Analytic_Critic

Analytic_Critic

90p

165 comments posted · 6 followers · following 7

7 years ago @ http://markspoils.blog... - Weekly Shenanigans · 0 replies · +6 points

Ah, thanks. I figured it must have been something like that. :)

But regardless of whether it was Wyoming or Wisconsin, my second and third points apply, as does a version of the first (although the number of Sanders voters in question is greater given that the relevant state is Wisconsin rather than Wyoming). Or, at least, I think those points apply. I could be persuaded otherwise.

7 years ago @ http://markspoils.blog... - Weekly Shenanigans · 2 replies · +7 points

Hmm.. Do you have a source? I ask only because your claim is a bit puzzling given that, at the time of writing, the Wyoming caucuses are still a day away.

Anyway, assuming Sanders voters acted as you described in Wyoming, some thoughts:

-Insofar as this is a problem, it seems to be a problem not with Sanders himself but rather with Sanders voters. And, really, unless we have evidence that the phenomenon is widespread, it seems to be a problem with only a small number of Sanders voters--15% of Sanders voters in Wyoming, the least populous state in the nation.

-Given that, insofar as this is a problem, it's not a problem with Sanders himself, it doesn't seem to provide any reason not to vote for Sanders in the primary race. All it seems to provide reason to do is not act like these Wyoming voters if you vote for Sanders in the primary race.

-It's not entirely clear to me that this is a problem, at least insofar as Sanders' ability to achieve something if elected goes. What matters most to whether Sanders can achieve something if elected is what the partisan composition of Congress will be, which will not be determined until the general election. So the behavior of the Sanders voters in question, it seems, doesn't pose a threat to Sanders ability to achieve something unless it means that they won't vote for any Democratic voters other than Sanders in the general election too. But I don't see any reason to think it means that. The Sanders voters in question might simply think that one Democrat in Congress is as good as any other Democrat in Congress as far as Sanders' ability to achieve something goes--not necessarily a terribly unreasonable thought--and, having thus no preference between the Democrats on ballot during the primary race, decide not to vote for one over another.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'm interested to hear what you think.

7 years ago @ http://markspoils.blog... - Weekly Shenanigans · 0 replies · +7 points

Just put up a new blog post on Daily Kos, in case anyone's interested: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/04/07/1511940/...

7 years ago @ http://markspoils.blog... - Weekly Shenanigans · 0 replies · +8 points

I have enough family who have worked for NGOs in developing countries to see firsthand that real change that creates a real impact people's daily lives doesn't come from revolutions, rather it comes from a gradual alteration of the status quo, and I see more of that in Clinton than in Sanders.

I understand your view here, and I’m largely sympathetic. As I said in my post, though, I’m inclined to think that even if Sanders pulled off his revolution, we’d still have gradual alteration (though it might proceed in bigger steps). So, as I see things, the point of Sanders’s revolution isn’t to do away with gradual alteration. Rather, it’s to remove a conception of the proper role of government that impedes gradual alteration—the limited conservative conception that has remained powerful since Reagan—and replace it with a conception that fosters gradual alteration. Or, to come at it from a different angle, the point is to put the country back on the New Deal track it was on before Reagan derailed it.

I'm troubled that you make no mention of how overwhelmingly white Sanders’ electorate is or how important race and racial issues have become in American politics.

You’re right that I don’t make any mention of the racial demographics of Sanders’s supporters in my post. That’s mainly because I don’t think facts about those demographics undermine my argument that a Reagan Revolution in reverse has a good chance of occurring if Sanders is the nominee. However, I can see that one might take such facts to be a good reason to vote for Clinton over Sanders, so maybe I should have addressed them in the third section of my post. Now that you raise them, here are some suggestions I’d make:

-We shouldn’t go too far in portraying Sanders’s support as coming from white voters. He also does quite well among Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, indigenous peoples, and Arab Americans; and he does decently well among Latino Americans, though Clinton does quite a bit better. The main demographic he’s had trouble winning support from is Black Americans, particularly older, Southern Black Americans.
-Even though Sanders has had trouble winning support from Black Americans during the primary race, we should keep in mind that large percentage of Black Americans will probably vote for him the general election if he becomes the nominee, and hence they’ll be part of his “political revolution” too.
-While you’re completely right about the importance of race and racial issues in American politics, we shouldn’t take Sanders’s trouble winning support from Black Americans to show that his proposed policies regarding those topics wouldn’t be beneficial to Black Americans. If we knew that those Black Americans who have voted for Clinton over Sanders have, by and large, done so out of disapproval for those policies, that would provide some indication that those policies wouldn’t be beneficial to Black Americans. But there are a number of other reasons those Black Americans might be voting for Clinton over Sanders—including having a long-term relationship with her, being wary of Sanders’s rhetoric regarding a political revolution, and believing that Clinton is more likely to win the general election than Sanders—and the reasons most likely differ from one to the next.

I don’t know if any of this addresses your worry regarding the racial demographics of Sanders’s supporters, though, so I hope you’ll let me know one way or the other, if you’re willing.

However, my issues with the vast majority of the Sanders supporters I've met is another issue for another time and perhaps not relevant to the above political discussion.

I’m sorry to hear that you’ve had negative experiences with Sanders supporters. I’ve had a lot of problems with many of the more “enthusiastic” supporters of both candidates during this primary race, though luckily my experience with these problem supporters has mostly been as a spectator to online conversations in which they’ve taken part. (I live in a very conservative area.) Still, I know from firsthand experience how difficult it can be not to let problems with the opposing candidate’s supporters tarnish one’s view of the candidate herself or himself.

So that’s my looooooong reply. ;) I look forward to your response, assuming you’d like to continue the conversation.

7 years ago @ http://markspoils.blog... - Weekly Shenanigans · 1 reply · +8 points

Thanks for your reply! :)

I also am skeptical of Sanders' ability to compromise. When I look at his voting record, he seems to demonstrate a tendency (to put it crudely) of adopting an "all or nothing" mentality, favoring ideology over political realities.

Interesting. I’m curious as to what about his voting record makes you think that.

As for me, when I look at his voting record, I see significant evidence of a willingness to compromise. In fact, the following argument seems conclusive to me:

Given how far to the left Sanders’s views are, almost none of the legislation he’s voted on would, if passed, enact his ideal policies. Nonetheless, he’s voted for a lot of legislation. (In fact, his voting record was pretty similar to Hillary’s when they were both in the Senate, despite his views being far to the left of hers.) So he’s quite willing to compromise.

Of course, it’s also nice to have particular examples of compromise. I’d cite:

-his vote for the 1994 crime bill, which contained a number of provisions he opposed quite vocally but which he voted for anyway because it contained some provisions, like VAWA, that he strongly supported; see: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sand...
-the fact that he not only voted for the ACA, despite it clearly not being his ideal healthcare legislation, but also played a crucial role in getting it passed by pushing for a provision that gave funding to rural community health centers, which provision united Democrats from more liberal areas and Democrats from more conservative areas in support of the legislation; see: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statement...
-his work with Republican Senators John McCain and Jeff Miller on a compromise bill that improved VA services; see http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/ho...

But, anyway, those are just my thoughts. I am genuinely interested in learning what aspects of Sanders’s voting record you think indicate that he lacks a willingness to compromise.

To that effect, I think Sanders will fare worse than Clinton in getting Congress to pass progressive legislation even if Democrats are able to win back seats in the House and the Senate.

I’m inclined to think he’d fare better, at least if he were elected in a landslide win against Trump (as I argued he would be in my post). Given that Sanders’s policies and basic conception of the proper role of government are diametrically opposed to the Republicans’, such a win would (likely be taken to) indicate a fundamental, widespread rejection by the electorate of Republicans’ policies and their basic conception of the proper role of government—the sort of rejection likely to make the Republicans modify their views. With Clinton, on the other hand, I’m inclined to think that even if she won in a landslide, her win wouldn’t indicate such a (perceived) rejection, both because her policies and her basic conception of the proper role of government aren’t diametrically opposed to the Republicans’ even now and because I suspect that she’ll tack further towards the center in the general election (as presidential candidates are wont to do).

I don't think what we had with Reaganism was a revolution. Rather it was a question of members of the status quo regaining greater control of the status quo. That's not a revolution. That's enforcement of an oligarchy.

I largely agree with you about the effects of Reaganism. The question, I think, is how those effects came about. In my view, at least, Reaganism led to an enforcement of oligarchy because Reagan’s win replaced the rather expansive conception of the proper role of government that had been in place since the New Deal with a limited conception that, when put into action, reduced the size of government, allowing the oligarchy to seize more wealth and power.

CONTINUED...

7 years ago @ http://markspoils.blog... - Weekly Shenanigans · 0 replies · +8 points

Definitely a good piece of writing!

Thanks! :)

As for the rest of your reply: Well, I certainly wasn’t trying to gloss over anything. I simply used the predictions I’ve seen to make my case. Some thoughts:

-I said that the Democrats are projected to take the Senate if Trump or Cruz is the Republican nominee, and I provided a link to a relevant projection. But it’s worth noting that projection isn’t an outlier, nor is it clear that Democratic control of the Senate will happen only if Trump or Cruz is the nominee. For example, PredictWise, which bases its predictions largely on polls and prediction markets, currently gives the Democrats a 64% chance of taking the Senate. Since prediction markets are very good at accurately predicting the outcomes of races (such as Senate races) in which the fundamental features of the race are relatively stable, we can thus be pretty confident that there’s a good chance the Democrats will take the Senate.
-I said that the Democrats are projected to make large gains in the House and perhaps even take it, again providing a link to a relevant projection. But the prediction that the Democrats will make large gains in the House is widely accepted and there’s an active debate over whether a Trump nomination will allow the Democrats to take the House (and remember that I’m operating under the assumption of a likely Trump nomination at the point in my argument when I appeal to Congressional projections). See, for example: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/31/472560704/how-the-t... http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/274952-ten-h.... Of course, the likelihood that the Democrats will retake the House is low. PredictWise only gives it a 12% chance of happening. That’s only the current prediction, though, and is likely to be revised upward if Trump is nominated (which, again, I’m assuming at the relevant point in my argument). Overall, then, current projections seem to support what I said: The Democrats will make large gains in the House and perhaps even take it.
-A large part of your worry seems to be—and please correct me if I’m wrong about this—that even if Bernie is elected, a revolution can’t occur unless the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress since without such control, since without such control Bernie wouldn’t be able to affect change through Congress. However, I think we need to consider context. By the relevant point in my argument, I’ve argued that Bernie would win in a landslide—electoral college or otherwise—in a general election matchup against Trump, citing similarities between such a matchup and Reagan/Carter matchup in 1980. Since you haven’t challenged that part of my argument, let’s assume such a landslide win by Bernie—someone whose policies and basic conception of the role of government are diametrically opposed to the Republicans’. Let’s also assume the sort of mixed result in Congress supported by the projections I’ve cited: The Democrats take the Senate and make large gains in the House, but do not retake it. Will the fact that the Democrats didn’t take both houses mean that Bernie won’t be able to affect change through Congress? I don’t think so. The overall results of the election will (likely be taken to) indicate widespread rejection on the part of the electorate of Republican policies, their basic conception of the role of government, and their obstructionism. I think there’s a good chance that this is the sort of (perceived) rejection that would lead Republicans to cease their obstructionism and adopt, in a limited way, somewhat more liberal policies and a somewhat more liberal conception of the role of government, for fear that they’d never regain control of the presidency and Congress if they didn’t do so. (Note: The process here would be similar to the process through which the Democrats, through the Democratic Leadership Council, adopted somewhat more conservative policies and a somewhat more conservative conception of the role of government in response to the Reagan Revolution.)

Anyway, those are my thoughts. What do you think?

7 years ago @ http://markspoils.blog... - Weekly Shenanigans · 10 replies · +16 points

A Reagan Revolution in Reverse

Hi, everyone! I wrote a blog post on Daily Kos about the Democratic primary race:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/3/1509794/...

Those of you who are liberals/progressives/etc. might find it interesting. Here's a quote: "Bernie Sanders is the Ronald Reagan of the left, and if he’s the Democratic nominee, there’s a good chance the United States will experience a Reagan Revolution in reverse."

If you read the post, I'd be interested in hearing what you think about it. :)

8 years ago @ Mark Watches - Mark Watches 'Deep Spa... · 3 replies · +21 points

I’ve been having trouble keeping up with Mark’s viewing schedule, so unfortunately the above will be the last detailed DS9 review I’ll be able to post here, though I’ll still probably pop back into the comments from time to time to share some briefer thoughts about the episodes. However, I’ve really enjoyed writing these reviews and it appears many of you have enjoyed reading them. So I plan to continue writing reviews of the remaining episodes and starting a blog where I can post them. But I probably won’t start such a blog until I have enough reviews done that I can post them on a regular basis (maybe 2-3 times a week?). I’ll let you folks know if/when I get this blog up and running, both here and over on Mark Spoils.

8 years ago @ Mark Watches - Mark Watches 'Deep Spa... · 4 replies · +24 points

We’re aware that every choice we make has a consequence. –Sisko (“Emissary”)

I know, I know. I already started one of my comments this season with Sisko’s dictum. But it’s relevant here too. As I’ve discussed previously, Sisko’s dictum, when seen as a principle of storytelling, accounts for the presence of substantial continuity within DS9 and for the characters’ actions prior to the series having consequences within it (as in “Necessary Evil). This episode, however, illustrates yet another consequence of Sisko’s dictum: Just as the characters’ actions prior to the series will have consequences within it, so too will the actions of characters in previous series in the franchise.

Kirk’s actions in “Mirror, Mirror” had consequences, and—this being DS9—those consequences were far less positive than expected. Kirk’s interactions with Mirror Spock led to an end of the evil ways of the mirror universe’s Terran Empire. But this weakened the empire so much that a new power rose to take its place: the Klingon-Cardassian Alliance. Of which Bajor is a prominent member. And which has oppressed and enslaved the Terrans, much as the Cardassian Union did the Bajorans in the prime universe.

All of which is revealed in the course of Kira and Bashir’s accidental journey through the mirror universe. And what a compelling journey it is! It’s full of bewildering, shocking and ominous moments, from Klingons beaming aboard Kira and Bashir’s runabout, to the introduction of Mirror Odo and his rules of obedience, to Mirror Quark’s arrest as a Terran sympathizer, to Mirror Garak’s threat to kill Bashir if Kira refuses to acquiesce to his plan, to Bashir’s messy killing of Mirror Odo, and many more besides and between. Not only that, the episode ends with not just one but two exciting escape sequences, one involving Bashir’s thwarted attempt to get off the station and the other involving Kira and Bashir’s rush to their runabout and subsequent starship chase.

But what really makes Kira and Bashir’s journey worth watching is the exploration of the mirror universe characters. We learn a number of interesting facts about each character’s role and personality here, including that Mirror Odo, though just as gruff and committed to order as Odo in the prime universe, is significantly crueler; that Mirror Quark, like Quark in the prime universe, owns a bar and is a master of under-the-table dealings, but he uses those dealings for altruistic rather than self-serving ends; and that Mirror Garak, the second-in-command of the Terok Nor station, is much less friendly and loyal to the state than Garak is in the prime universe, despite sharing his capacity for brutality. Moreover, over the course of the episode, some of the mirror universe characters change. Mirror Sisko, while working as a pirate for the Intendant, displays none of the strength of character and moral resolve associated with Sisko in the prime universe, but he eventually decides to turn against the Intendant and fight for what he believes is right. Mirror O’Brien starts off much less ambitious than O’Brien is in the prime universe, but he comes to hope and strive for something better. Finally, in her role as intendant, Mirror Kira is initially relatively restrained in her use of violence against the Terrans and their sympathizers (though her claim to abhor violence is belied by her nonchalant demeanor after sentencing Mirror Quark to death). However, due to the events of the episode, she decides she must take harsher measures to maintain control.

Importantly, these changes in the mirror universe characters occur due their interactions with Kira and Bashir. Thus, given the writers’ apparent commitment to Sisko’s dictum as a principle of storytelling, future episodes might very well address the consequences of these changes for the mirror universe. And that’s quite an exciting prospect.

In the end, this is a pretty great episode. In revealing the consequences of Kirk’s actions in “Mirror, Mirror”, it provides substantial development for the mirror universe and helps make the Star Trek univ… er, multiverse a more unified, cohesive whole. Furthermore, over its course, the mirror universe characters receive significant character-building, characterization, and character development. Finally, it opens up the exciting possibility of future storylines exploring the consequences of the changes wrought to the mirror universe by Kira and Bashir’s actions.

Please see the reply for an important message.

8 years ago @ Mark Watches - Mark Watches 'Deep Spa... · 0 replies · +7 points

I'm not sure that is entirely true. I think Bashir *did* on some level think of Garak as a friend.

Well, as I said in my post, I think Bashir cared about Garak at the beginning of the episode. But I also think that friendship requires a minimal amount of trust, and that's what I think was lacking (though only at the beginning of the episode!).