US. What I would want for Americans (including the family I have over there) is simple stuff like paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, universal healthcare, affordable college education, a fair tax system, better social security etc*. And what I'm arguing is that if the Dems don't offer that they should not expect to be given the support of those who want it. If enough progressives make it clear that this is the deal, the Dems might be forced to make some changes. If progressives jump on the Biden train now, they'll get nothing. You don't pay for a free hamburger.

*And, of course, take the money out of politics. Nothing good is going to come out of having a system that essentially legalizes bribes.

That's a relief! :sweat:

can modify it to elections are "largely" irrelevant except for... etc and on the economic front that seems fairly accurate to me as the neoliberal consensus has held since it took off in the eighties — Baden

It was the 1960s, not 1980s.

What I would want for Americans (including the family I have over there) is simple stuff like paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, universal healthcare, affordable college education, a fair tax system, better social security etc*. — Baden

I'm sorry your American relatives don't have those things. Where are they situated in terms of education level and employment?

Democracy means doing what you're told and propping up a failing and corrupt system until a philosopher-king gets into power. — Baden

Can you imagine, this is supposed to be the 'sensible' position? Fantasy gone wild - suicidal.

It was the 1960s, not 1980s. — frank

Don't be silly. Your top tax rate in 1960, for example, was 91%.

Besides, just look it up.

"Neoliberalism constituted a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which had lasted from 1945 to 1980."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism.

I'm sorry your American relatives don't have those things. Where are they situated in terms of education level and employment? — frank

Back to nonsense. Universal healthcare is not determined by education and employment. Hence, the name.

Besides, just look it up. — Baden

Sorry, I misinterpreted your phrase "took off." Neoconservatism "took off" in the 1960s in the sense that it started then.

Back to nonsense — Baden

Ok.

Neoconservatism — frank

I was talking about neoliberalism.

was talking about neoliberalism. — Baden

Can you give a name associated with it?

Clinton and Blair are big ones.

Interesting to read this thread, watching people gradually convincing themselves, once again, to elect Trump.

Not voting or voting third party is a vote for Trump (unless in a safe state). We have a clear choice: decide who the most damaging candidate is, and vote against that person.

If you can't decide who the worst is, after 3 years of Trump, or somehow equate Biden and Trump, then Trump is exactly what we deserve for the next four years.

Trump is exactly what we deserve for the next four years. — Xtrix

At last you got it.

Clinton and Blair are big ones. — Baden

Oh.

It's the dominant economic paradigm anyhow. Trump is a slight aberration, but he mostly tows the line.

Trump is exactly what we deserve for the next four years.
— Xtrix

At last you got it. — Baden

"At last"? This implies I've talked about this a lot with you, yet don't remember doing so at all.

There's nothing to "get," beyond making a choice any 8-year-old could make and which many on here seem to be struggling with.

Do you know who Alan Greenspan was?

Yeah, obviously.

Neolib through and through. What about him?

He was basically in charge of the economy. He was a staunch conservative.

So you're saying that American liberals just sort of sold out, right?

It depends on what you mean by "sold out". A certain class looked after its own interests economically. It included social conservatives and social liberals.

What do you think drove this phenomenon?

Greenspan was an economic conservative.