"So how do we fix the errant course of politics?"

My main contention with the current political climate is that it encourages tribalism with the awful "Two Party Elections". I think we need to promote a new set of economic, social and political principals that inspires people to take agency over there own lives rather then allowing the state to dictate it for them.

For example: rather then incentivize people to work towards building a huge conglomerate we should encourage them to build networks of smaller companies that collaborate together to function like a massive corporation. That way, more people will be in a position to acquire production capital without compromising the free market and the generation of wealth. In short, people should strive to acquire the means of production themselves rather then relying on capitalist elites to provide it for them. This will also have the added benefit of encouraging people to build companies that last, rather then the current model of building them to liquidate them.

This is not necessarily relevant to politics but with a new way of thinking in economics we can bring the agency of people back and remind them that they have the power to make changes.

I think it’s disingenuous to go on about Trump voters (or whomever) and then pretend the same electorate is a reliable source of policy. — Fool

Yes, it is disingenuous. But...

I believe that it has been demonstrated by political scientists that people don't vote rationally -- not the erudite college professor nor the high school drop out trailer trash.

What? That can't be true!"

When people have pencil in hand and the ballot before them, there is a very strong tendency for emotional-driven voting to take precedence over rational voting. What people tell pollsters is more likely to be a rational (or rationalized) statement not represented in their actual voting.

Personal example: In 1980 Minnesota's November ballot had a referendum question on gambling. It may have been to allow betting on horse racing. I have long been opposed to gambling, and think that things like lotteries amount to a kind of regressive tax. I am risk averse when it comes to games of chance, and I avoid casinos.

Despite all that, I voted for the referendum item on the basis of emotion. I remember feeling that I wanted to vote for the more socially sophisticated position. That feeling really didn't surface until the moment I voted (partly because I hadn't really thought much about it, one way or the other).

People did or did not vote for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for similarly emotional reasons which may not have been entertained prior to entering the ballot box. I was appalled that Donald Trump had been nominated, and was horrified that he might be elected. None the less, I wasn't happy with Clinton either. I did not vote for Trump, but I wanted to vote against Hillary. (Minnesota was securely in Hillary's pocket.) It was pure small-minded emotion at play in choosing to vote for a down ballot candidate.

My guess is that many Trump voters acted out of similarly non-rational motivation--motivation they need not be embarrassed for following, at least on the basis of how most people make important decisions.

People did or did not vote for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for similarly emotional reasons which may not have been entertained prior to entering the ballot box. I was appalled that Donald Trump had been nominated, and was horrified that he might be elected. None the less, I wasn't happy with Clinton either. I did not vote for Trump, but I wanted to vote against Hillary. (Minnesota was securely in Hillary's pocket.) It was pure small-minded emotion at play in choosing to vote for a down ballot candidate.

Do you not think this is the influence of the two party system? Everyone had other choices, they just assume voting for them would be redundant. However, if everyone that felt like you voted for a third party it may have had a positive impact on the future of politics if not the results themselves?

Yes, you’re quite right. It’s well known in decision theory and behavioral economics that people systematically fail normative standards of rationality. Indeed, accepting a post-hoc rationalization such as you might find in polls as causally explanatory is referred to as “the fundamental attribution error”. Still, one wants to avoid complete subjectivism in the political process. I’m not sure how to square the facts with the needs.

Agree, the two party system is an impediment

Btw, bravo on the honesty. I live in CA where it makes the least difference how I vote. I’m thankful, actually, because it spared me the dilemma.

So how do we fix the errant course of politics? Failure will be catastrophic. — Fool

The course of politics has always been errant. It is unlikely failure will be catastrophic. I grew up during an era when failure really would have been catastrophic. People forget how fortunate people in the US are. We're one of the few areas that have never known cycles of war for hundreds or thousands of years.

The estimate of dead in the Syrian Civil War is between 300,000 and 500,000. I think that's between 2011 and now. That's out of a population of about 20 million. I just looked it up - about 3,600 Americans have been killed by terrorists since 1995. 2,900 of those were on September 11, 2001. Our population is about 340,000,000.

What's the solution. I'm not very good with politics. How about support politicians who will work for compromise. Be supportive of compromise even when it means giving up something important to you. Don't be contemptuous of people who disagree with you. Stop whining about Donald Trump. I didn't vote for him and I think he's doing a bad job, but he's the President. I remember how Obama's opponents treated him for the eight years he was in office and I swore I wouldn't do the same when things turned. Impeachment would be a terrible thing for the county.

All very tolerant and laudable, but I’m thinking of worse catastrophe than conventional war or even genocide. Population explosion and mismanagement of resources and waste will be much worse. And I’m not being hyperbolic. The sheer mathematics are staggering. None of that is preventable without rational social choice. The situation is more critical than ever, I think.

The discussion has degenerated into a political talk about Trump; but, I still wanted to talk about 'maturity' in isolation. What is it that makes a person mature? For some odd reason, Mark Twain comes to my mind about this issue. He seemed to have the issue of 'maturity' prominently in mind during his lifetime following politics.

The discussion has degenerated into a political talk about Trump

I would say it was more of an alley with not much focus on Trump, but very well. It’s perhaps a bit past time to return to the main topic.

I would say that maturity is an undeveloped concept in the realm of politics, if politics is what you want to talk about. In many instances it is assumed, and has been perpetuated in the US by having a family, college degree, and money in a bank account. Political correctness has also been a stone on which for many years maturity was masked under.

I don't know, I think Trump is just one of the demagogues of our time that has a childlike mentality or as some have called him a 'manchild'. One feels helpless when confronted with the prospect of having such a fool govern the country.

C'est la vie?

C’est l’enfer

C’est l’enfer — Fool

Je pense que non. Vous est fou.

Oh la la

The two-party system is entrenched in the American government system, and without a parliamentary system (where minor parties gain some seats if they obtain a minimum of votes) it doesn't much matter if there are two or three or four parties.

As it is, there is, in a sense, only ONE party, and that's the party of the status quo to which most Republicans and Democrats belong.

However, parliamentary systems do not solve all problems either. Look at Italy.

Fou comme un renard?

Fou comme un renard? — Bitter Crank

Let's see, that's either "crazy like a lobster" or "crazy like an eggplant." My French is rusty.

I guess. How about renard farci au homard et aubergine (fox stuffed with lobster and eggplant)... with a baguette. "Baguette... haw haw haw (but in nasalized french, like this)




Tu n'as pas besoin de moi. Tu n'as besoin de personne. Vous êtes Americans.

Mon français vient de l'école de Google Traduction.

What is it with you Americans and American Transcendentalism? Maturity then becomes a never ending goal in the land of Peter Pan.

Mental maturity is a rare commodity. It doesn't come easy - requires more time and effort than most people are willing to invest. People want to have ''fun'' and if that's given to them they don't give a rat's ass about anything else.

Another thing is there's a paradox in democracy. It's supposed to be about the people (everyone) and is specifically designed to thwart the would-be dictator but, oddly, there's a president/prime minister/chancellor vested with immense powers.

Looks to me like a 100 year dictatorship is being replaced by a series of 6 year totalitarian regimes.

Yes, there's wisdom in that. With a time limit the damage can be controlled but the point is what's the difference between getting beaten up by 1 guy and by six different guys?

The question of maturity is moot because it doesn't apply to any form of government.

I think it’s disingenuous to go on about Trump voters (or whomever) and then pretend the same electorate is a reliable source of policy. — Fool

I agree about the disingenuousness of dismissing Trump voters as morons or fools. When people actually vote, that is, pencil in hand and ballot before them, they make emotional decisions. Everybody -- college professor and trailer trash alike.

Personal example: Back in 1978 or 1980 Minnesota had a referendum item on betting. I have been, and am, officially against gambling. I don't like to gamble, I think lotteries amount to an extremely regressive tax, and when it comes to gambling, I am personally risk averse.

Regardless of what my "thinking" was on the matter, I voted to approve the referendum. Why? Some sort of emotional pull towards avoiding "squareness" or "over religiousness" or something like that determined my vote.

Emotional factors came into play in the last presidential election too. People who would normally have voted for Hilary Clinton (based on how they responded to polls, how they had previously discussed the candidates, etc.) were swayed in the voting booth by emotions. I was too. I would normally have voted for the Democrat, and I think Clinton would have made a significantly more competent president than Trump, but I just didn't want to vote for her.