I think the disconnect is that to some extent many Americans still think their political system is still more or less decent where decency matters. In a healthy system, bad people shouldn't float to the top like turds.

For those like Streetlight x, it is obvious that a system that produces Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump is totally shit. But next to bad policy, Trump is the first that acts like a total asshole.

I disagree, however, that character is entirely irrelevant. People with character would resist the worst extremes the system would allow. Which, although not a solution to any systemic problem, would dampen some of the consequences.

The first step in change is recognizing what is fucked up.. — schopenhauer1

As I said to someone else, if, at this point, you're still trying to convince people that things are fucked up, the only person living under a rock is you. The only idiot in the room is you.

But to my previous point, what do you suppose to do systematically, as you were stating? — schopenhauer1

My proposals are largely negative: don't individualize politics. Don't psychologize politics. Look to things that will have mass effects on how people engage with the world around them; if you're not discussing something in social terms, it's probably not worth very much. If you're not looking at how power is operating (who is doing what to whom for whose benefit?), then you're doing more mystifying than helping. Don't allow yourself to be caught up in drama: if you find yourself talking about conspiracy theories and shady deals (Russia! Collusion! Backroom deals!) then you're part of the problem.

I disagree, however, that character is entirely irrelevant. People with character would resist the worst extremes the system would allow. Which, although not a solution to any systemic problem, would dampen some of the consequences. — Benkei

Nixon comes to mind here..But notice he actually had the decency to LEAVE office once he saw the tapes come out and that other Republicans were now on board that this was bad. So two things going on.. First you had a more/less appropriate response (resignation) as Congress was starting to lean towards president being unfit to stay in office. Second, you actually had other Republicans recognizing the cover-up as a bad thing, warranting the drafting of impeachment charges.

Notice, both of these things may not happen this time.

As far as systematic changes, again, what are we proposing? I mentioned a list of stuff earlier in response to Streetlight X, but he didn't actually respond with concrete ideas. I'm all for systemic change. However, at the end of the day, the people running are just not great people, and we have the worst of the worst.

As I said to someone else, if, at this point, you're still trying to convince people that things are fucked up, the only person living under a rock is you. The only idiot in the room is you. — StreetlightX

I mean this kind of talk reminds me of Trump.. "The only idiot is you". Just insults.. How is that contributing to something better? Maybe you unconsciously agree with Trump's methods.

My proposals are largely negative: don't individualize politics. Don't psychologize politics. Look to things that will have mass effects on how people engage with the world around them; if you're not discussing something in social terms, it's probably not worth very much. If you're not looking at how power is operating (who is doing what to whom for whose benefit?), then you're doing more mystifying than helping. — StreetlightX

I mean this is very vague stuff.. In fact, it's almost as vague as what you are accusing me of when stating how things are screwed up right now in Congress. Actually, I gave much more detail at least in how things are screwed up and shared a particular angle on the situation. In a way I agree, if what you mean is politics is really everything we do socially. We have to learn that it is all connected. Even being by yourself in an apartment is connected. Man is a political animal and thus every engagement is really involving with social institutions, social values, social ways of life. But how about real concrete examples?

There are HOAs, community meetings, town hall meetings, party meetings, meetups, homeless initiatives, and various civic channels. I mean, potentially people could join these and feel more connected and participatory in their neighborhood. Often people consider life to be more discrete- worklife, family life (maybe involving some civic stuff as an example to kids and such?), but mostly personal entertainment.. Work, entertainment. Every couple years there may be an election, and that is often the extent of most people's politics outside of reading some articles or headlines.

Well some things that I think are ludicrous:

1. Unlimited cash for political advertisement
2. A winner takes all system
3. Political appointment of judges
4. Disconnect between rich politicians and normal people means normal people's problems aren't taken care of (an issue in most Western democracies, just that Congressmen in the US are filthy rich)

1. Unlimited cash for political advertisement
2. A winner takes all system
3. Political appointment of judges
4. Disconnect between rich politicians and normal people means normal people's problems aren't taken care of (an issue in most Western democracies, just that Congressmen in the US are filthy rich) — Benkei

I can get on board with all of those.

This is now presidential by definition.

Better yet, he’s doing a better job than any gang of technocrats and lawyers we’ve ever come up with.

Two pieces analyzing the import of Volker’s testimony:

Trump Officials’ Texts Show Push to Tie “Investigation” to Future of U.S.-Ukraine Relationship

“Corruption” Is the GOP’s Code for Smearing Democrats

Well, he's gonna get impeached.

Deal with it.

But will he get convicted and removed? Doubtful

I think one of the things in our purview is to change the kinds of conversations that dominate the public space, and change the terms of what is important. I think the power of this is massively underestimated: normalizing ideas, altering the landscape of what is possible. The right I think understood this incredibly well, and still continues to.

Off the top of my head, the most obvious example that comes to mind is the change in conversations initiated by Sanders and people like AOC. The fact that Americans an talk about socialism as a serious contender in the political field - I think that's huge. Sanders in particular has done more to normalise and legitimise socialism in the states than most of those who have been on the left in decades. There were few things more awesome than seeing the conversation that cropped up after AOC proposed 70% taxes on the wealthy a while back. Or else just the impetus behind the Green New Deal and the promise of institutional change that that offers. And Medicare for all is basically not a question of 'if', but of 'how much exactly' among the democrats now.

Or else I think of the revival of strikes - both in the field of climate (the recent climate strikes) and in the field of work (thinking of the various teacher's strikes) that the largely positive responses to them by many quarters. Warren's proposal to strengthen unions by instituting sector-bargaining instead of workplace bargaining is, I think incredible point of conversation, and one that should be embraced by many.

One of the hard things about this is that much of this is opportunistic: you need a sense of what the Greeks called kairos, seizing the right time, intervening at the right moments, if you're in the right position. The conversations we have prepare the ground, they enable those who are in a position (not usually people like you and me) to tap into something existing and take it from there. 'We' can't change the funding rules for governments, but we can talk about it and put it on the agenda until it becomes impossible to ignore.

Your response is surprisingly more idealistic, optimistic, and less esoteric than I thought, which is good.

One of the hard things about this is that much of this is opportunistic: you need a sense of what the Greeks called kairos, seizing the right time, intervening at the right moments, if you're in the right position. The conversations we have prepare the ground, they enable those who are in a position (not usually people like you and me) to tap into something existing and take it from there. 'We' can't change the funding rules for governments, but we can talk about it and put it on the agenda until it becomes impossible to ignore. — StreetlightX

I can agree with most of these positions you bring up, if I'm discussing everyday politics mode. I agree that Sanders has brought socialism into the mainstream (of the left) in the US- something that would have been political suicide in the 80s and 90s. It would have gotten some people literally blacklisted in the 50s and early 60s :).

One of the hard things about this is that much of this is opportunistic: you need a sense of what the Greeks called kairos, seizing the right time, intervening at the right moments, if you're in the right position. The conversations we have prepare the ground, they enable those who are in a position (not usually people like you and me) to tap into something existing and take it from there. 'We' can't change the funding rules for governments, but we can talk about it and put it on the agenda until it becomes impossible to ignore. — StreetlightX

I see that this is actually very much in line with what happens already (civil rights movement, anti-war movement, progressive era in regards to labor laws/anti-monopoly laws and income tax).

Now moving this out to the abstract again, what do you see as the individual's relation to politics/political systems? Communism for example has an idea that people need to free themselves from the evils of exploitation, thus man is always somehow in some sort of shared labor. What are the assumptions of democratic-socialist economies of the individual and their place in the system as a whole? What is the metaphysical status of the self/individual in the "soft" socialist position (as opposed to hardcore communist let's say) and/or the current US system?

This is now presidential by definition. — NOS4A2

The kettle calling the pot black is now officially presidential?

That stuff isn't going to appeal to anyone with a mental age of more than 12. So, yes, it will be very effective among his fan base.

Sidenote: I think Street has a point. Don't let frustration at Trump do your anger for you. Emotional relief in this context is a distraction. Besides, he'll always win the battle of cartoons.

And compared to what Clinton and Albright did to Iraqi children, trying to get dirt on Biden from wherever seems positively benign.

That stuff isn't going to appeal to anyone with a mental age of more than 12. So, yes, it will be very effective among his fan base.

Much better than the robotic, public relations rhetoric they dream up in focus groups. That stuff is meant to placate, or put to sleep, whichever comes first.

If you imagine the choices for political debate to be limited to infantile cartoons vs robotic PR rhetoric then... that's what I would expect. But never mind, you're playing your part in the Punch and Judy show impeccably and you're welcome to it.

""I don't see a problem with it," John Blockus, who runs an equipment repairs company, says of Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian President.

If the US is handing over hundreds of millions dollars in financial aid to Ukraine, he asks, why is it wrong for Trump to ask them for a favour?

"Mueller went nowhere and this will go nowhere," says Blockus, who voted for Trump in 2016. "Trump was a great businessman. He won't allow himself to get his hands caught."

Dave, a retired state trooper who asks for his surname not to be published, says: "I want all the dirt out there and I'll make my decision."

The registered Democrat voted for Trump and has no regrets. "I think he's doing a great job as president: he's pissing both parties off."

Such bad political strategy.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/amid-impeachment-talk-trump-voters-see-cynicism-for-all-as-safest-bet-20191005-p52xv0.html

I think Trump is drawing the US down off the world stage. Who thinks that's a bad idea?

Such bad political strategy.

I think it’s a great strategy.

The US has essentially been a uni-party state since Clinton, who utilized “political triangulation” to siphon votes from republicans, blurring the lines between left and right in the United States. In other words, it was no longer about principle or ideology, but achieving power.

Trump’s very presence and his contrast to previous politicians has forced many to think about politics again (some, it seems, for the first time in their lives), leading to a stronger left and right on the American political field.

Sorry I mean the focus on impeachment.

I would ask how Trumps divisiveness has proved to be a successful strategy, given the significant failures his administration has had, such as with healthcare, the midterms, border wall funding, etc, but you have a tendency to not substantiate your claims. Probably because they’re just trolls.

Any republican president could cut taxes for the wealthy, deregulate, slash public programs, and drive up the deficit.

Perhaps the Republican Party would be more successful with a different leader. Maybe Trump is more of a liability than an asset, and his best contribution was merely getting elected, allowing their agenda access to fulfillment.

Trump’s very presence and his contrast to previous politicians has forced many to think about politics again (some, it seems, for the first time in their lives), leading to a stronger left and right on the American political field. — NOS4A2

This, though, is entirely right. Trump has been an incredible force of galvanization, for the right and left alike. The left certainly has alot to thank him for. Zizek was right, imo, of seeing a Trump presidency as a far better prospect for the left than a Clinton one, even though he got railroaded by the left for it.

This, though, is entirely right. Trump has been an incredible force of galvanization, for the right and left alike. The left certainly has alot to thank him for. Zizek was right, imo, of seeing a Trump presidency as a far better prospect for the left than a Clinton one, even though he got railroaded by the left for it. — StreetlightX

Sure, we've seen (somewhat) similar political dialectics arise during the Bush administration from the Left, the Obama administration from the Right, and now again from the Left thanks to a Trump presidency and GOP controlled government, albeit the Left now, due to the 2008 recession and the palpable critique of Capitalism it generated, is more vigorous and tenacious than in many decades past. However, I remain unconvinced that a Trump presidency has been, in hindsight, 'desirable' for the Left, given the substantive damage done by the Trump administration, and more generally, a GOP controlled government to the lives of people. The conceptual tools for critiquing Capitalism remain as relevant as ever (if not more so than in decades past), with or without Trump.

will he get convicted and removed? Doubtful — schopenhauer1

Gone for all money, I think. They've him dead to rights on this case, smoking gun and bloodied corpse ( see here for the latest) - and all he can do is bluster, threaten and swear. Congress will certainly impeach, and already there are significant numbers of Republican senators expressing doubts. I fully expect him to resign or be removed office, but then, I’ve been expecting that from the outset.

However, I remain unconvinced that a Trump presidency has been, in hindsight, 'desirable' for the Left, given the substantive damage done by the Trump administration, and more generally, a GOP controlled government to the lives of people. The conceptual tools for critiquing Capitalism remain as relevant as ever (if not more so than in decades past), with or without Trump. — Maw

True. The damage done will not have been redeemed, whatever follows. It's probably unfair to expect an 'on the balance' assessment - but, I'll look to what silver linings there might be.

I'll look to what silver linings there might be — StreetlightX

At the very least, we need someone in office who sees the threat posed by global warming and will stop doing everything in his power to accelerate it.

Trump’s very presence and his contrast to previous politicians has forced many to think about politics again (some, it seems, for the first time in their lives), leading to a stronger left and right on the American political field. — NOS4A2

This, though, is entirely right. Trump has been an incredible force of galvanization, for the right and left alike. — StreetlightX

That "force", is a force of division. Whether a divisive force within a people is better than a unifying force within a people depends on one's attitude towards the people.

That "force", is a force of division. Whether a divisive force within a people is better than a unifying force within a people depends on one's attitude towards the people.

I prefer a divisive force. Unity belongs in the single-party, zero politics systems of absolute monarchies and dictatorships, where unity is mandatory and enforced.

I think one of the things in our purview is to change the kinds of conversations that dominate the public space, and change the terms of what is important. I think the power of this is massively underestimated: normalizing ideas, altering the landscape of what is possible. The right I think understood this incredibly well, and still continues to. — StreetlightX

The importance of this cannot be overstated...