US Politics, July 2024 - "Will you just drop out, man?"

That's a good article with some logical fallacies. Ever since wins asked about the replacement VP I feel like this hasn't been fully addressed:

Although a new vice president would have to be confirmed by the House and Senate, rendering her choice vulnerable to Republican obstruction, the Senate rules can be altered to eliminate the chance to filibuster such a choice. The House is a bigger risk, given the GOP majority’s fealty to Trump.

So if the idea is that Biden doesn't have the energy to campaign, I get it. I am not sure this piece fully addresses the pros and cons of not letting Biden finish his term.

I think there's this effect where we project and assume that what we see in the debate translates into an impression of how he works. But I'm not sure we have a good baseline, other than his record, do we? I think part of his effectiveness in getting legislation passed might have something to do with his long track record and camaraderie with the other senior Congress members who have power. I don't know if you can just plug Harris into that for a few months.

xp was referring to the Serwer piece

He is competent and he will survive and go on to win the nomination and win the election.

whether you end up being proven correct or not, could you concede that this is a baseless, partisan statement that is completely useless from a discursive POV?

as a colleague, I selfishly would like to assume you have your wits about you. but you haven’t done yourself any favors over the past week or so

you’ve repeatedly stated, without any evidence or any attempt at convincing reasoning, that the polls are wrong. that’s essentially the basis of your argument. it’s embarrassing and below the standards of discussion for most people who post here

I think there's this effect where we project and assume that what we see in the debate translates into an impression of how he works. But I'm not sure we have a good baseline, other than his record, do we? I think part of his effectiveness in getting legislation passed might have something to do with his long track record and camaraderie with the other senior Congress members who have power. I don't know if you can just plug Harris into that for a few months.

― felicity, Thursday, July 4, 2024 1:08 AM (thirty-six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I’m going to ignore the second part of this post, since it is nothing more than a parroting of white house talking points which, again, is beneath the standards of discourse of most of the people who post here. and I say “most” because there is, demonstrably, more than one poster who appears to be on the mailing list…

but regarding the question of whether the debate performance sheds any light on his capacity to run the country — it does. clearly there is a decision-making apparatus in place that to some extent insulates the rest of us from his incapacity. you could I suppose be excused from understanding this until the story I posted today came out because, again, that had been the party line you had so readily internalized. but for anyone with an independent thought in their head, that veil has irrevocably been lifted

does the campaign have the final say on how it's edited?

Friday's interview, that is--was wondering the same thing. I don't know if it has any real importance, but I'm sure a lot of people will be watching. It has to be live and unedited for it to mean anything. Maybe someone at ABC wants to present him in the best possible light, maybe in the worst. Shouldn't be their call either way.

I really don’t mean to be too unkind or whatever but felicity has proven herself to be a moron and genocide apologist on multiple occasions and the fact that she’s not been banned from here at this point is bewildering to me, personally! what kind of board is this these days? I don’t know!

I haven’t been an active participant on the politics threads for about a decade now. maybe times have changed

the debate performance sheds any light on his capacity to run the country — it does. clearly there is a decision-making apparatus in place that to some extent insulates the rest of us from his incapacity. you could I suppose be excused from understanding this

Lol absolutely rent free

can't turn my post into a heart.

Sorry to disappoint your "standards"
thread jobsworth

For UK ppl watching the US pol thread I gotta say: this is giving me Captain Tom vibes?

“First lady Jill Biden and the president’s son Hunter Biden are dead-set on the campaign going forward. Biden’s sister, Valerie, is also supportive but has expressed more worry about the toll it could take on her brother’s health and legacy” https://t.co/MfPlw4Rk9j

— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) July 3, 2024

Biden insisting he is the only Democrat alternative to Trump is just plain irresponsible, embarrassing, and scary. The possibility of losing an election to 78yo Trump should be a ridiculous thought, but here we are. Trump wins when you give him ammo: senile establishment is too good to be true as an opponent, he'll have nothing to do but look his bright arrogant smug orange self and keep his railing marginally in check. Bring someone, anyone. I can't shake off the belief that almost anyone should look good against Trump as long as they can oppose him dynamism and competence.

I really don’t mean to be too unkind or whatever but felicity has proven herself to be a moron and genocide apologist on multiple occasions and the fact that she’s not been banned from here at this point is bewildering to me, personally! what kind of board is this these days? I don’t know!

the dog has barked, but the caravan will move on.

Surprised and delighted to see this piece of what I thought was Portuguese vernacular! Where did you pick it up, Aimless?

^ Butt Dumb completely, 100% correct. I got personally insulted for calling Gavin Newsom a lying, hypocritical piece of shit who reneged on his single biggest campaign promise. Biden, like Obama, Trump, Harris, et.al, do not give a shit about closing the opportunity gaps for people of colour and actually curbing police power. Neither did Ruth Bader Ginsberg, may she rot in hell

Yep. It’s almost like the hollow liberal obsession with the politics of representation doesn’t actually bear much substantive fruit on the policy end!!

Easy there Sam Alito. People fought died for the right to representation. I think it's more that representation is necessary but insufficient.

Anyway, happy 4th to whoever may observe it in whatever ways.

fought and died

Speaking of death: fuck me for watching more than 12 seconds of Karine Jean-Pierre's presser yesterday. How do these people not throw themselves from the top of the Washington Monument? She sounded like an Andropov-era apparatchik.

Easy there Sam Alito. People fought died for the right to representation. I think it's more that representation is necessary but insufficient.

Anyway, happy 4th to whoever may observe it in whatever ways.

finally we're living up to the ilx standards of discussion

It wouldn’t be a campaign or crisis if ILX wasn’t breaking out in rhetorical fisticuffs, I guess.

I’m being somewhat facetious; I love all you guys, never enjoy when we hit these levels of pique, which is why I had to stop looking at threads about Gaza, where it started to feel as though people were gonna start throwing elbows or worse.

“WASHINGTON—President Biden polled allies about what he can do to recapture the support of his party “

Um…

You totally misunderstood what I wrote, and for equating me with that fascist fuck, you can catch a FP.

I didn't misunderstand it at all, you think I'm not familiar with the leftist critique of identity politics?

My pushback is sincere — it took a fuck of a lot of work and struggle to get to the point where e.g. Kamala Harris is vice president, and yes it does matter. It's not magic, it doesn't by itself change all the underlying structures, but it is also not just some kind of trick or sideshow. Representation in government, culture, commerce, every bit of it matters if you want a pluralistic society where people aren't just killing everyone not like them. It's not enough, but it matters. I get frustrated by the flippant dismissal I see of these kinds of things.

Even if I don't always respect the random people who end up as the beneficiaries of a more pluralistic system, I respect the struggle behind it.

We’re just trying to stop the slide further into the abyss, which is bad especially for the most vulnerable in our society.

My support for Harris, under these circumstances doesn’t mean she’d be in my first 100 million choices for President all things being equal.

medicare / social security for all, birth to the earth

Alfred, the windows in the Washington Monument don't open.

for equating me with that fascist fuck, you can catch a FP

equating other posters with fascists gets you an FP now? well

(I do apologize for the Alito line tho Tables. It’s just that this SCOTUS is super anti-politics-of-representation too, obv. Which I think is a sign of how much it does matter.)

Alfred, the windows in the Washington Monument don't open.

― Millennium Falco (Ye Mad Puffin)

she's an ambitious climber

(I do apologize for the Alito line tho Tables. It’s just that this SCOTUS is super anti-politics-of-representation too, obv. Which I think is a sign of how much it does matter.)

(Also I appreciate the apology, I actually like you and appreciate your takes and tbh it stung)

Likewise and back atcha. And absolutely, I don't think valuing representation means anyone needs to feel obliged to support Pete Buttigieg or Clarence Thomas. I just get wary of dismissals of it on principle.

Pieces of shit like Buttigieg literally laugh at the idea that healthcare is a human right. He expects us to worship the ground he walked on because he volunteered to help murder brown-skinned people abroad for the “War on Terror”

finally we're living up to the ilx standards of discussion

― c u (crüt), Thursday, July 4, 2024 9:42 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

genuine lol

The flattening of politics to mere identity signifiers is not just lacking in nuance, but actively dangerous in that it perpetuates stereotypes that only serve to reify division. It’s a tool of the right that has been gladly taken up by the left, and it’s utterly toxic.

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Thursday, July 4, 2024 10:39 AM (thirty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

have a feeling you might be familiar with him already, but have you read any of olufemi taiwo’s work? his recent (and very short — you could get through it in a morning) book “elite capture” really clarified for me the concept you’re describing, something I’d understood but had trouble putting into words in a clear and sensitive manner

It's a terrific book; I read it in February. "“In general, a constructive politics is one that engages directly in the task of redistributing social resources and power rather than pursuing intermediary goals cashed out in symbols" -- that should give you an idea.

The way I understand it: Because the elite depend on relationships rather than identity, it must remain in flux; what is recognizable is its innate composition as a small group with power over a larger one but without the responsibility or their consent (I had more to say on my blog if anyone cares).

god, if only we had a leader with the youth and vigor of Andropov

That sounds a little bit like "can people shut up about identity and get back to good ol' economics" as if you can bracket racism and sexism and homophobia etc off to the side while you get on with solving the real problems but that said this person is probably very smart and I am reacting to a pair of posts about it so yknow

xposts

I realize we're summarizing this stuff in a hasty manner, but, no, he doesn't at all deny the primacy of identity -- he objects to its corporatization, which is economics.

I haven't read the book, but I'm guessing this essay by him summarizes some of its thrust: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/olufemi-o-taiwo-identity-politics-and-elite-capture/

A key problem with elite capture is that the subgroup of people with power over and access to the resources that get used to describe, define, and create political realities—in other words, elites—are substantively different from the total set of people affected by the decisions they make. As the part of the group closest to power and resources, they are typically the part whose interests overlap with the total group’s the least. In the absence of the right kind of checks or constraints, they will capture the group’s values, forcing people to coordinate on a narrower social project than the group would if power were distributed differently. When elites run the show, the “group’s” interests get whittled down to what they have in common with those at the top.

Also makes the point that this dynamic isn't unique or specific to gender/race representation but to politics/economics in general. Which to me gets back to, representation is important but not sufficient. Pretending that symbols — first woman CEO, first Black president, etc — are the same as systemic change is obviously a trick of the elite. But ALSO I would say that just because symbols don't upend systems doesn't mean they don't have some import. There are a gazillion interviews and testimonials out there from people in everything from astrophysics to art saying they were inspired by seeing "someone like me" doing the work. So I don't discount the value of symbols, I just think they need to be understood for what they are.

Like, Jackie Robinson didn't end racism in America. But I still think he was important!

Starbucks allowing trans employees the liberty to dress as they like and their store managers to stick Pride flags on every surface while union busting is what Táíwò's got in his crosshairs.

Which is more than fair to call out. But obviously the point is not to get rid of inclusive dress codes or pride flags.

I have read Elite Capture, yes— I recommended it either earlier this year or last year on the seasonal WAYR thread. I think everyone should read it.

A preview of at least one thing they'd throw at Harris:

"She's going to constantly be forced to answer a very simple question: 'Why were you hiding Joe Biden’s lack of mental acuity from the American people?'"

That would never stick, right? Surely people not inside Trump's 35% or whatever would realize that every VP ever would have behaved exactly the same. You can hold the party as a whole responsible, sure, but hardly Harris.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/04/politics/trump-campaign-plans-biden-debate/index.html

She's no Mike Pence — he had the guts to betray his boss for the good of the nation!

(Probably not a GOP attack line, I suppose)

Of course--the most obvious and immediate example.

It would stick for plenty of people. Doing what every other politician has or would have done is not a mark of honor when the average person professes to dislike (if not hate) politicians in general.