I don't see how you can engage with that.
There are real, legitimate, reasons why Trump voters believe what they believe. That many get caught up in the rhetoric of their "side" or don't know how to have a discussion with a goal other than "win" doesn't mean they don't see real problems that are urgent and important problems that need to be fixed.
Empathize first, argue second.
Two decades ago the Republican party acted as a bulwark against rapid change and as the yin in the yin-yang of individual vs collective. Not no more; we don't have another two decades for our education system to bring us back from the brink.
> And as much as I want to encourage a new spirit of unity, I fear that if that becomes an excuse to not confront this problem, then it will actually just make things worse.
Here's why I have absolutely zero faith that a spirit of unity will work: this "situation" has been festering since the founding of this nation and every time "unity" prevailed, the can was just kicked down the road. We wanted "All men are created equal" and got the 3/5ths compromise. We tried to save the Union, only to give up on Reconstruction before it could even really begin while institutionalizing slavery in the 13th amendment. Instead of letting general Sherman raze the south, we paid for their rebuild on the backs of "free" African Americans and let them institute Jim Crow laws to continue the oppression. When the Civil Rights movement and desegregation finally came home to roost, it caused the biggest political realignment in this country's history taking us up to this point.
We wanted the best, but it turned out like always.
Some show up to discuss a book they didn’t read, others show up having read a completely different book than the other half.
We have no common ground anymore. Everything is inherently political or can be made political.
It’s somewhat of a surreal game you can play. Name something not political.
It is unfortunate but lying openly about facts has become the only common ground in US politics, and so many people seem to be completely blind to the lies of their own camp.
However at the same time I want to clarify that I'm talking here about a level of facts even more basic than that. That is still an interpretation of what he said but at least he said it. We have an even deeper problem right now where people believe things that are completely totally untrue. Things that are provably not true without any need to bring any interpretation into it.
For example, how do we have a reasonable discussion about how to fix social justice if one side believes most of Portland has been taken over by anarchists burning cars and smashing windows of every shop and the other things it's a peaceful hippie commune covering a block and a half? Somewhere in there is an objective truth. If we can't get to that, we're never going to have a productive discussion about the underlying problems.
"you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. [...] And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/30/qanons-cons...
Your kind of rhetoric is what's dividing people.
18% of Republicans is at least ten million people, if not tens of millions, which is an order of magnitude more than I thought. Pizzagate and the illegal voters was the party line from Fox including Hannity and Carlson and is easily accessible with a [whatever you prefer] search.
The time for rhetoric and comity was a year ago when COVID didn't kill hundreds of thousands. Now is the time for action.
For what it's worth, AFAIK qanon has only been mentioned/displayed in passing on Fox [1] and while I haven't been on Fox specifically, I've never been prepped or had my wardrobe reviewed on other national broadcasters' programs so I assume they don't exert editorial control either. I'm too tired to do a deep dive for pizzagate so I will admit I may be confusing it with the Seth Rich conspiracy. It's hard to keep track this deep into the abyss.
[1] https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/definit...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/dominioni...
The democrats love to trot this out, the fringe group that somehow is a massive threat. Meanwhile they act suspiciously silent about the riots we had with BLM, which caused actual and serious damage. Not much about Philadelphia at all.
Do you know Tylenol can cause horrible death where you have all your skin fall off and veins explode? Do you talk about this when you have take that simple medication?
Try to find common ground. See what you can work together on, see what you can agree upon, rather than point to the most stupid and extreme points of the other side and giving up completely or ignoring all their concerns.
They're not even the most extreme, that's why there's no common ground! The most extreme would be the honest to goodness neo-nazis like the ones marching through Charleston a few years ago, several other flavors of white supremacists and "nationalists" like the NatCons and Bugaloo Boys, religious extremists like Pence, their crazier brother the dominionists like Bill Bar, and outright authoritarians (all of the above).
I'm all for finding common ground, but I don't care for the liberals putting in the extra effort anymore, just to have bad faith actors take advantage of it. It's time for the conservatives to "find common ground" by getting their house in order. Get rid of the Nazis, get rid of the supremacists, get rid of the extremists, and undo all the damage that Barry Goldwater predicted the preachers would do.
Most people aren't that one-dimensional, even when they've wrapped themselves up in a one-dimensonal identity. There is nuance and context to how each person arrives at the conclusions they do, even when they'd struggle to explain or remember it.
If you refuse to empathize, you're making things worse.
There are truly horrible people out there, but the vast majority of people that voted Trump are normal people with boring everyday lives. Treating every individual in that group like its extremists serves only to divide and polarize. It makes the problem worse. IF your goal is to effect positive change, you need to take a different approach. However, if you goal is to feel superior and good and like you're "on the right team", feel free to keep hating.
Th 'rhetoric they get caught up in' is so wildly insane it's like looking at a falling apple. Except half would go wow look at that gravity! the other half would say, oh that's a secret sign from Q about an underground pedophilic sex ring funded by selling pizza.
that may seem like an extreme example, but part of my state elected a CONGRESSWOMEN who believes this.
I can't attempt to understand first - because it's absolutely bonkers and detached from reality.
And that's just one of the more extreme examples I could spend all night typing more
That's exactly my point. There is. It's not impossible to come to understand the life experiences that led a person into a dark place where they feel attacked and choose to wrap themselves in fantasy to feel empowered.
> I can't attempt to understand first
While it may make you feel good and superior to reject these people outright, by refusing to do so, you become part of the problem.
> And that's just one of the more extreme examples I could spend all night typing more
I can't stress this enough: WHAT they believe is basically irrelevant to my point. If your response to what I say involves "extreme examples", you've missed (accidentally, or purposefully) my point.
What about things like taxes where it’s all cold hard math? There’s no nuance when a poor or middle class person thinks they need to worry about (for example) an inheritance tax.
This can, and will, vary subtly from individual to individual, and unless you're spending millions on TV airtime, you're only interacting with individuals.
There’s a some people are just flat out wrong and need to be told so.
Most of the people in my extended family are right-wing Republican Mormons.
They believe that anything that could be labeled "socialism" is literally evil, and will literally lead to the "destruction" of our country, because Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture said so, and they literally believe that man was a prophet of God.
I'm not exaggerating here.
A significant portion of these people get their news from Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and Glen Beck. They might be a little wrong once in a while, but for the most part, these are "smart men" who "know what's going on behind the curtain".
A significant portion of those people actually believe QAnon. Hell, we have congresspeople who believe that conspiracy theory.
So how did they get there?
They are in a cult. I'm not going to pull any punches: Mormonism is thoroughly falsifiable. It insulates its members from the faith-destroying facts about its history.
Cults work. The belief these people have is so deeply heartfelt that they refuse to even consider the possibility they might be wrong.
Cult members have a lot of practice. If they can ignore reality to preserve their religious faith, they can reject reality to defend their political ideology.
Cult members are vulnerable. Anyone who convinces a cult member that they promote the cult can manipulate most cult members into supporting them.
I know my perspective is only a small part of America, but everything I know about Trump's political base has the same hallmarks. Cults are not a small or isolated problem in America.
I have tried to appeal to them with the overtly socialist agenda of New Testament Jesus. That simply isn't the deity they worship. Most American Christians worship Supply Side Jesus. Conservatism has become a deep-rooted part of their personal ideology.
There are no underlying facts. There is instead underlying fiction. There is no reasoning these people out of their delusion.
Where were you trying to get to?
> They believe that anything that could be labeled "socialism" is literally evil, and will literally lead to the "destruction" of our country, because Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture said so, and they literally believe that man was a prophet of God.
What qualifies (to each of them) as "socialism"? What kind of "destruction" will befall the country, and when? It sounds like they want to protect something. What is that something? Why is it important to them?
> A significant portion of these people get their news from Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, and Glen Beck. They might be a little wrong once in a while, but for the most part, these are "smart men" who "know what's going on behind the curtain".
So? Why do they want these people to be right? What part of their value structure make these comfortable conclusions for them?
> [Stuff about cults]
Cults are a terrible thing, no argument here.
> There are no underlying facts.
Of course there are, you've stated some of them here. I don't means the "facts" of rhetoric, I mean the facts about their lives.
Several people have responded to me and explained how "ridiculous" the things the things these people believe are. Which misses my point entirely.
> Conservatism has become a deep-rooted part of their personal ideology.
Why? This is a question whose answer can, and will vary subtly from individual to individual. People aren't robots, and beliefs don't have an off switch. A dozen people can believe the same thing for different reasons and to different degrees. Others will say they believe something, while actually only believing that they should say they do for some other, unsaid reason. Yet others still will think they believe something, but certain experiences might unmask the cognitive dissonance within.
People are complicated bundles of personal history, not mannequins with an R or D sticker on them.
> Where were you trying to get to?
Does that really matter when the distance traveled is zero?
You said earlier:
> You engage by not going in with the intent to change a person's mind. Instead, you go in with the intent to understand their position.
Having done the latter (I was in the very same position only a few years ago), I was trying to do the former.
> What qualifies (to each of them) as "socialism"? What kind of "destruction" will befall the country, and when? It sounds like they want to protect something. What is that something? Why is it important to them?
Anything that can be labeled Socialism. Single payer healthcare. Higher taxes for anyone, including billionaires. Minimum wage.
> What kind of "destruction" will befall the country, and when?
It doesn't really get less vague than that. This is where belief in a cult's narrative gets abused by the right-wing political narrative. For Mormons, it's the "Second Coming of Jesus Christ".
There is actually a significant intersection with the right-wing political narrative and the Mormon one. His name was Ezra Taft Benson. He was Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture, then the President of and Prophet for The LDS Church. He preached that God himself was against communism and socialism. He called the Civil Rights movement a "Tool of Communist Deception".
> It sounds like they want to protect something. What is that something?
The status quo. The world as a reflection of their ideology. Their delusion. The Republican Party. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
> Why is it important to them?
Cults demand importance. They are told constantly that if the world doesn't reflect their ideology that society will literally fall apart. They are taught in Mormonism that all throughout history, God himself felled cities like Sodom and Gomorrah because the people became "prideful and immoral" and refused to listen to the warning of Prophets. They are told by right-wing talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Glen Beck, etc. that our society is losing its moral footing, and that anyone who thinks differently is stupid and malignant.
> > [Stuff about cults]
> Cults are a terrible thing, no argument here.
The stuff about cults is vitally important. It informs a pattern of thinking that is open to abuse. That is the root of the problem here. The stuff about cults cannot be separated from the rest.
> > There are no underlying facts.
> Of course there are, you've stated some of them here. I don't means the "facts" of rhetoric, I mean the facts about their lives.
What these people believe to be facts about their lives have no basis in reality. The very foundation of these alleged facts is rhetoric.
> > Conservatism has become a deep-rooted part of their personal ideology.
> Why? This is a question whose answer can, and will vary subtly from individual to individual. People aren't robots, and beliefs don't have an off switch. A dozen people can believe the same thing for different reasons and to different degrees. Others will say they believe something, while actually only believing that they should say they do for some other, unsaid reason. Yet others still will think they believe something, but certain experiences might unmask the cognitive dissonance within.
Why? Because they are in a cult. Their personal ideology has literally been replaced by external narratives. They do differ on small details (rejecting what they personally know to be false), but the greater picture is always the same.
> People are complicated bundles of personal history, not mannequins with an R or D sticker on them.
Well, that's how it should be. Unfortunately, many are convinced that being a mannequin with an R next to their name makes them an excellent political candidate, and that anyone with a D next to their name is an evil socialist actively destroying our society. Does it make sense? No. It's not about sense. It's about keeping everything in line with the ideological and cult narratives.
The die-hard (blind) fanatics on either end of the spectrum don't make a big enough group to win an election, but the assumption that they are representative of everyone in that group is incorrect and - maybe more important - counterproductive.
You have to get to know their values before you can figure out what would work.
Both on foxnews and on WaPo, there were more news about the more leftist actors. Bernie, AOC, etc. The Dems did not manage to show that these are not the mainstream democratic goals.
The pictures of rioters, combined with "defund the police" scared a lot of people, and if you start out skeptical, you might not look close enough that this doesn't mean "get rid of the police", but "descope the police, let them do their job, and find other people to do the things which are not their job".
tldr; Republicans did not even attempted to demonstrate that their goals were rather close to the center of the spectrum. Why is that the democrats are supposed to reach to center both when they won and loose?
I don't think so. When you are closed in right wing bubble, Biden is hardcore socialist, nearly progressive communist about to destroy American capitalism. Literally. He is also sleepy Joe in clear early stage of dementia. This has zero to do with what democrats demonstrated. This is made up, because making it up is good for "our side". It does not matter what Biden is or demonstrates.
Frankly, it is like relationship with narcissist. Dont let him/her gaslight you into thinking you are at fault for whatever was done to you. It is overall unfair and biased toward right wing. You dont fix relationship with narcissist by going out of your way further and further trying to prove made up accusations are false. It does not work, the middle just shifts constantly and abuse just escalates.
Republicans did not demonstrated the Trump along people he appointed, proud boys are not what the party is. You want left to stop pursuing their own policy goals, with threat that right wing will go crazy if they dont. But that is abusive logic, right wing is responsible for right wing does. And left wing is responsible for left wing does.
So you can either take your ball and go home, or you can try to pierce the bubble. Hoping for them to come out of the bubble on their own seems pointless.
IMHO this is just something people say to push Democrats to the center and then further and further right ... because the evidence shows that the current Republican party won't support any Democratic policy, basically.
These folks we're talking about will not be convinced by anything.
It's not an honest argument.
That being said, it might be interesting to look at Germany, where Merkel moved the CDU left from a center/right position to the center. This secured the CDU a rather long stretch in power, essentially spelled doom for the center/left SPD, but also gave rise to a more hard-left Die Linke and, worse, an ultra-right AfD, whicht started as a conservative party, but essentially was taken over by neo-nazis.
I do agree with you that it's tricky to try to sell being centrist when you are not, and, in some ways, better to just be out-and-out left.
TBH I'm not sure Biden really tried to sell himself as something he is not. He's been pretty clear about wanting to address systemic racism, the green new deal, a science-based response to covid, valuing international coalitions, etc.
If anything I'm kind of anticipating him walking back his pledges on those things when in office. Though I hope not.
Let's also bear in mind though that, while we can armchair-quarterback, his strategy succeeded.
I think the question of if moving to a more aggressively Progressive agenda would bring in voters hungry for change who are otherwise turned off by Democrats, or if moving more to the center to bring in voters turned off by a more Progressive agenda, is an extremely vexed question to which I have no answer.
That is interesting about Germany though.
And at the end of the day my own belief is that we are living in a time of change, and that it's important to offer policies I believe to be right (mainly Progressive policies) to address that change.
Or otherwise the void will be filled, as you pointed out about Germany, by something else.
At the same time we haven't seen that approach be successful on a national level in US politics yet. So I don't know.
Curious what your thoughts are.
I'm not so sure with regard to the votes. 2016, yes, I believe many people on the left were not happy with Clinton and did not vote. This time, we had record vote participation, and I believe that's from both sides, so the result should reflect the true political will in America. It's likely that the coasts would prefer a more progressive candidate, but I think on average, the US is somewhere between Biden and Romney.
I like the picture of the pendulum. While Obama was quite centrist, the USA made great advances in personal liberties. Gay marriage and so on. The world was changing too fast for many. Or they felt that their problems weren't in the focus as much, or at all. So the pendulum swung back, and we had Trump. We need to dampen the swinging to make steady progress, and I think Biden might be good at that, maybe especially because of his age.
Personally, I am somewhat wary of some of the more progressive ideas. I'm not a big fan of single-payer healthcare, seeing the results in England. I generally think that a market-run system is better than a government-run, but that markets need firm rules set by the government. ACA was pretty good, but long term, America has to get away from the employment-coupled insurances. And covering preexisting conditions necessarily means mandate (or mandate through the backdoor).
You might be right. Let's also bear in mind, though, that even with all the people voting this year that's still I think less than half of all eligible voters.
Other countries which have national voting holidays or making voting mandatory (which tbh I kind of like; you're a citizen, it's your duty, you can go vote for no one but goddamnit you have to vote) see much higher turnout.
This means that votes alone don't currently present an entirely accurate picture of the view of the country.
There is also the vote surpression which is nontrivial and hard to measure. Probably not a massive difference but perhaps more than a tiny one.
Lastly I'm actually not a fan of Biden's age. I'd like to see more politicians under the age of 50.
By the way although I'm sharing my disagreements I thought your comments were thoughtful and insightful and appreciate our conversation : ).
It would be quite interesting to hear from those not voting why they didn't vote. My suspicion is that these people would almost never vote, or maybe only vote for so extremely perfect candidates that it's just not realistic. But yeah, maybe there is a large group of people who would vote if the candidate would just be a little bit more progressive. But honestly, in a situation like this, with the knowledge of the last four years, I just can't understand why you wouldn't vote, at least if you are left of center.
I also cannot understand why election day isn't on a Sunday, or a holiday. It should be the highest holiday the US has. Any democracy has, actually.
Biden is also somewhat too old for my taste, but no candidate is perfect. Age does bring experience though, and he has long-lasting relationships with people on both sides of the aisle. That will help. Personally, I really liked Buttigieg, and I'm happy to see that he'll like have a role in the Biden administration.
Those are all standard centrist neoliberal goals - aside from the green new deal, which Biden already explicitly said won’t be anything nearly as radical as what AOC/Bernie were shilling.
Systemic racism has been danced around by centrists until now.
And yeah I agree we have to wait and see what the Biden administration actually does.
But as a Progressive I'm heartened because now there's an opportunity for Progressives to push the Biden administration. With Trump, there was zero chance of that.
As the FDR quote goes, "You’ve convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."
I don't think any Progressives have idealistic visions of a Biden administration. What they are hoping for is a degree of influence and an opportunity to exert political pressure or leverage.
Which is how politics is : )
In case folks haven’t clued in yet, using this phrase is probably the single most important contributor to why the democrats almost lost the election and lost so many seats. The house is absolutely going red in 2022 if they don’t clue in and drop the identity politics nonsense. There is no “systemic” racism, and this is an unnecessarily divisive narrative.
For example, this year Florida voted for Trump by 2% AND a $15 minimum wage by 20 points.
The actual policy is extremely popular, but if a Democratic politician brings it up it just gets labelled socialism.
It cuts both ways. People disagree, and where they disagree is the most likely place for both sides to hold the other side to account for previous behavior.
It's part of why I was so disgusted about fast tracking the Supreme Court nomination after McConnell set a precedent the Presidency before.
In terms of game theory it just cemented that the other side couldn't be trusted.
I will agree with you that the standard of care for those with the best insurance in the US is probably better than the Canadian system. But the standard of care here is still very good, and even as someone who could afford that good insurance, I wouldn't want to switch. Also, the US already spends more public money on healthcare than Canada does per capita despite not having single payer, so it appears there's a lot of efficiency to be gained.
Edit: please don't down vote my parent in disagreement. They answered my question in good faith and helped illuminate that viewpoint. Shouldn't be punished for that.
Regardless, I’m answering the question that was asked. You didn’t ask which health care system is better, you asked what people don’t like about Bernie’s policies. I’m attempting to offer some clarity into why people hold those positions. And do keep in mind that even if governments in other countries manage to run a decent health care system, that does very little to boost the confidence of opponents that the US government will be equally as functional in their implementation, or how long it will take them to sort it out. They have provided too many examples of poorly run institutions for some people to just disregard.
But your question wasn’t only about health care. When I say impossible price tag, I mean everything:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-maj...
As for the rest, some aspects of it do look a bit unrealistic to me. Others look ambitious but morally right, and something I'd like to see up here too, like a real focus on basic housing as a universal right, and a corresponding push to end homelessness. Regardless, you did help me see the opposing point of view; thanks.
The US government spends more on healthcare than many single payer systems, and has worse outcomes.
Billionaires have taken $50 trillion from the poor and middle class. The poor and middle class are afraid of taxes because they have nothing left to give.
Poor and middle class Americans are afraid of higher taxes because they don't have enough money.
Where did all the money go? To 400 billionaires.
50 of them now control as much wealth as the poorest 165 million Americans.
Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty, and what do we do about it? Pray to Bill Gates? Jeff Bezos?
What do I have to convince them to give their wealth to me?
Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty. 10% of Americans hold 70% of wealth, and they are all getting richer. Their income comes either from the rest of us or from inflation.
Which brings me to another reality: Most people in the US have access to a very good healthcare standard. It's not so much that they don't want all people to have that, but they do wonder if that requires a complete change of system for them.
Waiting times: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711192/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50397856
I don't think that Biden himself holds leftist views but he also did nothing to distance himself from this fringe, and if he is not neutralised by a republican senate, I think there is a legitimate concern that he will be held hostage by the left wing of the democratic party and apply many of those policies (not the least because Kamala Harris would if he steps down for health reasons).
The split is not "Democrat VS Republican". That always was a bit of an artificial construct, at least within my living memory.
There would be debates, at the end everyone would shake hands and life went on. Nothing substantially changed in policy. Bush said XX, did some stuff, Obama said XX, did pretty much the same stuff and on it went.
But then people got sick of that game.
The left wanted real change. Not forced payments to insurance companies for health care while corporations went right on doing what they do. Real action on climate. Real addresses to the problems of generational poverty and race issues instead of a few token figures and some talk.
The right also wanted real change. An end to globalist policies. An end to unfettered immigration. And an end to meaningless foreign wars (which the left also should have been in on but for some reason were not so much). Judges that would uphold their religious values. And they managed to elect a president that actually started to do some of this much to the dismay of the old guard of both parties.
So now here we are.
The Joe Bidens and Mitt Romneys of the world think they can put Humpty Dumpty back together again and it will be back to business as usual, a few drone strikes, some trade deals and big companies growing ever more powerful. But I suspect not this time. If Biden actually is certified and elected I think he will greatly disappoint the left and the more radical wing will become increasingly hostile. Meanwhile the right, believing the election to be stolen by "communists" through voter fraud will become increasingly conspiracy minded. None of this is a recipe for reconciliation.
My feeling is we need to move beyond facile political posturing and step back and take a hard look at globalism, at nationalism, at the role of federal governments.
We can't deny globalism is here. It's not going away. Capital and information and product and even jobs are going to cross borders. There are many issues we can only solve globally. But if it's not done in a way that protects the livelihoods, dignity, traditions, cultural preferences and aspirational wishes of people there are going to be problems, and probably even bloodshed. People must get most of what they want or at least feel it's possible.
The "right" and the "left" as they are commonly understood in the US are not as far apart in this as it first appears. They both feel they are engaged in a struggle against oppression and for human freedom.
The alarming part is, in order to maintain order (and of course the system which much chug along) the paranoia about authoritarianism from both sides might be realized soon enough.
It's possible. But the numbers don't bear this out.
In every state that was close where Biden won, his margin of victory was less than the number of votes that Jo Jorgensen (the Libertarian candidate) received.
That tells me that enough R-types were disgusted enough with Trump that they voted Libertarian for President and R for everyone else.
Check out the numbers for yourself[0]. Just click on each state and it will break down the vote totals for each candidate. And in every. single. case. the margin of victory for Biden is less than the number of votes received by Jo Jorgensen.
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2020-us-presidential-electi...
In Some States, Like Nevada, the number of people that choose "NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES" for president more or less matches the number of people that voted for Jo...
Further an over all Analysis shows there were almost as many Split Biden votes, as there were Split Trump Votes
This idea that "3rd party spoils the election" or changes the election has been dis-proven often, as absent the 3rd choice most people that vote 3rd party simply do not vote at all, or choose no one in that particular race (which is an option most people for get, you do not have to pick a person in every race on a ballot, blank is a valid choice)
Something I've found worth thinking when I hear that, to paraphrase a random sentiment you might hear, "Democrats need to understand that people need to feel secure, that's why gun control matters" is this: who is telling these people that they should be scared?
Life in general? If you have an idea that this country is safe, then great! But the reality is it’s not, not for many. And to take someone’s method of defense because you can’t see a reason why doesn’t do well for relations. And as the sibling post here said, the left hasn’t tried to understand guns enough to enact gun control that doesn’t sound laughable.
People will vote on fear before they'll vote on the abject failure of social policy that creates situations where that fear might be justified. That's just how humans are wired: we're not rational. It shouldn't be a matter of taking someone's means of defense, it's trying to address why they feel they need it in the first place. But even then, guns just aren't a particularly good investment if what you want to do is successfully defend yourself from crime. The stats just don't bear it out. So again, who is telling people that they should have one? Who does it suit for large amounts of people to believe that this specific form of mitigation makes sense?
Unfortunately, gun control is such a hot-button issue that it's actually outside the Overton window for an entire political faction. If you bring it up at all, even if you're talking about meta-issues like this, the conversation tends to shut down instantly. This is why the response is always "the Dems need to understand" not "the Republicans need to propose." The fear it represents, and the self-image that any conversation around it challenges, are so fundamental that attempting to approach it from any direction is seen as a personal attack. Again, this is not accidental; it is worth understanding when and how this happened, and who was involved in it.
Then lets also consider that when you talk about self defense, and the possible loss of life, should we be forced to play the "just enough" game with defensive force? Who exactly likes gambling with their life?
> Then lets also consider that when you talk about self defense, and the possible loss of life, should we be forced to play the "just enough" game with defensive force? Who exactly likes gambling with their life?
That's exactly the situation in most of the West. It's just not normal to have to expect to be both in a life-threatening situation, and for the correct response on your part be to kill someone. That's a social and governmental failure right there.
Actually it does, and in some countries this is required by law. Here is the definition of militia: "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers."
This is a last resort army, and in fact every able body citizen able to take up arms is already a "member".
And what will training do? If you train someone crazy who wants to kill people, this doesn't take their desire to kill people away does it? Dems keep leaning on that training as if it's a silver bullet but in reality it will do nothing. The democratic politicians holding, how come they've never been seen at a range if training is so important? This sounds like the dems saying everybody but them needs some training again. Not likely to get traction.
> organisation
organization
> That's exactly the situation in most of the West. It's just not normal to have to expect to be both in a life-threatening situation, and for the correct response on your part be to kill someone. That's a social and governmental failure right there.
What west? The US? or the Western US? This is pure opinion. It may not be normal for you, but every California politician has a conceal carry permit. Some 500k lawyers do as well. It very much is normal, just not for you.
This is literally the safest period in American history when it comes to crimes, especially violent crimes.
We need reform, not absurd threats to ban AR-15's while keeping Mini-14's. Not arbitrary tax stamps and wait times for suppressors and short barrel rifles.
I personally haven't seen gun control legislation proposed in America that isn't totally laughable. It's a deep-rooted thorn in the foot of progressive American politics.
Is it unreasonable undesirable or unnecessary?
I disagree. Guns are tools. Guns are toys.
The overwhelming majority of firearm use is safe and recreational.
Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence[1].
The problem with guns isn't that there are a lot of them. The problem is that they are, in very rare cases, used to do serious harm.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
In the context of self-defense... yes? It's just not a very good return on investment.
> I disagree. Guns are tools. Guns are toys.
> The overwhelming majority of firearm use is safe and recreational.
Right, so that's the other half of gun owners, who don't say they have a gun for self-protection, which wasn't the context of this thread. That's fine, though.
> Gun ownership is not correlated with gun violence[1].
I mean, it clearly is. You get less gun violence in countries where there are fewer gun owners. That's trivially true. And you'll have to forgive my cynicism, but I can't take wikipedia seriously as a reference on this topic. It's too well-funded a concern for that page not to be pulled in every direction under the sun.
> The problem with guns isn't that there are a lot of them. The problem is that they are, in very rare cases, used to do serious harm.
The CDC says 39,740 firearm deaths in 2018. Four or five weeks of COVID, at that rate. Whether that counts as "very rare" is subjective, I suppose. That's the cheap bit, though: because the US seems to have a congenital inability to prevent people from going bankrupt over medical bills, you've also got to factor in the same again (to a tolerable approximation) in hospitalisations, according to the NIH.
At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?"
It's not just the direct harm. In supporting a culture that normalises making things go pop for fun, you get an extensive infrastructure that also benefits people who end up being a serious problem. Yes, that includes school shootings which, yes, are rare, but they're also fairly unique to the US in scale and regularity. Saying "they're rare" doesn't absolve anyone of the need to question why that is, or what can be done to make them less lethal. They make headlines - or used to; they're frequent enough now that they're less news-worthy, which in itself points to a really deep issue - out of proportion to the number of people directly affected because of the combination of the innocence of youth and the extremity of the violence, but now all the schools need to have active-shooter drills because, as a society, the behaviour of the US shows us that it prefers making things go pop to making kids safe.
> At some point you've got to look at that situation and think "Is the fun of making things go pop worth it?"
So again, you are taking your opinion and projecting it onto others. You may think removing guns solves gun crimes. Mexico stands blatantly against that. You may think violence stops when guns disappear, then you see knife and other brutal attacks. You are stating you don't need them, so nobody else does. The second you the victim of some violent crime, or lose a family member you'll change your tune, as you see tons of democrats doing now.
Try that comparison with literally any of the other G7 nations.
> You may think removing guns solves gun crimes. Mexico stands blatantly against that.
No, what Mexico shows is that gun control legislation is pointless if you can't enforce it. I'm not arguing that gun control legislation alone is some panacea; that would be absurd. It needs to have teeth.
> You may think violence stops when guns disappear, then you see knife and other brutal attacks.
Yep. That's a reasonable tradeoff. Apart from anything else, it means the police can de-escalate themselves from assuming that they might get shot during any encounter to assuming that if they don't get close enough to get stabbed, they're less likely to be in immediate danger. That's a good thing.
> The second you the victim of some violent crime, or lose a family member you'll change your tune
It seems reasonable to you that your position requires me to undergo an experience so traumatic as to prevent rational thought? Think I'll pass.
How did it get this way? There's laws in place to prevent it. Buying an AR in MX is impossible. How do they get in the country? They should be stopped at the border. Just like hard drugs should be stopped when coming across the US border. Proof that even import controls don't work. We're also in the age of 3d printing and home fabrication. Guns are not going to disappear from criminals hands, only law abiding citizens.
> But it's interesting that you would pick a country with a long-running inter-cartel drug war, rampant police corruption, extremely weak enforcement, and less than a quarter the average household income as somehow directly being comparable to the US.
So two questions here, how did it get corrupt in the first place? What has stopped corruption in the US? If the Mexican citizens wish to end this corruption, how can they? I'm going to disregard the poverty claim because it's just senseless to imply poor people are violent.
> The more remarkable question we should be asking is, with all that going on, how on earth is the US struggling to do any better than Mexico?
Great question! Perhaps violence is just as out of control here as in Mexico?
> No, what Mexico shows is that gun control legislation is pointless if you can't enforce it. I'm not arguing that gun control legislation alone is some panacea; that would be absurd. It needs to have teeth.
What does the legislation having "teeth" entail?
> Apart from anything else, it means the police can de-escalate themselves from assuming that they might get shot during any encounter to assuming that if they don't get close enough to get stabbed, they're less likely to be in immediate danger. That's a good thing.
So then if the police are overly violent, or if they were to take control, then what? Wasn't a majority of the left just rioting over police being too violent? You want to throw your trust entirely into the hope that they are sane?
> It seems reasonable to you that your position requires me to undergo an experience so traumatic as to prevent rational thought? Think I'll pass.
How is the desire to defend one's self irrational? This just seems like pure opinion, and slightly scary. Again, for those in immediate danger how do they defend themselves? You clearly lack experience in any traumatic event, and are now running around saying that because of your lack of experience, nobody should be able to defend themselves with firearms. Really?
Centrism is always a relative concept. Just because the right wing has radicalized over the past 30-40 years doesn't mean the left can't also radicalized, moving centrism to different places
The left or even centre-left has never been in power in the US and probably never will.
The GOP has gone so far right that "centrist" is unrecognizable.
There are enough policies that both sides overwhelmingly support to keep this congress busy - marijuana legalization being the lowest hanging fruit from what I can see. Some kind of a federal minimum wage hike is another one.
What's an example of some common ground you see, and very roughly how does it happen? For example, we all agree that X is bad, so we will pass a bill to do Y.
Obviously, that example is hypothetical. Any common ground will not involve legislation as the explicitly stated and (very successfully practiced for 6 years) position of one party is a hard-stop on any legislative cooperation.
Consider pretty much any issue and there is big fat core of common ground, but typically the debate is around how to best address that issue - what is the best approach, do we tackle this problem now or do we tackle that other problem first, will this path lead to bad unintended consequences, etc.
Immigration. Most people have a pretty favorable view of immigration and immigrants - pretty much everyone has an immigrant story in their background. The debate is more on the requirements to be let in, especially in cases where there is an established legal process and someone doesn't follow that process.
Taxes. Few people want to pay more than is needed. Everyone wants taxation to be fair. It's not hard to get people to admit that they see a lot of good can come from the proper use of taxes. The debate is more about tax rates, where taxes should be spent, etc.
Abortion. A huge majority of Americans do not like the idea of completely restriction-free abortions and quite a few people have concerns that, pre-birth, that thing inside the mother is a person to some degree or another. Simultaneously a huge majority of Americans do not like the idea of the government exerting control and getting involved in people's lives any more than it should.
Gun control, the economy, national defense, education, the climate. It goes on and on - name any issue and there's a ton of common ground. For people who are interested in progress and solving problems, it's ripe with opportunity.
I used to think this, but after speaking with trump supporters over the last few years (consisting of both friendships IRL as well as inflammatory people online) I'm hearing more and more the rhetoric that immigrants are just bad - keep the foreigners out
Nonetheless these people were demonized and subject to family separations and lesser cruelties.
85% of Americans believe there is racism in America. If it were not political, reform in the prison system could absolutely be achieved.
The vast majority of Americans would accept reforms to Healthcare if each law were not hugely politicized. For example, some Republican voters accept or reject literally the same policy when it's presented by different sides of the aisle.
Americans would overwhelmingly accept some kind of Amnesty for children of migrants, and 'some kind' of program for others if - on the other side of the aisle - there were serious reforms and enhancements to ensure border integrity. Any attempt to offer amnesty would probably be weaponized by Republicans and Fox for political points.
The majority of Americans believe that fetus/babies that are viable in the 3rd trimester (i.e. could be born premature) should not be up for abortion. But that 'the day of conception' isn't really tantamount to life. But the extremists won't allow for any common ground.
Even on business tax, income tax - if you actually put numbers together, there are plans that are very popular, but rejected by one radical side or another.
Left wing Governor Cuomo, and Far Left Wing Mayor Deblasio pushed hard for the Amazon deal for NYC, but AOC et. al. really pushed to kill it even though the majority of her constituents (ever people of colour) wanted it. Amazons investment in NYC, while controversial, was quite popular - but killed by more radical voices.
Popular political systems tend to promote and highlight the more extreme views, this is amplified in the press with arguing talking heads.
AOC, Donald Trump get huge attention for the loud, bombastic, contrarian positions they take. In politics 'attention' is everything, that's their currency. They are not incented to 'govern well' they are incented to 'get >50% of the votes' which they do so by making a lot of noise, and spinning everything their opponents do against them.
It takes a lot of maturity, a lot of credibility in systems to get away from that.
Go ahead and have a look at the politics of Germany, they have some English language sites. They have some actual Nazis over there, and yet, somehow, the news and debate is still deftly boring. It's really amazing. Angela Merkel, possibly my favorite politician, has to be the most 'opposite' to Donald Trump imaginable. Coalition governments have a lot to do with that as well.
There are people who argue that the US presidential system is inherently unstable compared to parliamentary systems:
https://newrepublic.com/article/130028/americas-presidential...
There's no middle ground on abortion when there's a number of people that won't even accept the abortion of a fetus that is already dead. There's no middle ground when a significant number of people believe that a fetus should have the same legal protections as a human, so any abortion is murder and make no exceptions for rape, incest, or even when the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother.
> Americans would overwhelmingly accept some kind of Amnesty for children of migrants
Eh not really. I know this is merely anecdata, but I personally know someone who firmly believes that an immigrant overstaying their visa has committed a crime, is now a criminal, and they (and their family) need to be deported immediately.
You're missing my argument here.
You are highlighting an example of an 'extremist' view - this doesn't in any way indicate there is 'no common' ground.
Maybe own views on abortion might have triggered you to miss this (?) and that there are extremists on the 'other end of the spectrum' - there are those who believe that a baby, near the point of being born, possibly even 'past due' is merely a 'fetus' and should have no rights.
3rd trimester abortions are quite rare, but they do exist and there are some who push for them.
The point is that abortion, which is a really difficult moral issue with extremism on either side, actually does have a huge common ground.
The vast majority of Americans, outside of hyperbole, would essentially accept 'early abortions' as fairly unambiguously acceptable. Beyond that, it would be more contentious.
The 'hard anti-abortion' camp would obviously not like that, and the 'hard fetus is only a fetus' camp would be livid that there were restrictions on later abortions.
But the 'centre ground' would hold, at least in terms of popular acceptance.
Of course it won't happen because the 'far sides' war with each other on it. We may, over decades, arrive at some kind of result that looks like that, we mostly already have.
"I personally know someone who firmly believes that an immigrant overstaying their visa has committed a crime, is now a criminal, and they (and their family) need to be deported immediately."
Again - this kind of misses the 'centre ground' argument.
That you know someone who thinks 'any overstay should be aborted' only indicates that there are people who feel strongly about it.
It says nothing about the 'common ground'.
Here is the evidence [1]. Even a majority of Republicans support DACA.
I'd encourage everyone to spend a lot of time in Pew Research, it's amazing. There are a lot of surveys in there with respect to so many issues that one might find surprising.
It is frankly Pew Research that has made be understand how much common ground their is, and my OP is really based on quite some time perusing that data - I should have probably referred to it - but on every one if the issues I highlighted, there's Pew data to support it.
Here's some data on policing [2]
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/17/americans-b...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/05/a-month-bef...
This is why I’m an independent. The quicker people realize the solution isn’t blue or red, but instead in the middle, the quicker we can actually resolve issues.
Trump tried to cancel green cards, along with other visas, without any warning a week after his inauguration. People who had lived, worked, paid taxes in the United States for years and followed every legal process were nonetheless stranded away from their homes and families.
That was really the point of no return. Trump supporters are the enemy; no reconciliation is possible.
I’m sorry but the idea that a political opponent is an “enemy” is just childish. If your country is trying to kill you then apply for political asylum, otherwise realize a great majority of people here think you have side channeled your way into this country.
There is a legitimate way to debate immigration policy. It's the intentional infliction of cruelty and dehumanization that makes this situation irreconcilable, not any desire to change policy.
If one big problem facing U.S. politics right now is that everything is distilled down to a binary either-or with no room for nuance, its sibling problem is assuming that everyone on the "other side" from you is the same, i.e. that the crazy extremist you see on TV is a prototypical example of everyone in that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.