Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"The Big Con..." political stuff
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
With so many articles and points of view about the upcoming election here in the U.S. it's hard to sort out 'better' and 'worse.' And long? Forgetabout it!
For all that, here is a long article (written in English) that I happened to like: The Big Con: What is really at stake in this US election."
Wearing and sad, from where I sit.
3
Comments
Do you really think the article's basic premise is correct; that people have forgotten the Depression, the New Deal, and all that's at stake with this election? I think the meltdown in 2008 reminded everyone of just exactly that. I don't know where you live, but my state, NM, has never recovered from the 2008 Great Recession. But as I talk to friends in other states, and read magazine/newspaper articles, I have the impression that these things are uppermost in people's minds. (Not that Clintonism would restore what has been lost; let's not forget who signed the bill repealing the Glass-Steagal Act, deregulating the financial services industry and enabling the resulting meltdown. That was a New Deal law that was repealed.)
Most people have a parent or grandparent who struggled during the Depression. I don't think they've forgotten; even the younger generations. But IDK, maybe I live in some kind of rarified world. In my observation, people are very well aware of what's at stake. In fact, more than a few are saying what we need is someone like Elizabeth Warren running, who is much more aware of and motivated to address the plight of the working class, corporate malfeasance and greed, and all that.
The issue raised reminds me of the idea in Buddhism to realize the kindness of others by seeing how much of our life depends on the efforts of others.
IMO there is a false dichotomy out there that the options for an economic system are government control (communism) or lassiez-faire capitalism. In reality most of the world has a mixed economy and the debate should really be about how much government intervention vs how much individual and corporate freedom. Honest political debate seems largely dead to me.
For all those that'll be relieved if Trump doesn't win, all those people will remain angry and we'll go through the same thing 4 years from now. Electing Hillary won't save us from much of anything. The saddest thing to me is how much people simply focus on the politics and miss the forest for the trees. They don't understand our problems in government and politics is a result of our problems in society. Not as much the other way around. We get what we ask for, pretty much. And we are so incredibly divided it's hard to imagine ever finding common ground. It reminds me of a past relationship I was in. When life was cruising along, we struggled. We fought and things were hard for us. When we came together was when we had a crisis to deal with. Then we worked together and got along. US is much the same. We come together in disasters and crises but can't stand each other otherwise. We must be over due for another crisis.
For half of America that is reality, for the other half reality is very different... literally.
Spend a little time reading conservative news or watching conservative You Tube channels, the same set of facts, on the few occasions that they are even agreed upon, are seen very differently.
I wish it weren't so but I very much think you are right.
When you look at the state red/blue map you can't discern as much from it. But when you look at it on a county basis and then start comparing, the lines are drawn very strictly within urban vs rural life. I made a lot of general observations comparing the 2, as I've lived both and have family in both and it's pretty interesting to consider. I can see both points of view, but I think generally speaking urban and thus mostly democratic areas have a larger world view. Thankfully they often can carry us despite a huge section geographically of the US voting red. City and rural folks have very, very different views of what life is, what it means to live, and what it takes to do so. And they both judge the other based on their experience (of course, that's how it works). But most of them can't see things from the other point of view because they can't even comprehend it. i'm actually on my way out for a date night with the hubby but I'll explain more later if anyone wants to discuss. I grew up and now live in a rural area. But I spent 15 years in various cities, including one democratic city in a very red state. Interesting stuff to step back and really look at the people who live in different places and how they live and their values and how it intersects with our political map.
I live and grew up in the city but still spend several days every year with my rural, more conservative family. I do appreciate the ability it gives me to get some level of understanding of their point of view and to see that they are complex people too.
There has been some brain research on liberal vs conservative and it has been shown that we all actually process information through different parts of our brains, so the same things are processed differently. And it isn't clear that one way is superior to the other in all situations and experiences.
"brain research on liberal vs conservative"
“What’s really fascinating is that there have been a number of recent studies looking at brain structural differences between liberals and conservatives,” said Saltz. “And what’s been found in several studies is that liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate gyrus. That is an area that is responsible for taking in new information and that impact of the new information on decision making or choices. Conservatives tended on the whole to have a larger right amygdala. Amygdala being a deeper brain structure that processes more emotional information—specifically fear-based information,” Saltz explained."
"Conservatives, in fact, in personality studies do tend to rate higher in areas of stability, loyalty, not liking change,” and incorporating religion when it comes to making certain choices, Saltz said. “And if you look at liberals from a personality character standpoint, you’re going to find stronger ratings in terms of liking change, wanting to actually base decision-making on new information, on science information. And so those differences are not surprising in light of these brain structural differences. Being a liberal or being a conservative really is not black-and-white. It’s really a bell-shaped curve where, you know, someone who considers themselves conservative may be far less conservative, so to speak, than someone else who still calls themselves a conservative. And that bell-shaped curve continues all the way through where in the middle there may be a large group that calls themselves independents,” the psychiatrist reported."
"The brain may be able to absorb new ideologies, but old habits die hard."
Thanks everyone. I appreciate the doggedness it must have taken to read that article and appreciate as well the points of view.
My own view is that Hillary will win and we will have 15 more years of the Afghan war or something similar. War is a great nourisher of political careers and Hillary, for all the wonder of being the first woman president, is in my mind a good ol' boy in girl's clothes. No reason she shouldn't be, given the political soil she grew out of.
I see no easy fix short of the kind of bloodshed that becomes so wearing and so tearing that everyone just runs out of steam. It's hard to remember that the separation between World War I and World War II was a mere 20 years, give or take.
I can't help but feel ashamed at the world I bequeath to my children and the children of others.
how we use our brains changes it, right? We know that from meditation. In a nutshell, rural people are very self-sufficient. They rely on themselves, their family and if they have to, their close knit, well established community. They don't ask for, expect, or want, help from "outsiders" and they think you should be able to do most things for yourself, because they do. They cover an amazing array of things that they do that most city people pay others to do. From fixing cars to growing and hunting food, to first aid and folk remedies, to even pulling their own teeth. They just don't have the time or resources to pay someone else and spend half the day driving to get it done. So they do it themselves and they largely resent others who cannot. And they resent a government that takes more of their money and distributes it to largely urban areas when they could make better use of it themselves.
City folks, however, appreciate what they get from the govt and their vast resources. They get much better opportunities in education and activities. They get museums, public transportation, stadiums, and more options than they know what to do with. They don't often have a community they can rely on, many are lucky to know their neighbors names (while in the country not only do they know them, but their great grandparents were probably friends with their neighbors great grandparents and they know everything about their lives and thus can trust them). Urban people trust others to do things for them, because they have to. Rural people trust no one else because they can't.
Both think the other should live more like them. Rural people don't understand how city people live, and just think they are all dumb for not being able to do for themselves. While city people think of rural folks as backwards and behind the times.
So it makes sense they'd have different brains, as they are using them differently to solve the same problems in life. And think their way is the best, most valid way to do so. Rural people work their asses off just to keep their lives running. While city folks work their asses off to make money to pay to keep their lives running. As usual, same goal, different path.
This of course is very general. Not all city people are democrats and vice versa. But when you look at it on an average basis, the red and blue lines are drawn almost entirely around urban and rural areas. My state is strongly democratic (minnesota) but it is mostly because our out-state rural population is so small. The Minneapolis area is largely democratic and between them and a few other smaller city centers that are also democratic, they carry our whole state. It's interesting the things you look at when you shrink it to a county level. It carries over to a lot of different topics.
City people, overall, have more access to all sorts of different things, and when that happens, it changes your view of the world. That's why people who grow up in rural areas who actually go away from home for college or travel or otherwise educate themselves, often end up never going back. They learn differently that the world is so wonderfully diverse. But there is a need for rural people, too. I can appreciate them both. And they'll all give you the shirt off their back to help. But in one case you'll get a button down or a concert t-shirt and in the other you'll get flannel or carhart, lol.
Paying attention to the differences in how they view and operate within the very fabric of life makes me wonder whether the divide is fixable. Or if that should even be our goal.
I am proud of the kids. They are looking for alternatives including:
hacktervists
http://newhive.com/lobster/puppi
lets banking and freecycle.org type initiatives
tecnotopia
street art http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/thousands-join-million-mask-march-in-central-london-after-police-impose-strict-restrictions-a7400021.html
@karasti -- If I may, I'll play the old-fart card and suggest that the older anyone becomes, both the need and desire to fix things kind of runs out of steam. Partly, I suppose, this may be experience whispering in the ear that the notion that anyone actually could fix something is dubious at best. Unintended consequences being what they are ... well, check it out.
And then there's the aspect of "fixing" being (in part) a lovely bit of camouflage for being in control.... while politely asserting, of course, that there is no one to be in control.
And towards the end of the string, perhaps the thought comes creeping that you are acting now as you might have acted so long ago when you first started ruminating about fixing stuff and healing divides. You snatch the child who is about to be run over by the bus. You suggest to a friend or enemy that there is another point of view. You do whatever you like except that now you're a tad more attentive to what you are doing.
Just noodling.
I have a lot of hope for our younger generation. My son's age group is very involved in politics and they have some great ideas. (they are 20 year olds). He knows more about politics than I do and has been heavily involved. He served as a delegate at several levels of our local, regional and state caucus this past spring. He's not the only one.
By "fixing" @genkaku I mostly meant all these so-called ideas to unite the country and our people. I don't think it's possible, and it probably never has been. It's like trying to unite peach schnapps and milk (don't ask, lol). Some things just shouldn't be attempted. Will we ever learn to live together? It seems unlikely, especially with the internet. When I was a kid, parents did not talk about politics. At all. Ever. Not even to us. I'd ask who they voted for and they'd say it's personal. Maybe it should have stayed that way! We make our choices quietly and don't let them ruin our relationships with neighbors, and even friends and family members. We tend to believe just talking to someone the right way will get them to see our point. But if we are built differently because of the changes to our brains then there truly is no point in attempting to have those conversations 99% of the time, unless the 2 people are invested in each other.
The candidates don't even talk to the people when they answer questions or address concerns. They just talk to, and over, each other. It's like the millions of Americans aren't even part of their equation. Not once during any debate did either of them address the people. Just each other. The funny thing is, from the most conservative to the most liberal and many in between, no one seems to understand how we arrived her. How these are our choices. It's like Skynet runs itself and chose them, since no one seems to believe anything they did, or didn't do, contributed to selecting Clinton and Trump! But if nothing else good comes of it, I hope that people have a better understanding of how things work and can perhaps start to demand some change on some fronts. The number of people who didn't know how our election process worked was pretty astounding.
I don't think there is some grand unified view or line of thinking or ideology that will bridge the divide and bring us all together. Any hope of working together for a common goal has to start with an understanding and appreciation that we are different. We have a government made up of many representatives that are supposed to work together for the welfare of the country. It's the present unwillingness to compromise and work together that is the real problem, we can be different if we're willing to give a little.
To my mind the source of the problem are the political media. They demonize and characterize the other so that to see them as people isn't possible. If the other is literally Hitler you shouldn't work with them you should defeat them.
But I think as the citizens, we encourage that. The republicans are already saying they will block anything HIllary tries to do, and justices she puts up to fill the vacancy. first they said they'd wait for the new president, now they'll block her if she wins, too. But the people who support them, love it. They WANT them to block anything a democrat does. And if the shoe is on the other foot, it would be a lot the same I think. If Trump won the presidency but we somehow ended up with a democratic congress, democrats would be petitioning their representatives to block Trumps every move, too. The highly polarized candidates are a result of a highly polarized people. Driven in part, yes, by the media.
It's insane. Trump's rally in Reno was interrupted by a scuffle in the crowd and he was escorated off the stage by secret service. For just a few minutes. Because someone in the crowd yelled "gun!" but it was just a folded up poster. Twitter is all a buzz with the "assassination attempt" that Hillary's followers made on Trump.
In that way, social media creates it's own type of media, and often, THAT drives what the corporate media reports on. If you follow twitter closely once in a while, you see things trending that become news stories within a short while. But they are always on twitter, first. So the news is reporting on what people are seeing and talking about, and until social media that never happened within a matter of minutes. so now so much gets reported as news when it's just highly distorted views of reality.
What i find strange is that with two such wildly unpopular characters being fielded by the two main parties, there is no third candidate who is stepping up the pressure with innovative and popular proposals. These are circumstances that I'd expect to be perfect for a third candidate.
In part this is down to the media, who are not discussing third party alternatives in an almost organised fashion. The rest of it I assume is the campaigning machine of the main parties creating a lot of local visibility.
But I think it's pretty clear that such a settled two-party system is not beneficial to the public. It creates a lot of power structures that become embedded in the way people think, and a very adversarial us-vs-them thinking in Congress and in Senate.
Bloomberg said he'd run if Bernie got the Dem nomination. But he knew he couldn't beat Hillary, so he called off his 3rd party candidacy when she got it.
What I think is outrageous is that the Republicans in Congress have said that as soon as Hillary is seated in the Presidency, they're going to investigate her to death to find a pretext for impeachment. Yeah, great use of our tax dollars and Congress' time. As if the nation doesn't face much more pressing issues. They've also said they wouldn't allow a 9th Supreme Court justice to be approved.
I don't understand this virulent, almost hysterical, obstructionism. How did it get like this?
For those wishing to take a short break from the political wrangling and mud-slinging, this is the Pixar short which went with Finding Dory earlier this year, available to watch for free on the web.
Pixar's Piper short film at DailyDot
Thanks @Kerome
Wonderful break
Vote Buddha! Sand piper constitution. By pass politics. 
There is an inherent problem that Buddhism addresses when looking at anything from a better or worse perspective, yes?
Having worked in politics at the state and national level in Washington D.C. (never again!), I can safely say that most politicians that run for office are not the sort of people you would want running things anyway. It's just how it works, and while Trump may indeed be a misogynist, delusional egomaniac, he is still sometimes right. He makes so many crazy statements that the odds are that one has to be accurate at some point, and the system is as broken and rigged as he thinks it is (it's just not rigged enough in the manner that supports him in his view).
No matter who wins the election, there is still a congress and a senate. One person is not king, not yet anyway. There are limits of power, and there is impeachment and the courts if things get Nixonian.
But no matter who wins, we are still being controlled by the media and multinational corporations. It's only a matter of which corporations that the eventual winner aligns themselves with.
No one knows what will happen 5 seconds from now, much less 15 years from now. Don't worry, be in the moment, not in the past or the present. As the Dali Lama said, if we can change something, then change it. If we cannot change something, let go of it. Worrying is a waste of our lives.
Like you, I've lived in both urban and rural areas and my observations mirror yours. I've lived in about forty states and in metropolitan areas such as New York and L.A. as well as perhaps twenty towns and villages with a population of less than two hundred.
I've often compared the duality of American politics with the line from Star Trek in which Spock says, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. Or the one." It seems to me to be a very conservative view. Then there is the liberal view that the needs of the few, or the one, out weigh the needs of the many. Both positions, in my opinion, are infinitely defensible and come from a 'good' place. How people defend those positions however, take all the goodness or skillfulness out of them.
I think it was actually initially Shantideva that said that, to do something when you can and let go when you cannot
HHDL is a big fan of Shantideva's works though, 
I think the reason we have problems doing so within politics is that we are led to believe we can do something, and that we are doing something by voting, yet, we really aren't. I am grateful for our checks and balances that'll keep Trump from doing a lot of the stuff he claims he'll do. But, the president does have a lot of control on his own over immigration, and I fear for immigrants and refugees in the case that he is elected. I have friends who have been here many years and they contribute greatly to their communities but they are terrified of being sent away. I wish we could send our politicians away instead.
I think people just get frustrated because they are supposed to have an avenue to do something but it's more apparent this year than ever that we don't really, when it comes to choosing and voting for presidential candidates.
@Kerome 3rd parties are pretty limiting in funding. They cannot get visibility because of the requirements. For them to be a truly viable choice, they need to be able to be present at the debates, and they are not allowed, even though most Americans want them to be there. Bernie could have run successfully on a 3rd party ticket, and was invited to run on the Green Party ticket, in fact. But he knew, or thought, that doing so would fracture the democratic party and give an easier path for Trump to win. Personally I don't' think Trump would have stood a chance against Bernie but the fact remains that Hillary got millions more votes than Bernie in the primary elections and so it was/is a concern. I imagine there was a lot of looking into it before he opted to support Hillary. I just hope he isn't being coerced into doing so
It has been argued that Trump is like a 3rd party candidate that happened to have won the nomination of a major party. He has lots of similarities with Ross Perot.
I've also heard it argued that with a congress that is frozen in its legislative function and a gradual increase in presidential power we may be heading towards a system where we in essence elect a dictator every 4 years.
Bought and paid for, perhaps?
I still vote with Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest."
Good ol' Abe
You guys would be much better off with the Queen and English gentlemen back in charge.
From a Canadian perspective, United States politics is like reality TV.
We started our campaign trail the same time but ours was done over a year ago. Our first debate was in a smallish room with the nominees, a few cameras, reporters and a small audience. It was all business and fairly respectful.
When the States were doing theirs it was absolutely hilarious. I thought Hulk Hogan was fighting the Ultimate Warrior all over again. Flashing neon lights, pyro, theme songs... It was embarrassing just to be sharing the same hemisphere.
Many people seem to be surprised Hilary was chosen over Sanders by the Powers that Be but I thought it was understood when Obama beat her out that she would be up next. Sanders is by far the better person for the job but it was already decided that America needs a woman president. Too bad she is also just another war mongering bitch to the Rothchilds and friends.
As for Trump? Come on now. Seriously, where's the gag? Almost anyone would look like the sane choice compared to this guy. It's his whole part in the play but it's like Star Wars bring in Jar Jar Binks. How are we supposed to suspend our disbelief when characters are going out of their way to be unbelievable?
Almost anybody would look like the saner choice. Anybody.
@david -- As for example this fellow who got the crap kicked out of him when he displayed an anti-Trump sign at a Trump rally in Reno on Saturday:
It mostly is reality tv. We've turned politics from a business that we are partners in to celebrities. Granted, the strobe lights and theme songs were mostly about the various conventions where they nominated their candidate, so those were more of a celebration type of thing. But the whole mess is just awful. It's not what most people want, yet the loudest people get what they want.
No one was surprised by Hillary's nomination. She has been working for it for 30 years. Just disappointed. She had potential once upon a time. But rather than continue to work for the people she focused on her career and did whatever she thought she had to to keep the Oval Office in her sights along the way.
Trump is basically a result of people wanting change. People on both sides wanted a candidate who didn't represent more of the same. Republicans got what they wanted, the other side didn't, as that is exactly what Hillary represents. Enough of them think that because she is a woman and has a lot of experience, that she will be enough of a change, but she will not. That is why the republicans put up Trump. To be the anti-politician. Hillary is just another celebrity who is well known. People are comfortable with what they already know. Everyone knows who The Donald is. Everyone knows Hillary. Knowing implies trusting. Bernie kind of came out of no where for a lot of America and they didn't know if they could trust all his promises of change.
This train wreck of a political season has been fascinating to watch and participate in, hasn't it? It has proved at least one thing: we in the USA are no better or worse than anyone else in the world, but maybe we have the wealth and time to do things longer and louder.
It's also been an eye opener for me on how many people out there are, basically, mired in the crap that defiles all our minds to one extent or another. And how people who want power can take advantage of this.
I am old enough to have more of a historical view of our current divided country. Maybe this is a tiny taste of how people felt in the decade long run up to Civil War. I don't know. More and more, I see people who are, by my standards, insane being placed in front of a camera and treated as smart and thoughtful. Mostly it's just the con at work. Tell people what they want to hear, repeat the lies often enough, grab hold of their emotions, and you can sell them on anything.
And it's always been this way. If Buddhism had an answer to fix society's tendency to go insane periodically, the world would already be a better place. All I can do is fix myself.
Yuck! Yuck Yuck
Well said. Probably enough said too ...
I would definitely vote for Moe!
More seriously, I think I would vote to Janet Reno, the first woman attorney general of the U.S., and a woman quoted as telling reporters bluntly, "I don't do spin."
She died on Monday.
Hope she sent in ballot first. Be nice to think the first female AG was able to vote for first female President.
I wonder if Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony (and others) would vote for Hillary. Or Jill. Or someone else entirely. If I remember right, Susan at least was a republican. But, the parties were vastly different then with republicans opposing slavery and democrats for it. She was a big anti-slavery person. I wonder what she'd think of our world today.
Amazing that it is so close, I honestly thought sanity would prevail and she would win easily. With Florida and Ohio going to Trump it's not a sure thing at all.
Oh well.....
"What's the worst thing that can happen ? And if it does...what can you do about it? If you can do something about it...Why worry ? And if you can't do anything about it ...Why worry ?"
This is when ones practice really comes in handy ....
"Trump wins White House in astonishing victory" sez MSN online news.
I guess it's the 7th sign people...I thought that when Clinton and Trump became the 'chosen' candidates. I wonder what Vancouver's like this time of year.
You're not the only one thinking that way. Apparently the Canadian immigration website crashed as Trump's lead in the election grew.
Well, we're in for an interesting couple of years. As far as Trump goes, America has had crazy Presidents before. The one saving grace out of all this is, Trump is not driven by ideology like so many ultra conservative Republicans. That means he's unpredictable and certainly not loyal to the Republican party. So fasten your seatbelts and let's see how crazy this can get.
So the Farting Trumpet is going to be fuhrer president? Gawd help us!
I'm trying to put a positive spin on this but it's pretty tough.
It was the battle of the lesser evil but became the battle for the lesser known evil. We know Hillarys type of evil by the name of war for oil and kissing big banks fanny but Trump is a wild card who I actually thought was only there for comedic effect. It will be interesting.
When Clinton screwed Bernie over she screwed herself, her party and the whole of the United States.
Move over Kim Jong Un, we have a new world laughing stock.
Or maybe he'll surprise us. I for one am quite surprised already.
See, the problem with socially engaged Buddhism is, collectively people are stupid and selfish if you scare them enough and powerful people like to play their power games, and that's not going to change. From a future historical perspective we'll talk about the chain of socioeconomic events that resulted in this, but really it's just people being people. We want people to behave better toward each other and strive toward at least enlightened self interest. At the least stop blaming each other for problems we all helped create.
The world changes, but people don't. Not willingly.
Actually if any Republican is going to be elected to President with a Congress in Republican hands, Trump is the best choice. He has no loyalty to Republicans, is driven by his self interest only and not ideology, and even he doesn't believe the crap that he's said in the campaign, much of which contradicts itself. As for the damage he might do, he's President, not King Trump, and Obama couldn't even do anything with a congress against him. So we really don't know what the hell he's going to do. Neither do the Republicans, and that has to scare them too.
Yes, it seems like Obama just couldn't get support for many of the things he wanted to change. It will be interesting to see how far Trump gets with his "policies", though I get the feeling he makes it up as he goes along.
And that's just it. It isn't good for the Liberal party either but it is good for those voting him in as a protest against the system.
I don't think he'll be able to cause as much damage as many believe but he's going to stir the pot and mess around with public relations, lol.
This may be the first POTUS ever to be voted in purely out of spite!
Apparently slightly over half the voters in our country subscribe to the "Oh, you double dog dare me? I'll show you!" philosophy of decision making.
I'm stunned.
I'm ashamed and embarrassed for the country. I just can't believe it...
He said in his speech last night he's going to unite the country and be the president for all of us. I'm going to hold him to that. Including gay people, immigrants, Muslims, etc. He has a long ways to go.
But, I try to look at it this way. Some 150 million Americans voted for the man. Looking at local numbers, a lot of my neighbors were among them. Some of them no doubt are KKK loving bigoted people. But I don't think most of them are. They felt the same about Obama as we feel about Trump. But from our side, other than the recession, the country has done alright the past 8 years. I hope it is the same when Trump takes over. I can only wish him the best at this point because wishing anything else is just hoping for harm to us and/or other people. I hope with a republican congress and what will no doubt be a conservative leaning Supreme Court we don't end up going backwards 50 years. It feels very out of balance. But again, only because it's not my party. The democrats have enjoyed several years of control in our state, and it's been glorious. But half the state doesn't feel that way and again most of them aren't bad people. I hope those 150 million people knew what they were doing and saw something in Trump we can't see.
Despite my not liking Hillary, I am a bit disappointed to not see a woman elected. Not that I'd want to elect her just on those grounds, just saying. It's a bit shocking to go from the first elected black president to Trump...
A smidgen of me wants to see him truly do well from my standards and highly disappoint his lunatic portion of fans. He was, afterall, a democrat for a long time.