pogo inspired introspection

[JohnRoberts]

I cannot predict the outcomes of elections but one thing I can be certain about is next week either way millions of us will be deeply disappointed. In the past this did not cause any extraordinary concern but the escalating partisan enmity suggest that next week could see elevated outbreaks of public tension and likely confrontation. 

I continue to be inspired by this group's ability to carry on civil discussion about every hot current events topic that comes along. I think the reason we can do this is mutual respect for each other, helped no doubt by common interest (in audio electronics).

I hope we can try to extend the same courtesy we extend to each other, to outsiders even if underserving. It is human nature to look outside ourselves to assign blame. It is easy to blame political leaders from both parties (because they deserve it), not to mention media for fanning the flames. They all are just promoting their own self interest but this does not make it OK, just understandable.

Good luck to us all, who I expect to survive next week just fine, and good luck to everybody else who lack the good model for how to behave that we enjoy.

JR

PS: Forgive my unsolicited introspection but I'm old...  8)

 

[hodad]

You have met the enemy, and the enemy is us?  That's the only Pogo introspection that readily leaps to mind. 

Here's an observation/question:  It makes me a little uneasy to find that the American "left" are now the ones defending, and even siding with, institutions they once feared and despised--like the FBI & even to some extent the CIA.  And the right is hostile toward these institutions they once revered.  Left/right attitudes about Russia are flipped as well.

What does this say about the left?  What does it say about the right?  I'm not sure it bodes well for either side, and it's also very strange when someone who is, say, passionately opposed to the burning of the flag is also intensely distrustful of US law enforcement agencies. 

Strange times.

 

[ruffrecords]

I am (thankfully) largely ignorant of US politics. What is happening next week?

Cheers

Ian

 

[hodad]

Elections.  We vote on every member of the House of Representatives (435), as well as 1/3 of Senate seats.  Many states have  gubernatorial (and other statewide) elections as well. 

 

[ruffrecords]

Elections.  We vote on every member of the House of Representatives (435), as well as 1/3 of Senate seats.  Many states have  gubernatorial (and other statewide) elections as well.

So the equivalent of our general election to the House of Commons. I always found it odd you have a separate election for the president. Here the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party. And then you have the senate which is also elected I believe. For a country that likes to cut the crap and get on with things you sure have a convoluted political system.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

So the equivalent of our general election to the House of Commons. I always found it odd you have a separate election for the president. Here the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party. And then you have the senate which is also elected I believe. For a country that likes to cut the crap and get on with things you sure have a convoluted political system.

Cheers

Ian

We have elections every two years for a fraction of the house of representatives, and senate, every other time (4 years) those elections include the President. State elections for governors and state legislators are held at the same time as federal government elections.

It is easy to imagine how from a distance you can't tell we are having an election right now because the political infighting has spilled over into almost every aspect of daily life, and occurs all year long, so this is just another week in the neighborhood.  :

My point is that we can have civil discussions here on this forum while the political manipulators work hard to keep us angry and arguing with each other over perceived differences, rather than calmly sharing what we agree about.

It reminds me of that Ghostbuster movie where the evil slime gained energy from the public being angry. This may be analogous to the political class being the evil slime and the energy they gain is campaign money.  8)  or not.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

You have met the enemy, and the enemy is us?  That's the only Pogo introspection that readily leaps to mind. 

Here's an observation/question:  It makes me a little uneasy to find that the American "left" are now the ones defending, and even siding with, institutions they once feared and despised--like the FBI & even to some extent the CIA.  And the right is hostile toward these institutions they once revered.  Left/right attitudes about Russia are flipped as well.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.  (that said FBI and CIA should not be involved in domestic politics. )

I somehow doubt the depth of that support. It seems the support for Comey flip flopped with each of his political flip flops. (alternately helping and hurting Hillary's campaign).

What does this say about the left?  What does it say about the right? 

Thanks for the softball pitch right over the plate, but I decline to play this identity politics (at least right now).

I'm not sure it bodes well for either side, and it's also very strange when someone who is, say, passionately opposed to the burning of the flag is also intensely distrustful of US law enforcement agencies. 

Strange times.

Nice try... I bet even we agree about far more than we disagree about, but modern politics works to keep is in different corners distrusting each other, so we don't notice what they are doing.

JR

PS: Burning flags is protected speech, and I already suggested buying a beer for law enforcement.

 

[hodad]

Nice try... I bet even we agree about far more than we disagree about, but modern politics works to keep is in different corners distrusting each other, so we don't notice what they are doing.

JR
PS: Burning flags is protected speech, and I already suggested buying a beer for law enforcement.

I wasn't actually trying to bait you, or trying to place views upon you that aren't yours.  But you're not necessarily a typical Republican voter.
But take a look around.  Right and left, things are weird.  When I find myself agreeing with George Will on anything, I can be pretty certain these are strange times. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

I wasn't actually trying to bait you, or trying to place views upon you that aren't yours.  But you're not necessarily a typical Republican voter.
But take a look around.  Right and left, things are weird. 

The state of modern politics is highly agitated. I don't remember anytime quite like this and I lived through the 60's. If we aren't careful we could revisit some of those 60's lows for public discord. Modern technology (like social media) seems to be amplifying the partisan divide and spreading it into our daily lives.

When I find myself agreeing with George Will on anything, I can be pretty certain these are strange times.

I would have to know or care what he thinks to comment, but I can guess. I remember him from back when I actually watched the Sunday news (opinion?) shows last century.

President Trump is not a typical republican or conservative politician, so many of the old guard political elite (the swamp) feel threatened about him upsetting the apple cart. Not surprising for him to get attacked from both right and left.
=====
I feel bad about the nasty political ads you are probably being bombarded with 24x7 right now. I occasionally watch a hawks game on my DVR and if I don't hit the FF button fast enough I get exposed to some political GA mud slinging.

The good news is that this vote will be over soon. (in MS we are pretty much assured a run off so two votes this month).

JR

 

[hodad]

=====
I feel bad about the nasty political ads you are probably being bombarded with 24x7 right now. I occasionally watch a hawks game on my DVR and if I don't hit the FF button fast enough I get exposed to some political GA mud slinging.

I'm pretty excited about Trae Young--he's still quite a raw talent, but he shows flashes of brilliance.  I look forward to seeing him develop. 

As to the ads, I don't see that many.  And in Atlanta, I see a lot more ads from Dems than Rs, so I personally am not that bothered.  South & central Georgia are seeing something completely different, I'm sure. 

Different is not always better, and I very much feel that way about Trump.  That's not to excuse flaws in the political establishment, but when your approach to governance primarily involves tearing down & not building up (which seems to be Trump's MO), I see limited value.

 

[ruffrecords]

President Trump is not a typical republican or conservative politician, so many of the old guard political elite (the swamp) feel threatened about him upsetting the apple cart. Not surprising for him to get attacked from both right and left.

Loose cannon comes to mind.

Cheers

Ian

 

[PRR]

...I always found it odd you have a separate election for the president....

Well, you have a hereditary King who nominally Approves your day-to-day government. Who watches over us?

"Popular" election of Pres is 'new'.

Originally (after a weak cooperative committee faded) the Legislatures of each state appointed Senators, Representatives, and 'Electors'. No popular vote at the national level. The state Legislatures had run their own states well, were generally "democratic" (elected by rich white men), and not ready to sign-away direct control of this new-fangled joint effort.

The 'electors' took suggestions from their Legislatures and met to select President and Vice President. While every legislature had a Favorite Son, only two could take office. By 1800 there were problems. The 12th Amendment specified roughly that  #1 got Pres and #2 got VP. Later (perhaps with powerful parties) the Pres candidate suggested a guy for VP and this was normally done.

In the 19th century "popular vote" became a trend. State-by-state, legislatures let us directly elect Reps and Senators. Eventually each Pres candidate (really his Party) appointed potential electors in each state who would stand for him. So I don't vote for "JFK", I vote for several obscure but loyal minor party-persons pledged to their state party and then to JFK. Since no minor candidate ever gets near top vote, this mostly works smoothly. But the process for allocating population to reps and Electors is based on stale data, rounding-off, and intense re-districting.  So the Electoral College vote differs from the Popular vote.

Yes, it *frequently* ends up that the President is a different party than one or both branches of Congress. (Can't happen there?) ATM they are all nominally "the same"; this could change tomorrow (Voting Day) (all reps and 1/3rd of Senators are on the line). Having "opponents" is not a bad thing: you lay all blame for inaction or failure on their obstructionism. IMHO some of the best periods have been when everybody had to hold their noses and work together to get anything done.

 

[Matador]

Imagine a system where you try and decide what 100 people have for dinner.  You take a vote: 51 say they love Mexican food, but hate Japanese, and 49 say they despise Mexican food, and prefer Japanese.  It's odd to think that the conclusion of the 51 is "Hey, we have a mandate! Mexican food for everyone!  Anyone who doesn't like Mexican food isn't truly American!".  Even worse is when only 50 of the people vote, and less than 25% agree on Mexican.

Nobody would decide what to have for dinner this way:  what sane people would do is say, "Is everyone ok with Greek?  No?  How about Italian?"  Even if Italian is not everyone's first choice, and nobody really got exactly what they wanted, a) nobody went home incredibly upset, and b) nobody went home hungry (which is the ENTIRE point of eating in the first place).

But that's exactly how our adversarial system works:  Trump wins by 70,000 votes in three states, and declares that this means we must tact severely to the right as a nation, even after losing the popular vote by nearly three million votes.  He's packing the Supreme Court with Federalist Society faithful's, even though 'originalism' as a legal concept is pretty far in the minority as a fundamental principle of the law (taken across everyone that studies or practices law).  If the Dem's prevail today, and again in 2020, isn't it in part because they so strongly disagree with the policy direction we are currently experiencing?  Why doesn't everyone like Japanese, it's very good food!

And was it any different in 2010?  We saw the creation of the Tea Party as a backlash against a perceived 'takeover of the health care by the federal government' and the notion that federal deficit spending was out of control, which caused a huge swing  back to Republican control.  Everyone should eat Mexican and like it!

Will it be any different today?  If the Democrats manage to regain control of the House, and perhaps the presidency and Senate in 2020, that means Tea Party 2.0 will be in full swing in 2022 after the Dems try to make their policies reality.  Japanese food is good, everyone should like it!  But the people are asking for Mexican!  It's a revolt!

When will someone propose Greek or Italian?  Right now, nearly everyone in the country is starving, and we're collectively sitting in the parking lot, wasting away to flesh and bone, as we aimlessly walk back and forth between the Mexican restaurant and the Japanese restaurant, arguing over the best kind of food while nobody gets to eat.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I hear the ozone hole is starting to close up...  ;D

JR

 

[fazer]

I'm having Mexican tonight ,  Had Japanese last night.

 

[ruffrecords]

Well, you have a hereditary King who nominally Approves your day-to-day government. Who watches over us?

Except the Quen's only recourse is abdication if she refuses to sign a statute

"Popular" election of Pres is 'new'.

Originally (after a weak cooperative committee faded) the Legislatures of each state appointed Senators, Representatives, and 'Electors'. No popular vote at the national level. The state Legislatures had run their own states well, were generally "democratic" (elected by rich white men), and not ready to sign-away direct control of this new-fangled joint effort.

The 'electors' took suggestions from their Legislatures and met to select President and Vice President. While every legislature had a Favorite Son, only two could take office. By 1800 there were problems. The 12th Amendment specified roughly that  #1 got Pres and #2 got VP. Later (perhaps with powerful parties) the Pres candidate suggested a guy for VP and this was normally done.

In the 19th century "popular vote" became a trend. State-by-state, legislatures let us directly elect Reps and Senators. Eventually each Pres candidate (really his Party) appointed potential electors in each state who would stand for him. So I don't vote for "JFK", I vote for several obscure but loyal minor party-persons pledged to their state party and then to JFK. Since no minor candidate ever gets near top vote, this mostly works smoothly. But the process for allocating population to reps and Electors is based on stale data, rounding-off, and intense re-districting.  So the Electoral College vote differs from the Popular vote.

Yes, it *frequently* ends up that the President is a different party than one or both branches of Congress. (Can't happen there?)

Not really. The Prime Minister is the head of government which is usually the party with a majority in parliament. If nobody has an overall majority (called a hung parliament and rare until the last 10 years or so) then the parties attempt to form a majority by coalition. This often ends up with the Prime Minister being from one party and his deputy from the other. Coalitions tend to be fragile affairs and can often lead a another General Election being held when it all falls apart. We have no rigid 4 year timetable like you do although the party in power must hold an election before it has been in power for four years. We have a hung parliament right now which considerably weakens Theresa May's position. I like coalitions because nobody can do anything extreme.

ATM they are all nominally "the same"; this could change tomorrow (Voting Day) (all reps and 1/3rd of Senators are on the line). Having "opponents" is not a bad thing: you lay all blame for inaction or failure on their obstructionism. IMHO some of the best periods have been when everybody had to hold their noses and work together to get anything done.

But does all legislation drawn up by Senate (I assume that is who does it or are they the equivalent of our House of Lords?) , does it all have to be signed by the President like ours does by the Queen?

Cheers

Ian

 

[Banzai]

When will someone propose Greek or Italian?  Right now, nearly everyone in the country is starving, and we're collectively sitting in the parking lot, wasting away to flesh and bone, as we aimlessly walk back and forth between the Mexican restaurant and the Japanese restaurant, arguing over the best kind of food while nobody gets to eat.

i.e. a viable 3rd party

You have the leaders, and the voters, to finally make it happen.

 

[PRR]

Perhaps technically the UK sovereign must sign or resign. Could happen. The best Kings will forge some deal before it gets to that; Lizzie has the knack of asking a polite question and turning politicians around. She also knows when to tend her garden and let the rest of the place do what it wants. (Not Tweeting every 3 minutes gives much power when you do speak.) Yes, she will leave the throne sometime and it is not clear what skills the next guy really has.

The US does not have some "Ultimate Authority" to look askance at bad policy. The current setup is a several-way balance of powers and terms-- 2 year Reps, 4 year Pres, 6 year Senators (all originally appointed/agreed by State legislatures), and lifetime Judges.

(Most) Legislation can be introduced in either house. It may be (often is) proposed by the president as a talking point, but one of the houses must put it on their agenda. It then must pass both houses, and be signed by the Pres. (Failure to sign invokes more options; this is somewhat rare. But our founders did TRY to cover the bases.) Questions of interpretation, not resolved by re-legislation,  rise through the courts to the Supremes.

Your UK courts are(were?) appointed by the King. The US dithered. Some felt a federal court could be tyrannical (why would they think that?). The Constitution only sketched "one supreme Court" and others. It's not real clear this was intended to be a 3-way balance, as now portrayed. Half the Bill Of Rights (document passed to expedite consensus on the Constitution) deal with judicial matters. Details come from Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by congress and the pres. President nominates, Senate confirms. Fun Fact- that first court found that some of JA1789 was invalid, establishing the Supremes as a check on the other parts of government.  Many later detail mods. The Supremes have been the butt of our awkward politics: issues where legislators fail to force some consensus rise through the courts to narrow decisions that nobody likes.

 

[ruffrecords]

Sorry about mangled post. I think I have fixed that.

Until about 1200 we had trial by ordeal. Pick up a red hot bar or a stone from a cauldron of boiling water. If you started to heal after 3 days you were considered innocent! For civil disputes, trial by combat was popular.

The Curia Regis was introduced after the Norman conquest (1066). It was originally presided over by the King himself but soon evolved to include travelling judges to dispense the King's justice. It was a very precarious sytem until the civil war with the King having the power to sack judges. Bribery and corruption was commonplace. From then on the judiciary gradually became more and more independent of the government. As recently as 2005, the Constitutional Reform Act finally severed all ties between judiciary and government. Until 2006, the Lord Chancellor was part of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.  The Act establishes the Lord Chief Justice as President of the Courts of England and Wales and Head of its Judiciary, a role previously performed by the Lord Chancellor. For the first time an express statutory duty is placed on the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers of the Crown to protect the independence of the judiciary. For the first time in its 1,000-year history, the judiciary is officially recognised as a fully independent branch of the government. This act is often said to be the most significant since the Magna Carta.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Our founders were clearly inspired by the UK system (Magna Carta et al). It is worth note we revolted against British control. The founders studied pretty much every significant government that existed before ours and debated their proposed variants with several anonymously authored  policy thesis that were published in regional newspapers.

It looks like we have survived another election without blood in the streets or the world ending. As pendulums are wont to do the house has swung back to democratic control. I caught part of Nancy Pelosi's victory speech and was not inspired (but I did not watch the whole thing). This will energize the investigative committees in the house so expect more political theater ahead of 2020.

A split congress is not the worst thing for the economy. Legislative gridlock may slow the growth of government, without hurting deregulation (that is mainly the purview of the executive branch). Not ideal if you view government as the answer for everything, not that bad if you don't.

JR

@PRR good overview and while legislation could originate in either house, it generally comes from the house.