If Music Could Talk

Dr. Medulla wrote:There is plenty of evidence, anecdotal and statistical, that suggests 20-somethings aren't all that apathetic—far less so than Xers were/are—which would indicate that they've given up on formal electoral politics (at least at the state and federal level) as meaningful participation. Rather than fret or grumble about Millennials, why isn't the conversation about the legitimacy about American government when such a small percentage of the population wants to validate that system thru election rituals?

Rat Patrol wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:

Spiff wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:

Spiff wrote:Oh ... and FUCK YOU, young people!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/e ... torate-old

How much had the Democrats really offered the youth or anyone at all over the last six years?

Oh, plenty. Health care reform, a growing economy, minimum wage increases, student loan reforms, to name a few.

But then the spineless Dems couldn't find it within themselves to actually tout these accomplishments because they were afraid that by doing so they would turn off the moderate voters they were courting.

And so I also say FUCK YOU to at all the Dems who ran away from President Obama and did nothing to motivate their base, which, as anyone with two brain cells knows IS CRITICAL TO WINNING MID-TERM ELECTIONS!

Which is more likely, that this is finally the generation where democracy falters because of... malaise? The crappiness of people? Or that Americans in general, with the young in particular, are completely disengaged from the process because of a flaw in the process itself?

It's the disengagement stage of whatever seven-step process we're in the middle of at realizing how fucked it is. It's tempting to just write it off as FUBAR, but the country went through this in the Gilded Age too and the pendulum swung back. This is the same thing...multiple decades of stagnation and cannibalizing the middle-class until people just wouldn't put up with that shit anymore. I don't buy this "end of Empire" thing. Empire sucks. Empire is murder. What was the standard of living for the working place at the absolute tippy-top of the British Empire? Not very good, eh, Vince and Morrissey? So why does anyone lament the loss of empire? It's a bug not a feature.

This is just history repeating itself cyclically. There'll be a lost generation or two, and that blows because everyone within +/- 10 years of me is in that swath of loss. But we're not special in that regard because The Jungle got written about the last generations that got lost by the 1% destroying it all, and millions of others got lost in the wars they started.

It's whatever stage people get pissed enough to snap where it starts getting "interesting", for lack of a better word. Ferguson, MO this summer. Just because that was racially motivated against the most dumped-upon minority in the country doesn't mean human nature isn't universal. Everyone has their limits. History has shown that. To the degree people are voting against their interests now and voting wrongheaded conviction over well-meaning (sorta) squishiness is just the early--and very confused--signs of fever breaking out. That fever always stokes the right wing id first. It trickles up the chain to the ego, then the superego. And eventually the left is going to start acting out. Then the middle. Nonlinear, messy, ugly, filled with a lot of signal-to-noise, thoroughly perverted for nefarious means...and not at all aligned with what you'd consider "rational" political ID. But act out nonetheless because people have limits, and act out in a way that haltingly points in the general direction of the problem. The last Gilded Age got rolled back. This one will too. And there'll be a next one because the corrupt class always has the resources to regroup.

But shit's gonna get broken, people gonna get real mad and destructive, and there will be casualties...real and figurative. Just like there was in the last Gilded Age. This isn't the beginning or the end...it's a natural cycle.

If you're mad about the Republicans winning the election, be mad at the people who voted for Republicans.

Don't attack the anarchists. Trust me, we are a very tiny minority in American politics, and even if we had all banded together and voted Democrat (and actually, plenty of anarchists do vote, and those often vote Dem), it's highly unlikely it would've made any difference in the results.

I really doubt that there are enough anarchists in NC to have swung the election.

And I don't blame anybody for voting or for abstaining from voting as I see merit to both sides. I'm not a purist.

eumaas wrote:Also, if you're so fucking pissed off about Republicans winning, be mad at the people who voted Republican, not at me for fuck's sake.

Dr. Medulla wrote:Sorry to bring Canadia into this, but I recently got into a minor argument with one of my sisters, who is in full outrage mode about a new book about Stephen Harper. She's urging everyone to read it so that we can see how bad he is and how it's so important to stop him. I said that, yes, of course Harper is awful and we'd all be better off without him, but it's just feeding into the same rotten process to think that he's an aberration. Harper's authoritarian style isn't the system gone wrong, but rather working the way it's evolved to be. Getting rid of Harper doesn't mean that the next guy, whatever the party, is suddenly going to refuse the power that's been accumulated into the executive, embrace a more open legislative process, and work for the common good. Thinking of politics in terms of personality or even in terms of party tragically ignores that the machinery of government and electoral politics is built to perpetuate a coercive and ever more authoritarian system of rule. So when my family says that I have to vote to stop Harper and the Conservatives, they are baffled when I respond that I can't validate a system that demands that I choose one parliamentary dictator over another. That is, if I actually care about process and principle rather than which party's special interests I best fit under. Frankly, my decision to stop voting in provincial and federal elections is more principled and a deliberate decision than when I did vote.

Dr. Medulla wrote:Sorry to bring Canadia into this, but I recently got into a minor argument with one of my sisters, who is in full outrage mode about a new book about Stephen Harper. She's urging everyone to read it so that we can see how bad he is and how it's so important to stop him. I said that, yes, of course Harper is awful and we'd all be better off without him, but it's just feeding into the same rotten process to think that he's an aberration. Harper's authoritarian style isn't the system gone wrong, but rather working the way it's evolved to be. Getting rid of Harper doesn't mean that the next guy, whatever the party, is suddenly going to refuse the power that's been accumulated into the executive, embrace a more open legislative process, and work for the common good. Thinking of politics in terms of personality or even in terms of party tragically ignores that the machinery of government and electoral politics is built to perpetuate a coercive and ever more authoritarian system of rule. So when my family says that I have to vote to stop Harper and the Conservatives, they are baffled when I respond that I can't validate a system that demands that I choose one parliamentary dictator over another. That is, if I actually care about process and principle rather than which party's special interests I best fit under. Frankly, my decision to stop voting in provincial and federal elections is more principled and a deliberate decision than when I did vote.

eumaas wrote:In the American context, they pretty much give away the game every time they attack people for voting third party. It's either wasting your vote or voting against the greater good, which would have been served by voting for D or R, whatever the case may be.

To me, that sort of argument has always belied the claims made by the get out the vote crowd about participation, democracy, making your voice heard, etc. No, you don't want people to make their voice heard. You want them to vote Demcrat/Republican so your party can stay in power.

That's why I say electoral democracy is ideologically horseshit. Nobody actually believes in it as the instrument of the people's will--that's why you get people talking about right-wingers voting against their own interests.

Wolter wrote:I tell you the one way the Dems are totally gonna win next time: keep called people stupid for voting against their own interests. That always works.

eumaas wrote:Would any fervent believer be really that upset if we had the one party dictatorship of their choice?