The primary responsibility for what government is in charge of a democracy rests with voters.
This is fundamental. Voters have choices, they make choices. One can make the claim that the choices are often all bad (although in systems where anyone can join a party and vote in primaries that is weak), but when it comes to the actual choice on the ballot, voters are in charge.
This is fundamental. This is the basis of democratic legitimacy.
It also has to be understood clearly, because there is an exact relationship between power and responsibility. If you put all, or the majority, of the responsibility onto leaders or elites, you are saying you do not have any power to make change.
In Britain’s election, the British made a choice. The forseeable consequences will be a lot more death and suffering. There was another option. They chose.
Perhaps Corbyn did not run as well as he could have, but people who say it’s primarily his fault don’t actually understand democracies.
This is the same as when Americans chose Reagan, or the British chose Thatcher. There was a clear choice, they made it. Reagan ran a racist campaign, it was known at the time (I remember it), and it was also clearly one based on a project of dismantling the regulatory and welfare state. That was the choice, Americans made it, and Americans are responsible for making it. They then ratified the decision by re-electing Reagan.
The same is true of the Brits and Thatcher, especially when they ratified the choice by re-electing her after seeing her policies. (Thatcher also bribed them by letting them buy council housing below price. In the long run that was a bad bribe to take.)
None of this is to say that leaders don’t have responsibilities, or more power than individuals or even groups. But they do not have more power than the population as a whole, in a democracy.
If they do, then it is no longer a democracy. If that’s the case one wants to make (and I can see making it), then fine. After all, Corbyn was lied about more than 75 percent of the time, for example, by the media.
But if the country is still a democracy, then the ultimate responsibility for the government rests with the people.
To claim anything else is to throw away the power and responsibility the people do have and to retreat into leader worship and powerlessness.
Which, actually, is what we’ve done, over and over again.
It’s either your country, or it isn’t.
Brits are about to get what they voted for. That is as it should be. (The same is true of my own country, where we have made bad electoral choices, over and over again. So be it. We made those choices.)
(Data-based aside: In most of the ridings I saw where Labour lost, the swing was usually the Brexit Party vote. Those people who think that strategy for Labour was as simple as “Go Remain” miss the point: One-third of Labour party voters wanted Brexit. Labour had a genuinely broken coalition because of Brexit and there was no obvious way to fix it.)
Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
ven
“Brits are about to get what they voted for. That is as it should be”
I fully agree with the sentiment, and I think to blame Corbyn is missing the point – given the Brexit position you outline, and the ongoing hostility even in his own party.
People should take responsibility in a democracy, but the reality is that they are quite content to be lied to. And this is not just working class people, but also the educated middle class as well. If anything, the latter should have more responsibility.
But then you read Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions. Those in power have always manipulated the rest. And, for the most part, we usually don’t really have a choice – all the parties occupy the so-called centre found (ie their policies are similar) and are funded by the same sources.
This election is a disaster for the UK, because we were offered a real choice, and we threw it away. That says more about mankind than anything else.
Hugh
Agreed. If you don’t want to be ruled by evil doofuses, stop voting them into office.
450.org
The key phrase, what your argument is based on, is “in a democracy.” Considering the electoral process has been hijacked by the oligarchy to serve the oligarchy and the same holds true for the media that reports on it all and manipulates perception overall about the system coupled with a woefully inadequate educational system where voters are not taught to think critically and independently and objectively, there is no democracy. Your vote is purely symbolic. In fact, your vote legitimizes what is otherwise an illegitimate sham and scam. Let’s assume for the moment Bernie gets locked out by the DNC in the 2020 election and it’s Trump versus Biden. As a voter, what do you do? Anyone in their right mind, a person who can think critically and independently and objectively, would say none of the above and protest the election as a sham. To vote for either of those candidates is to vote against your self-interests and the interests of the majority of humanity and the interests of the living planet.
450.org
I will note, this is precisely what they are doing in Algeria as I type. Voters are protesting the electoral process as a sham. Brits and Americans snub their noses at Algerians no doubt, so it’s rather ironic the Algerians reveal they’re far more capable of critical thought than are most Brits and Americans. It’s called Western Exceptionalism and the oligarchy relies on it to perpetuate the sham/scam.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50782676
If Bernie gets locked out, massive numbers of voters need to take to the streets like they have in Algeria and demand the political establishment be swept away (versus put against the wall). Will it happen? Not a chance and that is all the proof we need that this is not a democracy.
450.org
The latest impeachment spectacle is an indictment of our political establishment. They should be swept away (versus put against the wall). Both Dems and Repubs. The Supreme Court too. All three branches are corrupt to the core and the constitution is no longer applicable let alone respected.
Nader says it like it is. In fact, kudos to Hugh since Hugh last week or the week before, pretty much said the same thing Nader says here.
The Dem leadership clearly was never serious about impeachment. Why? Because they need Trump as much as they need the Repub party. Loose-lipped Joe Biden let it slip. He exhorted that people need to vote Repub because he and the Dems need the Repubs and I’m sure the feeling is mutual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydaosmRA2Bc
Head over to Nader’s website for the REAL articles of impeachment. Let’s use those articles of impeachment for impeaching the entire political establishment and not just Trump.
450.org
There is no democracy when the politicians are bought and the price is paid in realtime emoluments or deferred emoluments when they leave office. The Obamas just recently bought another multi-million dollar home. This one is in Martha’s Vineyard. They paid nearly $12 million for the mansion on 29 waterfront acres on prime real estate. All on a president’s pension. How’s that possible? They get by with a little help from their friends, that’s how. Like JP Morgan who holds a $7 million mortgage on the property. Obama was very generous to the bankers during the bailout. I didn’t even know JP Morgan did mortgages, or at least personal solitary mortgages that weren’t bundled. Trump does realtime emoluments and the Obamas and Clintons do deferred emoluments. They’re emoluments any way you slice and dice them and they eviscerate any notion of democracy.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenhowley/2019/12/08/barack-and-michelle-obama-buy-marthas-vineyard-estate/#70d743953167
Ché Pasa
First: it’s not a democracy. Not in Britain, Canada, US, Australia or New Zealand.
I’ve experienced actual democracies, and none of the nations mentioned actually have democratic politics or governments. Democracy is really set up to work on a small scale, in cohesive societies within which civic engagement and participation are considered duties not options.
That kind of politics and government cannot as far as I can tell operate on a national scale. It’s difficult as hell to do it on a limited, local scale.
Elections and voting in the kind of national politics found in the English-speaking nations provide an outlet for political interests and passions, but they don’t but election aren’t really about policy. They’re about personality. Who do you like best? Who do you want to have a beer with? Who do you think can “get ‘er done?”
(There’s a trope…)
Now and then, what they say they’ll do is what they do, but because there’s so much horse trading, backscratching and corruption, you never know. And it ultimately doesn’t matter to the voters as long as the elected’s personality continues to please (cf: Reagan or Blair or Justin Trudeau…)
So the candidates are quite literally “product” — in show business, “talent” — marketed slickly and professionally to appeal to a wide enough electorate to get into office. Somebody like Obama was almost miraculous to the scouts, packagers and marketers. But Trump isn’t far behind — and he might pull ahead before this impeachment thing is over.
Much the same with Johnson. He’s horrible and what he’s likely to do is worse, but that doesn’t matter because he’s got is rotten impish personality that contrasts markedly with that of his chief rival, Mr. Corbyn, a dour and rumpled grandfatherly sort, not really suited to today’s chaotic environment. Is he?
Bernie has a slightly better shot, but not by much. His age is showing, not as much as Biden’s but still, and his ideas are at best kind of crusty with age as well. In some ways, the younger Dem candidates seem older than Bernie, especially little Mr. Buttigieg, who often seems to be ancient with his rapid-fire technobabble and “I hear yous”. Whut? No he doesn’t.
The zeitgeist right now is disruption, chaos and harm. Any candidate who tries to counter that with stability, maturity and service, however you want to define that, has not just an uphill climb but a nearly impossible one — unless, of course, they package it in a whup-ass, confrontational, unrelenting and unrepentant personality.
That wasn’t Corbyn, and it wasn’t most of the Labour candidates, either, was it?
But it fit Johnson and many of the Tories.
Voters of course have responsibilities, but realistically, they don’t have the best choices. They’re lied to all the time, manipulated to believe whatever flavor of falsehood their betters want them to, and are driven nearly insane with the folly of it all. They do what they do, and sometimes it works out. Often not.
An actual democracy as opposed to the pretend ones, doesn’t have it much better.
Dan Lynch
Ian said “. Reagan run a racist campaign, it was known at the time (I remember it), and it was also clearly one based on a project of dismantling the regulatory and welfare state. That was the choice, Americans made it, and Americans are responsible for making it. “
I had voted for Carter in ’76, but he was a huge disappointment. The Carter recession hit my state even harder than the Great Depression. When the ’80 election rolled around I was working 3 minimum wage jobs (thanks, Jimmy Carter!) so I could not follow the election closely. Just making time to go to the poll was a major effort. So I was not aware at the time of any specifics about the Reagan campaign, and in any event I did not support any particular Reagan policy, nonetheless I voted for Reagan. Why? Because Carter had done a miserable job and needed to be fired. That’s it. And that’s how most low information voters make their decisions. If things are going well, they vote to maintain the status quo, but if things are going badly, they vote to throw the bums out (and let the other bums in!).
Rarely is an election a referendum on one issue, though in the case of Corbyn you can argue the election was a referendum on Brexit — and Corbyn was on the wrong side of the Brexit issue!
In any election, with nearly any candidate, I will agree with some policies but not others. No matter who I vote for, I will be voting for some policies that will be harmful. This lesser evilism is very frustrating and I don’t think it is “real” democracy.
So I reject Ian’s claim that voters in fake democracies are responsible. Until such time as we have Swiss style direct democracy, then most of the West is not a real democracy. In recent history I have voted 3rd party, which is basically a (futile) protest vote. In 2020 I may abstain from voting because all of the candidates suck (rest assured TPTB will never allow Bernie to be on the ballot). Neither party represents me, and none of the 3rd parties represent me, either. Fuck parties and Fuck representative democracy.
bruce wilder
The first responsibility of the demos in a democracy is making the effort to ensure that the nominally republican institutions of representative democracy function with integrity. Being able to organize common outrage over the violation of important principles is vital to the polity.
I think the U.S. has failed this test repeatedly, failing to marshal a consensus against elite malfeasance and focusing too often on fake issues.
I credit Britain with following thru with Brexit. The EU, which is fundamentally undemocratic and even anti-democratic, has overridden hostile votes before. May’s “deal” was a poison box designed to trap Britain in the EU with no way out and failed for that reason. It remains to be seen whether Boris will manage his Brexit any better, but for all my doubts about Britain’s media and fptp, something like democracy seems to have persisted.
Jeff Martin
I have to demur on this one. I believe that any individual voter has no more responsibility for political outcomes than his infinitesimal percentage of the electorate, multiplied positively by anything that might increase his overall influence and power in society, multiplied negatively by anything that decreases his overall influence and power in society. The former would include wealth, status-conferring credentials, cultural power, networking connections, etc. The latter would include, well, the lack or negation of these things.
In the end, I cannot expect the average voter, subjected to two generations of class warfare, the downward ratchet of living standards and public services, a degraded educational system, a media system that grows dumber and more propagandistic by the month, increasing economic precarity that leaves little time to figure things out, to cut through the fog of propaganda, to see how their individual situation links up with the whole. They may see it from time to time, when a lightning bolt cuts through the dense fog, but absent institutions like unions, which provided both communal belonging and a means of seeing through some of the fog and smoke, adventitious awakenings are all we are likely to get.
Political economy did this – neoliberalism did this, although the social technologies long antedate both neoliberalism and the postwar social-democratic settlement. That just one of the reasons why I think class must be centered in any Left politics. Whatever. I’m afraid that I’ve joined the losing side on that issue, and that our future will be something like the woke set fighting the Proud Boys over the script of the shadowplay on the walls of the Cave.
FWIW, 450 is right about emoluments and corruption. But one thing that has truly depressed me in the Trump era is how all of the progressives, who were so enraged about SCROTUS’ ludicrously narrow construal of corruption, have now – de facto – embraced that standard, in order to deflect from their own corruption. That at least partially explains the unwillingness to impeach Trump on his own corruption.
450.org
You know what I say to Obama’s deferred emoluments, namely his latest 29 acre Martha’s Vineyard estate on the shore of a rising sea but not to worry because he has federally-subsidized flood insurance for the wealthy don’t you know?
Spirit of Radio
OT: Is Twitter rat****ing Ian Welsh\’s feed?
https://twitter.com/iwelsh/status/1206893757959946242
The above doesn\’t show up as a reply to the parent comment by Vinay Gupta, and of the 13 responses indicated only 4 appear.
450.org
When it comes to America’s military and perpetual wars, the Dems and Repubs show their unity, impeachment charade be damned. I’m not sure if you knew this or not, but millions, nay tens of millions, of dead innocent Yemenis (and maybe Iranians too if they have their druthers) is surely worth the benefit of paid parental leave. 188 Dems in the house voted for this $738 billion record-setting bill that allocates funds to build the wall amongst other things. Impeachment, amidst this, is a farcical insult and beyond-the-pale hypocrisy. Pelosi and establishment Dems are truly as evil as their Repub counterparts and truly as evil as the orange blowhard they disingenuously decry, Donald Trump.
What Rev. Wright said.
https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-gave-trump-everything-he-wants-738-billion-defense-bill-2019-12
450.org
And get this, Schiff voted for it despite all of his self-righteous indignation and condemnation of Trump. Surely he truly represents the folks from his district, right? Surely this is not what they want, right? But his donors do. They want it. And there’s the rub.
Bernie, on the other hand, got Khanna’s back and excoriated the bill and those who voted for it.
What is this? A military dictatorship? How can you end perpetual war by supporting an ever-increasing and burgeoning military budget with great and improved benefits for the “warfighters?” How can you give this kind of power to Trump when you are impeaching him for abusing the power of the office of the executive? This is not democracy. It’s anything and everything but.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll672.xml
darms
Ian, what do you say when non-voters are a plurality in almost every election? When ‘none of the above’ is the actual winner (despite not physically taking office)?
Mandos
On Ian’s aside: I disagree vehemently that there was nothing Corbyn/Labour could have done to deal with the “broken coalition” issue. The answer was to take a firm position from early on. Their attempts at halfway positions meant that they could not make up in “emergency remain” voters what they lost in “mistrustful leave” voters.
In this case, a firm Remain stance, recognizing that Brexit was essentially a successful propaganda strike by the far right (Leave sentiment motivated by left-wing ideology was a side-show in terms of media and voting, only present on blogs like these and a handful of Twitter accounts), would definitely have been the better choice — see the NC comment I linked to in the other thread. But a full-throated Leave position would also have been electorally significantly superior to what was chosen (it’s harder than a Remain position because it’s much much harder to credibly articulate the material benefits of Leave in a left-friendly way).
Ultimately, the problem stems from the economic left-wing desire to “change the channel” from the most salient issue of the day. Doesn’t work, can’t work, won’t work.
Mandos
On the matter of moral responsibility, I am heartily in favour of assigning due moral opprobrium to voters. As I pointed out a long time ago, many white US voters will vote against giving themselves a universal health care program they know they will benefit from if it means that black people get an equal claim on the same health resources. Showering opprobrium on such voters for what is effectively a kind of stochastic suicide bombing is absolutely justified. Similarly, we could argue that many UK voters voted for BoJo for similar reasons, and so they deserve the consequences of their choices, especially for dragging many innocents with them.
But OK, we have Assigned Responsibility for Bad Choices. *dusts hands theatrically* What’s for dinner?
Ultimately, we are only in control of what we argue for, for how we act, as individuals and organized groups. Political campaigners have an especially disproportionate responsibility, in the very face of voter moral intransigence, to learn from the world as it is with those morally flawed voters and not mistake means for ends. I’m sure I’m carrying coals to Newcastle here (an old expression that seems to have fallen out of favour) — like I said, I’m all for talking about voter moral responsibility, as long as it does not used to deflect examination of the strategies, beliefs, and choices of those attempting to get the votes.
nihil obstet
For most people, elections are like being caught in a fantasy game where you don’t know the rules, the penalties, or the prize. Muscle-bound bullies who are taller, heavier, and stronger than you are telling you that if you don’t play their way, you will be beaten up. A lot of voting is to avoid getting beat up (they’ll take away my Medicare!!)
We’ve never recovered from the discrediting of government that happened during the 70s and 80s, when politicians learned they could hide from political questions behind the technocrats. Where would the new city dump be placed? A chorus line of experts would demonstrate with science that the only feasible location was in a low income neighborhood. Oh, you object? What science do you have to show otherwise? It’s easy for us to say that people are just stupid. But set things up as a debate between an expert and you, you learn quickly that the “facts” are going to be bad for you. And so, you quit believing the “facts” that the experts spout at you. And then, you’re labelled stupid.
I have problems with Reagan’s election. I do think it was obvious what a very bad man he was, so I blame the electorate for his policies. The only exoneration I can think of was that the mid-to-late 70s saw the downturn in most Americans’ lives and Carter didn’t communicate the vision that he said the country needed. And never before had a politician’s blatant lies been reported as positive because they worked politically rather than negative because they were dishonest. I have worse problems with his re-election, when he won by assuring everyone that greed was good, and then appealing to their greed.
The political parties, the press, and people interested in politics have wallowed in cynical disparagement of the people as a whole. Given what the elections are like these days, that’s hard to avoid. But we are ruled by monsters. We need to figure out how to stop electing monsters. What role does figuring out responsibility play in that endeavor?
steeleweed
By what criteria do we assign responsibility? We don’t expect responsible behavior from those too young. We therefore (usually) don’t give them choices that are significantly important: 10-year-olds can’t drive, 12-year-olds can’t drink, etc. In theory, aging implies the acquisition of knowledge which justifies expectation of responsibility. What happens if the educational system is so fucked up it no longer provides the knowledge required to maintain a democracy? It’s still technically a democracy perhaps, but it’s not functional. And if it’s not functional, what use is it? In fact, calling it a democracy is doing the concept (and the country) a disservice by implying it is a desirable situation when it really isn’t.
There are reasons the Founding Fathers limited the franchise and were very opposed to democracy. They undoubtedly wished to preserve the position of their class but they also had a sense of noblesse oblige and believed (evidently correctly) that a genuine full democracy was not viable long-term.
bruce wilder
Well, yeah, responsibility in any context is significantly modified by being culturally and institutionally mediated, and by the common understanding of technical and scientific explanations of how consequences flow from policy architecture and choice.
People, individually and collectively, make mistakes. Not every mistake is morally excusable. Failing to correct mistakes or repeating a pattern of decision-making that experience shows has undesirable and undesired consequences without offsetting benefit is common enough in both biography and politics.
I do think it can be sometimes remarkably hard for an individual to figure out in real time what choice is being made when they vote among thousands or millions for an individual representative to hold office. But, at some point the consequences do arrive, and the matter is clarified. Reagan was re-elected and Mondale was pretty clear in protesting against the choice being made. George W Bush was elected in 2004. Obama was re-elected.
And, yes, i often draw attention to the floodtide of propaganda. But, not to make moral excuses. Politics is a contest. People who are going to participate even in the minor way ordinary people do as readers, commenters, voters do have moral a obligation to gin up a b.s. detector and an immunity to being conned (at least the classic con, where the mark is induced to think themselves “in” on fraud), as well as a moral obligation to choose decency and humanely.
Hugh
So the rich and elites screw over the education system and then use the failures in education to argue against democracy. But if it is about education, why did those who had education actively fail to extend that education to others? Why did they use their education against democracy?
S Brennan
I agree with Steeleweed;
“By what criteria do we assign responsibility? We don’t expect responsible behavior from those too young. We therefore (usually) don’t give them choices that are significantly important: 10-year-olds can’t drive, 12-year-olds can’t drink, etc. In theory, aging implies the acquisition of knowledge which justifies expectation of responsibility.”
Anonymous
I just thank God we’re not lorded over by a handful of psychopathic monsters.
Good thing they don’t have people farming down to a science.
Thankfully they don’t control our ‘educational’ systems.
The media they own would never create a false reality, that would be bad for humanity, those paragons of virtue would never let that happen.
Most working class people just go through life wanting to be left alone, ha ha.
What percent of the ‘woke’ bourgeois are unknowingly cancer?
Reagan (Volcker/Carter) was the shock doctrine in action, people thought it was a simple ‘fuck you’ vote, they didn’t realize they it was good bye to the New Deal hello neoliberalism.
Bait and switch.
They had a couple going out of business sales for the boiling frogs, so Clinton and every clown since then could really sink the fangs in.
Al M
This article could have been a few sentences: “people are generally ignorant and vote against themselves based on their emotions due to their inability to think abstractly’
The masters know this and thus it ever was
Willy
Sometimes I wish the Founders had inserted a constitutional clause to help prevent Americans from actually getting the government they deserve.
It’s already been proven that a free people will blindly vote in this bumbling buffoon or that lying sack of shit to be doing extremely important national stuff like signing executive orders and hobnobbing with foreign dignitaries. John Q. Public simply cannot always be trusted to always know the best guy to do extremely important national stuff. Sure in worst cases there’s impeachment and an insanity clause, but seriously, what good are they?
I wish there was an “Emergency Action For When The American Voter Has Gone Mad” which would go into effect the very next election cycle after the American voter had chosen an obvious incompetent. Incompetency would be determined by agreed upon conditions, perhaps one of them being “Lying more than 10,000 times while in office”.
The way it would work, is that every candidate chosen by whatever party for the next election, would have to undergo public testing to ensure that they really were off the drugs, really did possess a very very large brain, and so on… you know, the kind of stuff the rest of us have to prove for far lesser jobs. I’d throw in a criminal background check, a PCL-R and maybe a bench press test but that might be asking too much.
realitychecker
All talk, no action. That is us, collectively.
That is obviously part of the problem.
The bigger part of the problem is the degree to which all are afraid to acknowledge or discuss that ignominious fact.
It’s not really entirely about being “uninformed,” is it? Might be something else that’s lacking.
Herman
This is a tough issue. Ideally, in a democracy the people should be responsible for the outcomes of elections but at the same time most people are not going to dig deep into public policy and even those who do are heavily biased so their research has little to do with learning and then coming to a decision based on what they learned. People end up making decisions based on emotion, identity, short blurbs in the media, and yes, propaganda.
I would say that ultimately politicians have to take the voting public as it is and not try to wish away the bad and frustrating aspects of public opinion. I think this is where the left often goes wrong. The narrative on the left is that if only people saw a good policy paper they would vote for left-wing candidates. If they fail to do so then it must be because of propaganda or corruption or some other nefarious activity.
Without dismissing the real problem of media bias and corruption there is also the fact that many people are not buying what the left is selling and this is a problem. The left really needs to look at why they are failing while the right is on the rise. I suspect that one factor is that the left lacks an emotional, inspiring narrative that can reach people beyond the college-educated, activist base.
realitychecker
For three years now, I’ve been waiting for someone on the left to mention the possibility that the reason the left is losing ground to someone like Trump just might be that the left allowed political correctness to push way too far into the silly zone, and non-silly folks just don’t want any more of the same.
Still waiting . . .
450.org
Shut up with your bullshit about “someone on the left.” There is no “left.” There is only slightly left of center and most who read and comment here aren’t even on your faux political spectrum you use to pigeon hole people so you can erect strawmen so you can argue with yourself.
Willy
So political correctness is vastly more important to everyday Americans than is the dying American dream, the effects of climate change, oligarchic power, the national debt, plus every other substantive issue combined?
Maybe my goofy “Emergency Action…” comment should be taken seriously then.
realitychecker
@ Willy
I agree that all those things you mentioned are also reasons for people to be discontented with both parties. I offered PC as an explanation for why the Trump supporters find him uniquely desirable at this point in time. And I stand by my observation that there is something very suspicious and telling about how nobody on the left even being willing to mention that actor, although they leave no other stone unturned as they hilariously search for more far-fetched reasons for their losses. IMO, the unexamined life is not worth living, but the left only wants to examine other people lives and never their own lol.
@ 450
Did you just tell me to shut up?????
Who the fuck are you, the most prolific nonsense generator this blog has ever seen, to tell anyone else to “shut up”? Why don’t you shut up, we will all be grateful.
You are a rude little punk, in addition to being stupid.
Shut up, 450. I know you won’t be offended by that.
Especially since you can’t even seem to be able to acknowledge that there are people who characterize themselves as “the left.” Moron.
Hugh
Unrealitychecker having a hissy? I thought I heard the wind last night but maybe that was just him waving his cane.
So let’s forget that Hillary, one of the most disliked figures in American politics, got 3 million more votes than Trump. Let’s forget conservative gerrymandering, voter suppression, stacking the judiciary, or the anti-democratic Senate and the electoral college, or the power of corporations and billionaires and their PACs. Let’s just blame political correctness and ignore all the devices and scams that keep a group that is already a minority in power.
realitychecker
Breaking news–Latest high-minded idea from the pious prayerful Dems:
IMPEACHMENTUS INTERRUPTUS.
(Do they make electric clown cars yet? Or would they have to be way too small?)
At a certain point, it becomes reasonable to judge a person by their enemies, isn’t it?
Trump is showing to anyone but the willfully blind that all his enemies are much worse than he is, and don’t deserve to influence things. And that is why I find him useful.
Trump is a vector moving in a useful and necessary direction at this moment in time. Emotional hysteria keeps most from seeing that obvious truth. Who cares about his edgy mannerisms, in that light? Not me.
StewartM
I don’t know if I can say “we get what we deserve”. People make their decisions always based upon imperfect, even bad, information, and their decisions are based on what they’ve been taught (or mis-taught) the way the world works. If we have garbage in, we will have garbage out. Plus in most people’s cases their choices or options are limited. Even if they want to make better choices the options aren’t there.
This applies to us individually as collectively. I have done the thought experiment of “could I have improved my life if I lived it over again, knowing everything I know now?” But even with hindsight I am doubtful I could have. I might have avoided some mistakes, but might have made others. And even making no mistakes I did not have, realistically, many of the options I would have wanted. Our lives akin to people doing tube rafting down a swift river, and though we can change some of the things in the course of our lives much of it is beyond our control, and we are driven relentlessly towards an unseen end.
Willy
So continuously shaming the willfully blind is a better strategy than clearly itemizing these obvious truths of which we speak?
realitychecker
@ Ewe
It’s actually not very nice or civil to make fun of someone’s screen name, or their supposed disabilities.
Also not very smart to seemingly not be aware that the electoral college is actually the basis of every Presidential candidate’s election strategy, because every Presidential candidate, even Hillary, understands full well that the electoral college is actually what determines who wins the election.
Unlike Ewe, sadly. Used to be a smart guy, but now maybe his brain needs a cane? 🙂