Is Civil War pending? Well Laurie has been reading opinion pieces that are preaching a very bleak future for the USA. She has posted links in the comments over here.
Now I have to agree with her that Trump questioning the Presidential election results like the immature narcissistic poor loser he is certainly did not help. Then again there are his willing cult followers who seem willing to doubt the results even though Biden won by 7.5 MILLION votes and 4 States. And this has NOT changed no matter how many recounts these idiots stage.
And it is correct that we now score as a FLAWED DEMOCRACY. Though we are the most complicated / diverse / large country near the top of the list. And we only score really low in 2 categories: "II. Functioning Of Government" "IV. Political Culture"
II. Functioning Of Government has some very Un-American Criteria... " Public confidence in political parties", "Public confidence in government", "Popular perceptions of the extent to which citizens have free choice and control over their lives.", "Does the government’s authority extend over the full territory of the country?", etc.
IV. Political Culture is equally at odds with American Culture. "Is there a sufficient degree of societal consensus and cohesion to underpin a stable, functioning democracy?", "Perceptions of leadership; proportion of the population that desires a strong leader who bypasses parliament and elections.", "There is a strong tradition of the separation of Church and State.", "Perceptions of rule by experts or technocratic government; proportion of the population that would prefer rule by experts or technocrats."
From my perception, no wonder we score questionably on this. Given that the FAR Left and FAR Right are sizeable blocks in our polarized country, what in the world would success look like? Since our States intentionally have significant power, what would success look like?
Here was their summary:
The global average score hit an all-time low.
As recorded in the Democracy Index in recent years, democracy has not been in robust health for some time. In 2020 its strength was further tested by the outbreak of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. The average global score in the 2020 Democracy Index fell from 5.44 in 2019 to 5.37. This is by far the worst global score since the index was first produced in 2006. The 2020 result represents a significant deterioration and came about largely—but not solely—because of government-imposed restrictions on individual freedoms and civil liberties that occurred across the globe in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The deterioration in the global score in 2020 was driven by a decline in the average regional score everywhere in the world, but by especially large falls in the “authoritarian regime”-dominated regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa. Their scores declined by 0.10 and 0.09, respectively, between 2019 and 2020. Western Europe and eastern Europe both recorded a fall in their average regional scores of 0.06. The score for Asia and Australasia, the region which has made the most democratic progress during the lifetime of the Democracy Index, fell by 0.05. Latin America’s average score declined by 0.04 in 2020, marking the fifth consecutive year of regression for the region. The average score for North America fell by only 0.01, but a bigger decline of 0.04 in the US score was masked by an improvement in Canada’s score.
US democracy under pressure from rising polarisation and declining social
cohesion. The US’s performance across several indicators changed in 2020, both for better and worse. However, the negatives outweighed the positives, and the US retained its “flawed democracy” status (see page 42). Increased political participation was the main positive: Americans have become much more engaged in politics in recent years, and several factors fuelled the continuation of this trend in 2020 including the politicisation of the coronavirus pandemic, movements to address police violence and racial injustice, and elections that attracted record voter turnout. The negatives include extremely low levels of trust in institutions and political parties, deep dysfunction in the functioning of government, increasing threats to freedom of expression, and a degree of societal polarisation that makes consensus almost impossible to achieve. Social cohesion has collapsed, and consensus has evaporated on fundamental issues—even the date of the country’s founding. The new president, Joe Biden, faces a huge challenge in bringing together a country that is deeply divided over core values.
29 comments:
Putting people in the White House who lose the popular vote is the big issue for me. We have done it twice in the 21st century, and in neither case did it turn out well. I actually believe in the American people, and in both those elections they were proven right, and our founders who, by the way, accepted the institution of slavery, were proven wrong.
Why is that surprising?
==Hiram
I am copying Hiram's comment here. G2A
"Trust in our institutions is declining because in large part, many people are working to decrease it. Many people feel that a decline of trust benefits them in different ways, financially and otherwise. So they hire consultants, advertising agencies, and do various other things to persuade voters that institutions are untrustworthy. This is their right. And to some degree they are not, particularly when they elect candidates who see it as their job to make America less trustworthy.
I often see political spokespeople boast about their opponents' declining poll numbers. I find this incredibly disturbing. It seems to me that we hire people to do jobs, and to do them well, not to be popular. I would never be impressed with a politician who came to my door with the message, "Elect me, I will work to become well liked." And what's worse is that declining population in our political system isn't evidence of bad governance, it's evidence mostly of negative advertising purchased by political entities. Declining poll numbers are just another product that can be bought, just like Oreo cookies, and what's worst of all, they are bought by people who are utterly indifferent to the notion that we should be governed well.
==Hiram"
I agree that many people and businesses on the Far Right and some on the Far Left seem obsessed with undermining our country and democracy.
Just look at the number of attacks on the "Main Stream Media", moderate politicians, government personnel, universities, science, the US Law & Order system, etc.
However my questions still stand.
Given that the FAR Left and FAR Right are sizeable blocks in our polarized country, what in the world would success look like?
Since our States intentionally have significant power, what would success look like?
I mean half see the tanking of Build Back Better as good governance.
And half see its failure to get passed as poor governance.
You see State's rights and power as a terrible thing. (ie electoral college)
Others see it as a wonderful thing that gives lower population states and regions some power.
I wonder if the cost of decaying infrastructure is inflationary.
--Hiram
So what do you think of gerrymandering? Is that democratic? If I lived in Wisconsin it would piss me off.
"On the state level, gerrymandering has also led to significant partisan bias in maps. For example, in 2018, Democrats in Wisconsin won every statewide office and a majority of the statewide vote, but thanks to gerrymandering, won only 36 of the 99 seats in the state assembly."
Laurie,
These folks seem to think the Wisc maps are okay...
"The court’s decision makes it likely that the strong Republican bias in Wisconsin’s congressional map will survive another decade. The old map, which was drawn by Republicans in 2011, has an extremely high efficiency gap of R+27. However, Wisconsin’s political geography (Democrats are highly concentrated in Dane and Milwaukee counties, while Republicans aren’t as highly concentrated in any one part of the rest of the state) also makes it very difficult to put Democrats and Republicans on equal footing in the state without drawing funkier lines and breaking up municipalities."
I assume you would like them to gerrymander the maps to make them more friendly to the DEMs?
"The gerrymandered map drawn in 2011 probably hasn’t cost the Democrats control of the Assembly in any election this decade, with the possible exception of 2012. Nonetheless, it has inflated the Republican majority in the close elections of 2012, 2018, and 2020, and in each election, it has cheated many Wisconsinites out of real competition for their votes. Under the districts drawn in 2011, only 15% of Wisconsin residents live in an Assembly district that typically decides elections by single digits.[vi] If the previous map were still used, 21% would.
This gap is less than I expected. It means that even under a non-partisan redistricting scheme, a large majority of people would still live in a non-competitive neighborhood. This points to some basic changes in Wisconsin’s political geography over the past two decades.
The image below compares the neighborhoods where Democratic and Republican voters lived in the 2000 and 2020 presidential elections. The comparison is apt because each race resulted in a razor-thin Democratic victory—functionally a tie. Despite the similar statewide outcome, big things changed at the local level."
That last link has some good points.
One being that like people tend to congregate in the same areas.
And apparently that is very true in Wisc where the DEMs have flocked to the cities, while the GOPERs stayed or moved to the burbs / rural.
I assume that is happening in MN also, I sure have no desire to live in Mpls.
I think courts should not alllow extreme gerrymadering. I am glad it is not a big problem in Minnesota. Gerrymandering is anti democratic
"In 2010, Republicans — in an effort to control the drawing of congressional maps — forged a campaign to win majorities in as many state legislatures as possible. It was wildly successful, giving them control over the drawing of 213 congressional districts. The redrawing of maps that followed produced some of the most extreme gerrymanders in history. In battleground Pennsylvania, for example, the congressional map gave Republicans a virtual lock on 13 of the state’s 18 congressional districts, even in elections where Democrats won the majority of the statewide congressional vote.
Nationally, extreme partisan bias in congressional maps gave Republicans a net 16 to 17 seat advantage for most of last decade. Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania alone — the three states with the worst gerrymanders in the last redistricting cycle — accounted for 7 to 10 extra Republican seats in the House."
I don't think Democrats have a chance of getting things through Congress, after next year, until 2032. That means nothing will be done about climate for at least a decade.
Now climate change is not my issue, but as voters next year, I think it's important to remember a vote for Republicans is a vote to not address the issue for at least ten years. Is that a risk we are willing to take?
--HIram
I do care about climate change and your projection is very depressing. (not to mention all other isuues that will not be addressed)
"Why Elizabeth Warren’s endorsement of court enlargement matters"
https://wapo.st/3sl7qmq
(my link is a gift article so it should not be blocked.)
Laurie,
The link worked.
Yes McConnell is a slimy aggressive and shrewd person.
If DEMs want to win more districts, they should move to the center.
As for expanding the court, that is something McConnell would maybe do.
DEMs may need to emulate McConnell to "win". Is worth selling their soul worth it?
Remember Harry Reid
Now if you want to worry...
The argument is always out there is that if we do less we will win more. This, after all, works for Republicans. But I just question whether Democrats can win if they run as Republicans.
Republicans hold stuff hostage. What they tell people is that if you don't elect us, bad things will happen. We will wreck the economy. We will ensure the spread of disease. We will destroy our public schools. And you know, it works. It even works for Democrats. Even people as partisan a I am, at some point have to ask ourselves, "Is it worth it?". Why not vote for Republicans in the hope that at leas something can get done?
--Hiram
You certainly do have a strange interpretation of the GOP message. :-O
Republicans don't have a platform. That means they don't have a message other than what Trump says.
--Hiram
Yes they do... They officially used the 2016 Platform as the 2020 Platform...
From the 2020 Republican platform:
"The President has been regulating to death
a free market economy that he does not like and
does not understand. He defies the laws of the
United States by refusing to enforce those with
which he does not agree. And he appoints judges
who legislate from the bench rather than apply the
law."
Turns out that there are lots of issues on which Republicans and Democrats agree. Who knew?
--Hiram
I often have a hard time keeping track who is charge... :-O
To me, the irony of that quote from the Republican platform is the assumption that Republicans understand business and the economy, and that Obama didn't. I just don't know how they can make that claim with any seriousness at all, and still put forward Trump as a candidate. We live in a time when there are incredibly successful business people, individuals who have generated vast wealth for themselves by creating businesses that have revolutionized our lives. Why didn't Republicans nominate one of those? Why did they put forward someone who has generated huge losses for the economy, and for the people who entrusted him with their money? Why did they think no one would notice?
--Hiram
That we can agree on.
Even now Jerry and the like swear that Trump was great.
I will never understand.
I do find the whole thing inexplicable. Trump was caught on tape trying to steal an election. If a politician on my side of things got caught doing something like that, I would dump him in a second. You won't find any statements of support from me for sheriffs convicted of DUI's or legislators driving on out of state licenses. The first obligation of any politician to his supporters and to the public is not to mess up. If they do, there is no shortage of people willing to replace them. Why, for Republicans, does this not happen with Trump? How do they go about excusing the utterly inexcusable? I don't know why they do that. I can't imagine why they would want to do that. But that's what they have done.
--Hiram
Denial and rationalization are apparently strong within Trump True Believers. :-(
Trump Stages of Denial. :-(
He didn't say that.
And if he did, he didn't mean that.
And if he did, you didn't understand it.
And if you did, it's not a big deal.
And if it is, others have said worse."
But why? It is not as if Trump was a winner. He has run for public office and lost the popular vote each time. His margins of defeat are increasing.
The comparable example in history for me was Clinton. The Monica stuff was difficult for me. He lied to us about it. He arguably committed perjury, a definite crime that goes to the trust we should have for our elected leaders. I stood by him, and was prepared to rationalize his mistakes. To this day, I think that was the right choice. But I would never support him if he ran for office again. And I am certainly grateful to the authors of the seventeenth amendment who made sure I wouldn't have that choice.
We all make mistakes. When we have the opportunity to move on from them, I think it's appropriate to feel relieved and often to console ourselves that we avoided the worst. Republicans had the opportunity to do that at the end of and in the aftermath of the the Trump administration. They could have moved on, gotten over it, as they have so often urged others to do. Why didn't they take it?
--Hiram
One of them will need to answer your question.
I have no idea how or why anyone would support a liar of low character for President, CEO, Friend or Employee...
Only answer I have is some "cult" mentality.
A lot of people avoid the issue by both siding it. Clinton is convenient for Republicans in that respect. Some Republicans seem to want to argue that while they have President Trump, we have State Representative Thompson. That's true, I suppose.
--Hiram
Trump Stages of Denial. :-(
He didn't say that.
And if he did, he didn't mean that.
And if he did, you didn't understand it.
And if you did, it's not a big deal.
And if it is, others have said worse."
Post a Comment