US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3714

As this dystopian election campaign has unfolded, my mind keeps being tugged by a passage in Plato’s Republic. It has unsettled — even surprised — me from the moment I first read it in graduate school. The passage is from the part of the dialogue where Socrates and his friends are talking about the nature of different political systems, how they change over time, and how one can slowly evolve into another. And Socrates seemed pretty clear on one sobering point: that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.” What did Plato mean by that? Democracy, for him, I discovered, was a political system of maximal freedom and equality, where every lifestyle is allowed and public offices are filled by a lottery. And the longer a democracy lasted, Plato argued, the more democratic it would become. Its freedoms would multiply; its equality spread. Deference to any sort of authority would wither; tolerance of any kind of inequality would come under intense threat; and multiculturalism and sexual freedom would create a city or a country like “a many-colored cloak decorated in all hues.”

This rainbow-flag polity, Plato argues, is, for many people, the fairest of regimes. The freedom in that democracy has to be experienced to be believed — with shame and privilege in particular emerging over time as anathema. But it is inherently unstable. As the authority of elites fades, as Establishment values cede to popular ones, views and identities can become so magnificently diverse as to be mutually uncomprehending. And when all the barriers to equality, formal and informal, have been removed; when everyone is equal; when elites are despised and full license is established to do “whatever one wants,” you arrive at what might be called late-stage democracy. There is no kowtowing to authority here, let alone to political experience or expertise.


The very rich come under attack, as inequality becomes increasingly intolerable. Patriarchy is also dismantled: “We almost forgot to mention the extent of the law of equality and of freedom in the relations of women with men and men with women.” Family hierarchies are inverted: “A father habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents.” In classrooms, “as the teacher ... is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers.” Animals are regarded as equal to humans; the rich mingle freely with the poor in the streets and try to blend in. The foreigner is equal to the citizen.

And it is when a democracy has ripened as fully as this, Plato argues, that a would-be tyrant will often seize his moment.

He is usually of the elite but has a nature in tune with the time — given over to random pleasures and whims, feasting on plenty of food and sex, and reveling in the nonjudgment that is democracy’s civil religion. He makes his move by “taking over a particularly obedient mob” and attacking his wealthy peers as corrupt. If not stopped quickly, his appetite for attacking the rich on behalf of the people swells further. He is a traitor to his class — and soon, his elite enemies, shorn of popular legitimacy, find a way to appease him or are forced to flee. Eventually, he stands alone, promising to cut through the paralysis of democratic incoherence. It’s as if he were offering the addled, distracted, and self-indulgent citizens a kind of relief from democracy’s endless choices and insecurities. He rides a backlash to excess—“too much freedom seems to change into nothing but too much slavery” — and offers himself as the personified answer to the internal conflicts of the democratic mess. He pledges, above all, to take on the increasingly despised elites. And as the people thrill to him as a kind of solution, a democracy willingly, even impetuously, repeals itself.

On May 02 2016 03:16 Mohdoo wrote:
Gh, do you think Clinton, with her existing image, could have done the Bernie thing? I think there's no way in hell. You are being dishonest by suggesting she should have done what Bernie did. It would have minimized her strengths and maximized her weaknesses. It would be no different than Bernie trying to appeal to big donors. You are making silly suggestions knowing they make no sense. Bernie, is that you?

On May 02 2016 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote:


So if she won, in 4 years would she be the only viable candidate exploiting Citizens United still, or would she have eliminated her only path to have gotten the job in the first place?

On May 02 2016 12:31 Mohdoo wrote:


I don't understand what you are asking.

On May 02 2016 12:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's saying after 4 years and Citizens United is still active will you be pissed or glad that the Democrats who are in power are using it.

On May 02 2016 12:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well what did you mean by "there's no way in hell" she could have done "the Bernie thing"?

On May 02 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:

I don't think either Clinton or Bernie would have the ability to somehow get rid of money in politics in 4 years. I also think 4 years in the future is plainly silly to speculate about. Did we see this election coming 4 years ago? 4 years in politics is like a different era.

On May 02 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:

I don't think either Clinton or Bernie would have the ability to somehow get rid of money in politics in 4 years. I also think 4 years in the future is plainly silly to speculate about. Did we see this election coming 4 years ago? 4 years in politics is like a different era.



I think that with Clinton's image, connections, entire political career, everything, she was poorly poised to make the same appeal as Bernie did. She would have a hard time convincing people she is a socialist who wants to take down banks.

Bernie had exactly the record he needed to play the persona he's playing. If Bernie tried to appeal to big donors, he would struggle. Neither of the two would have been able to do what the other did.

I think that saying Clinton should have done what Bernie did is ignoring that Clinton was poorly poised to do so and Bernie was well poised to do so. She didn't have the history he did, so she couldn't do it. Bernie and Trump are not exactly typical candidates. You shouldn't pretend Bernie and Trump are suddenly status quo and it is puzzling that others aren't funding their campaigns in the same way.

On May 02 2016 13:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


So four years is an "era", but not enough time to get something done that 2 out of the 3 viable presidential candidates are already doing and the other claims she supports, done? Don't think that quite adds up.

I'm curious who you think would stop it and how?

On May 02 2016 13:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


So four years is an "era", but not enough time to get something done that 2 out of the 3 viable presidential candidates are already doing and the other claims she supports, done? Don't think that quite adds up.

I'm curious who you think would stop it and how?

On May 02 2016 13:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


So four years is an "era", but not enough time to get something done that 2 out of the 3 viable presidential candidates are already doing and the other claims she supports, done? Don't think that quite adds up.

I'm curious who you think would stop it and how?

On May 02 2016 13:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:


High attendance in local elections is the only way to get it overturned. Get the house and senate Blue, get a Blue president, and then have the congressmen pressure the executive branch to push for the overturning of citizens united.

You know, actual politics and not danke memes.

On May 02 2016 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:



Why is it so absurd to ask Hillary to join the other two viable candidates in not having superPAC's and not coordinating with them, and not using her Victory Fund like she has?

I shouldn't have to convince the Democrat nominee to only exploit Citizens United as little as her Republican opponent (which, to date, is not at all).

Right now if I was a Trump supporter I could be making the argument that Trump needs to get a superPAC, otherwise he's unilaterally disarming against a Democratic nominee that embraces their corrupting influence. If that doesn't raise a flag for Democrats I don't know what could on the topic of campaign finance.

On May 02 2016 13:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:


So you're saying that Hilary is more beholden to corporations than the guy who's corporation literally has his name on it?

EL PASO -- Recent floods across Texas have inundated oil wells and fracking sites, flushing crude oil and toxic fracking chemicals into the state's rivers.

State emergency management officials have taken dozens of photographs that show sheens and plumes spreading from tipped tanks and flooded production sites during the March flood of the Sabine River on the Texas-Louisiana border. Earlier photos showed similar scenes from last year's floods of the Trinity, Red and Colorado rivers.

The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas drilling and production sites, said it has responded effectively to those incidents. "I'm confident that once the agency is notified, we're taking appropriate measures," commission spokesman Rich Parsons told the El Paso Times.

Scientists and environmentalists are not so sure. One leading expert, Dr. Walter Tsou, is a physician and past president of the American Public Health Association and published an article on an environmentalist website about the possible risks posed by the unleashing of fracking fluids in the environment.

"That's a potential disaster," Tsou told the Times. "I'm sure it will get into the groundwater and streams and creeks. In other areas, cattle that drank the fracking fluid actually died an hour after drinking it. There are potential carcinogens that can lead to leukemia, brain cancer and other endocrine disruptors that can affect premature births. So it is not good to drink fracked wastewater."

State emergency officials mobilize the Civil Air Patrol to photograph potential spills and leaks, and the Railroad Commission responds quickly to reports of spills or other releases, spokeswoman Ramona Nye said. "If a release or spill is identified, the agency dispatches an inspector to investigate. Alleged violations are documented and appropriate action is taken based on the nature of the alleged violation," she said.

Critics worry that the commission is soft on holding the oil and gas industry responsible for such incidents, since - according to one watchdog group's accounting - commissioners receive more than half of their campaign contributions from that sector. However, Nye insists that spill prevention is the commission's top priority, a statement echoed by Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association.

On May 02 2016 12:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's saying after 4 years and Citizens United is still active will you be pissed or glad that the Democrats who are in power are using it.