Tweet
Re: Der Spiegel
Thanks for pointing this out, Slimprofits. I thought that I had answered the question, albeit implicitly. Clearly I did so with insufficient clarity. My apologies for that. I will try again, more explicitly.
Shiny's essential questions were:
The answers I implied are essentially:
(1) When protest cannot be connected to any mechanism that is capable of creating change, there is no reason to protest.
We don't get mad enough to throw them out because the bar for "mad enough" is set (structurally, via our electoral and constitutional processes) at an extremely high level of "mad". High enough that it is hard to imagine change being achievable at all (particularly since the Citizen's United ruling). This is not merely "giving up" or "not caring". It is not cynicism to acknowledge the political reality of the system within which one is working. It is not apathy to realize that mass protest, strikes, and riots are now no longer sufficient to drive change in our government, at least not concerning FIRE capture. And it does not take Zoloft, or Prozac (or fluoride) to note that escalating protests to violence and riots is more likely to deflect support from a cause than invigorate it.
We have come to a point where the most rational response is to try to find a safe place to hide. Not out of self-interest, but because no matter how much one wants to stand up and prevent an oncoming FIRE-based calamity, there simply isn't any mechanism left that is capable of preventing it. All the brakes and safeguards have been systematically stripped away.
(2) The bar for change is particularly high in the U.S. compared to Europe, because of our highly unusual governmental structure, which essentially creates and enforces a self-stabilizing two-party system. Third parties generally exist in the US for only brief transitory stages, usually surrounding single issues that flare up, and are momentarily central to all debate. Thus in Europe it makes good sense to agitate in the streets, since there is a very high likelihood that this behavior can affect government in a meaningful way, even if only a handful of parliament seats are won. In the US system, already rotten with FIRE dominance and Citizens-United-entrenched regulatory capture, no reasonable likelihood of change exists unless one of the two parties is convinced to sincerely embrace a new position. When it comes to FIRE interests, however, the two act in lock-step, as they are corrupted by the same mechanism.
(3) It is highly unlikely that a third party candidate opposed to FIRE interests will be elected. That would require ~50.1% of the population to agree that this is (a) needed and (far more challenging) (b) more important than any other issue that might be better represented by either of the two major parties. I believe that more than 50% can easily be convinced of (a). I believe it is extremely unlikely that more than 50% can be convinced of (b).
Consider all the special-interest voters in this nation. Those who apply a litmus test (on either side) on issues related to religion, abortion, gay rights, guns, immigration, race, gender, multiculturalism, business, unions, jobs etc. The list goes on and on. Such issues may be seen as red herrings among our iTulip community, but they are still, and likely will continue to be, seen as "core" issues by the vast majority of the country. And the broader public is not acting without reason. I can certainly understand without being gay myself why a gay individual would be perfectly justified in voting in pursuit of their own ability to marry, for example. That could well represent the single most important impact that government can have on that individual's life. Similarly, I could imagine that an individual who identifies themselves principally by their religious views might see all issues first and foremost through that lens.
But very, very few people, when asked "Who are you?" will ever respond first with "I am a person opposed to FIRE interests." or some equivalent. For most, this can at best be an issue, and not the defining issue on which they will vote. It is just not a core aspect of individual identity.
So after one has taken out everyone who cares passionately about more immediate or emotionally-charged issues of the day, one simply isn't left with 51% to agree on a third party, single-issue candidate. That is what (3) it would take to fire the FIRE politicians and elect a 3rd party, that is why we (2) keep electing Republocrats, and that is why we (1) don't get mad enough to challenge TPTB here in the United States.
In short, people can hardly fight anymore because the war is already lost. Ferguson did a decent job documenting parts of it.
Even the most key battles in the war were barely noticed, until the end. A few highlights:
The 1970's weakening of existing house rules regarding committee determination by Democratic Liberals.
The Reagan-era use of "pay-to-play" rules instead of seniority to determine subcommittee appointments by Gingrich, Armey, and DeLay, with its subsequent rapid adoption on the other side of the aisle.
The acceptance of a continually-redefined CPI under Clinton.
The repeal of Glass-Steagal.
The dismemberment of SEC oversight under Bush.
The dramatic reduction of securities prosecutions.
The standardization on settlement, as opposed to conviction, for all enforcement actions.
The increase in acceptance of brazen gerrymandering after the 2000 and 2010 census.
The extreme compromises required to pass McCain-Feingold.
The throwing out of what was left of McCain-Feingold via the Citizens United decision.
Using the above battles and others, FIRE interests have systematically created a span of practices, rules, legislation, and court rulings so comprehensive that it would require not merely one, but multiple, separate constitutional amendments to challenge their control. And because any such amendments would require the consent of the individual legislators already under FIRE control today, they essentially have placed the nation in checkmate. People just didn't notice until TARP in mid-2008. And by then it was too late.
There are no protests because the game is over.
There is no viable prospective solution around which people might rally.
Originally posted by Slimprofits
View Post
Shiny's essential questions were:
(1) Why don't we ever get mad enough to throw the bums out and challenge TPTB here in the United States?
(2) Why is it that people in Europe will strike and protest in a BIG way, while in the USA people sit around, complain, and then keep electing Republocrats?
...
(3) What will it take for us to fire the FIRE politicians and elect a 3rd party over here?
(2) Why is it that people in Europe will strike and protest in a BIG way, while in the USA people sit around, complain, and then keep electing Republocrats?
...
(3) What will it take for us to fire the FIRE politicians and elect a 3rd party over here?
(1) When protest cannot be connected to any mechanism that is capable of creating change, there is no reason to protest.
We don't get mad enough to throw them out because the bar for "mad enough" is set (structurally, via our electoral and constitutional processes) at an extremely high level of "mad". High enough that it is hard to imagine change being achievable at all (particularly since the Citizen's United ruling). This is not merely "giving up" or "not caring". It is not cynicism to acknowledge the political reality of the system within which one is working. It is not apathy to realize that mass protest, strikes, and riots are now no longer sufficient to drive change in our government, at least not concerning FIRE capture. And it does not take Zoloft, or Prozac (or fluoride) to note that escalating protests to violence and riots is more likely to deflect support from a cause than invigorate it.
We have come to a point where the most rational response is to try to find a safe place to hide. Not out of self-interest, but because no matter how much one wants to stand up and prevent an oncoming FIRE-based calamity, there simply isn't any mechanism left that is capable of preventing it. All the brakes and safeguards have been systematically stripped away.
(2) The bar for change is particularly high in the U.S. compared to Europe, because of our highly unusual governmental structure, which essentially creates and enforces a self-stabilizing two-party system. Third parties generally exist in the US for only brief transitory stages, usually surrounding single issues that flare up, and are momentarily central to all debate. Thus in Europe it makes good sense to agitate in the streets, since there is a very high likelihood that this behavior can affect government in a meaningful way, even if only a handful of parliament seats are won. In the US system, already rotten with FIRE dominance and Citizens-United-entrenched regulatory capture, no reasonable likelihood of change exists unless one of the two parties is convinced to sincerely embrace a new position. When it comes to FIRE interests, however, the two act in lock-step, as they are corrupted by the same mechanism.
(3) It is highly unlikely that a third party candidate opposed to FIRE interests will be elected. That would require ~50.1% of the population to agree that this is (a) needed and (far more challenging) (b) more important than any other issue that might be better represented by either of the two major parties. I believe that more than 50% can easily be convinced of (a). I believe it is extremely unlikely that more than 50% can be convinced of (b).
Consider all the special-interest voters in this nation. Those who apply a litmus test (on either side) on issues related to religion, abortion, gay rights, guns, immigration, race, gender, multiculturalism, business, unions, jobs etc. The list goes on and on. Such issues may be seen as red herrings among our iTulip community, but they are still, and likely will continue to be, seen as "core" issues by the vast majority of the country. And the broader public is not acting without reason. I can certainly understand without being gay myself why a gay individual would be perfectly justified in voting in pursuit of their own ability to marry, for example. That could well represent the single most important impact that government can have on that individual's life. Similarly, I could imagine that an individual who identifies themselves principally by their religious views might see all issues first and foremost through that lens.
But very, very few people, when asked "Who are you?" will ever respond first with "I am a person opposed to FIRE interests." or some equivalent. For most, this can at best be an issue, and not the defining issue on which they will vote. It is just not a core aspect of individual identity.
So after one has taken out everyone who cares passionately about more immediate or emotionally-charged issues of the day, one simply isn't left with 51% to agree on a third party, single-issue candidate. That is what (3) it would take to fire the FIRE politicians and elect a 3rd party, that is why we (2) keep electing Republocrats, and that is why we (1) don't get mad enough to challenge TPTB here in the United States.
In short, people can hardly fight anymore because the war is already lost. Ferguson did a decent job documenting parts of it.
Even the most key battles in the war were barely noticed, until the end. A few highlights:
The 1970's weakening of existing house rules regarding committee determination by Democratic Liberals.
The Reagan-era use of "pay-to-play" rules instead of seniority to determine subcommittee appointments by Gingrich, Armey, and DeLay, with its subsequent rapid adoption on the other side of the aisle.
The acceptance of a continually-redefined CPI under Clinton.
The repeal of Glass-Steagal.
The dismemberment of SEC oversight under Bush.
The dramatic reduction of securities prosecutions.
The standardization on settlement, as opposed to conviction, for all enforcement actions.
The increase in acceptance of brazen gerrymandering after the 2000 and 2010 census.
The extreme compromises required to pass McCain-Feingold.
The throwing out of what was left of McCain-Feingold via the Citizens United decision.
Using the above battles and others, FIRE interests have systematically created a span of practices, rules, legislation, and court rulings so comprehensive that it would require not merely one, but multiple, separate constitutional amendments to challenge their control. And because any such amendments would require the consent of the individual legislators already under FIRE control today, they essentially have placed the nation in checkmate. People just didn't notice until TARP in mid-2008. And by then it was too late.
There are no protests because the game is over.
There is no viable prospective solution around which people might rally.
Comment