Hypocrisy is not a problem with Politics, it’s a problem with Parties
Apparently some folks out there are criticizing Pelosi for not wearing a mask to a salon. Yep, this is definitely hypocrisy.
But, I would like to see a response that is just walls of tweets from current Republicans that were lambasting Trump in 2016.
When will the parties accept that they’re both hypocritical AF?
As Libertarians, how do y’all feel about the profit motives behind the Republican Corporation and Democrats Incorporated? As believers in the free market, do you think these private businesses that run our elections are better suited to the job than anything else? Do we have any other option?
LONGER FORM THOUGHTS ON THIS SHIT. SORRY IT’S NOT WELL-WRITTEN, I DID NOT EDIT AFTER I JUST GOT GOING ON A RANT. HOPEFULLY THE THOUGHTS ARE CLRAR (clearer than that word at least…)
It seems to me that the Reds and Blues don’t actually have any incentive to govern ~well~ (or even decently). Rather, they have an incentive to raise dollars through fundraising efforts.The obvious result is that they appeal more to the whims of those with money. But, grassroots donations have demonstrated real power lately, so there is a helpful “market” of sorts, even if it’s incredibly tilted (i.e., not a free market for “buying political influence” by being a primary source of contributions). I don’t like the idea that you have to buy political influence, but if that influence is a “scarce” resource it makes sense I guess.
But the less obvious consequence of donations as the driving incentive of the parties, rather than principle or good government, is that they don’t even have to “win” all the time. Honestly, no donor would give money to the Democrats or the Republicans if they were guaranteed to win anyways. So, neither party tries to win “everything” but rather “enough.” That’s why states like Wyoming have their Democrats call voters in Colorado, and why Republicans focus on local seats in states like California and Illinois.
But beyond winning seats, the result of donor dollars as the primary incentive leads to not wanting to get actual policy wins. If you get everything you want, you can’t blame problems on the other side anymore. You can’t scare folks with money into thinking that if they don’t donate the other team will win, if that other team hasn’t won anything lately. In many ways, the more projects you get “done,” the fewer projects there are for donors to fund. The more policies you pass, the less you can say the other side is stopping up.
Of course, this then leads to both parties offering less and less substance. They have less risk of actually getting something done to meet a need, and losing the donations from the folks motivated by that need. Instead, the parties are incentivized not to pass good policy to solve problems, but to make the other side look responsible for any problems that exist. When they do pass a bill, it’s to build a bridge in a home district to quell unrest among the voters. Otherwise, they spend their time attacking the other side as often as possible.
For those hoping for disruption in this market, think again. With 47% of eligible voters voting in the 2016 presidential election, we had 53% of this country saying “nah.” That means all arguments about “Electibility” are irrelevant! Yet, we all buy it, constantly. Voter turnout in local elections is even lower than the President, and yet we (the 47% of us who choose to have a say at least) still almost exclusively vote for Democrats or Republicans. Neither party needs to change this formula, just to keep demonizing the other as much as possible so that rival donors will keep forking over cash.
Existing alternative “parties” (including the sad joke that is the Libertarian Party) have already been dismissed by so many that nobody running within them stands a chance. It probably does more harm than good at this point to be a “Green” or a “Libertarian” or God forbid an American Socialist. So, with nowhere to turn, the average American just gives up and stops voting (but never stops complaining to their friends and family about the problems voting could solve). The voting base keeps shrinking.
Lacking policy, and devoid of a need for principle, the two dominant companies end up just flipping and flopping all over the place. Whatever will win just enough votes to seem like you could maybe accomplish something, but not so many that they can’t complain about the other group’s road blocks. Eventually, the ever diminishing voting group becomes more and more entrenched in their views that the other side is evil. They’ve been told it enough, haven’t they? And why would they want to think the people they’d been voting for were the problem? So, they learn to hate the other party, and any form of compromise becomes something to use against the candidate!
The people who are most likely to vote, are least likely to try something new that doesn’t have a pretty Red/Blue ribbon on top. The candidate doesn’t have to actually stand for anything, just so long as it has the right color and letter next to their name on [preferred news channel], and doesn’t ever speak positively of the other team.
“She worked with those Demon Dems!” “He had a barbeque with a Racist Reep!” “Get ’em outta office and replace ’em with some real Optimates/Populares!” I have seen too many “we will never back down” themed posts from too many Democrats and Republicans lately to think this ends well.
[Dripping with sarcasm]. With these wildly perverse incentives for the two businesses that run our entire country, I wouldn’t be surprised if some day the Democrats are just giving speeches about “Light and Dark” rather than solutions for problems, while the Republican platform is something like, “whatever our president says!” Fortunately, we’re not there yet! But we might be soon. We must work to stop them, but how? [End sarcasm]
Seriously. How do we fix this? Our entire political system is currently dominated by two companies with a monopoly on the power to change it. Our country has two parties that have no incentive to govern well, no incentive to stick by principle, and no need to change. Assuming neither of them goes nuclear and decides to hold onto power forever (or God forbid, elects a wildcard as president that the party can’t control who has no respect for the constitution or its limits on the executive branch), are we doomed to perpetual mediocrity and slow decline?
HERE IS MY REAL QUESTION: Should I just kick back with my feet up like an Ottoman and hope I’m dead by our equivalent of World War 1? (Assumes that both parties just keep kicking the can on problems without ever capitulating to the tyranny of a popular but uncontrollable party ~member~ or the temptation to actually seize power as an open oligarchy)
Or, should I bet on one of the parties and try to get a cushy spot for the eventual tyranny that isn’t so high up I die at Nuremberg but that isn’t so low I don’t get any perks? [Based on the assumption that eventually someone does coopt one of the parties and uses the demonization of the other side to rally a sizeable enough chunk of the masses to seize total power and establish a rule-by-one system]
Anyways, this is what I thought when I saw Republicans lambasting Pelosi for not wearing a mask. Thoughts?
Article from /r/Libertarian: For a Free Society