All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Gray Lensman]

The Southern Democrats were racists for years. Because of Lincoln and the whole freeing the slaves thing, many in the South vowed to never to vote for Republican again for generations. That all changed when Johnson passed the Civil Rights act, they changed over to the Republicans. Starting with Nixon, the GOP used the "Southern Strategy". This was appealing to the racists in the South with dog whistle politics. And through Reagan to Bush to Trump, the dog whistle made way to full blown, open bigotry.

I'm on my tablet, so youtube links aren't a thing I have figured out here, but the channel Mr. Beat has a video tracking the party switch from start to finish (or at least his take). As does the Cynical Historian (going to what could be the earliest signs only visible in hindsight, and subtle even then).

The roots are earlier than people think (going back to the New Deal) and the shift took ,once than most realize (not being finalized until the Republican Party embraced the anti-abortion movement). The Civil Rights / Southern Strategy shift was the first major shift, but the embrace of the religious right was of near equal importance.

[Mister Mets]

The only older defense (which I’ve seen used often on Twitter) is the pitiful whine about how it was Democratic Party that used to be the racists….WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in the days before the Civil War.

While it is unfair to blame modern Democrats for the shortcomings of Southern Democrats in the 1960s, that came well after the end of the Civil War, and it's in living memory for people today. My dad was in his mid-20s when George Wallace won several Democratic primaries.

Murkowski also beat the Trump-backed other GOP candidate. Ranked-choice voting does not disadvantage right or left, it disadvantages extremism.

This is going to bother people like Cotton who are not in the center.

Personally, I like ranked-choice voting. It forces candidates to have widespread support.

It's a wise idea in primaries and general elections, although there is a concern that the results are delayed (On the other hand, I'd rather compromise on the speed with which we get results than on other aspects of elections.)

I don't think a decline in violent deaths over all means it does not matter if there is an increase in violent deaths from mass shootings.

Are you suggesting that the overall decline is somehow due to more guns among the populace? That's the only way I can think someone could suggest we just need to accept the mass shootings; that more guns are in fact making us more safe, over all.

I think you're responding to points I haven't made.

An increase in violent deaths is a bad thing, but it's incorrect to suggest that there was an earlier time when young men were much less likely to resolve disputes with violence.

I'll note that the initial comments didn't really distinguish between gun homicides and mass shootings. Mass shootings are a subset of gun homicides. This doesn't make much of a rhetorical difference, but it has some policy implications in that there are some forms of firearms common in mass shootings that do not form the majority of gun deaths or gun homicides.

The decline in crime from the 90s has multiple potential causes. One argument is that it correlated to wider access to abortion. Another view is that it was due to better standards when it came to lead paint. It's also been attributed to high incarceration rates (criminals in jails are unable to commit crimes outside of jail), an increase in policing, increase in standards of medical care and better policing strategies.

I really recommend the Freakonomics chapter on that question, as well as Kevin Drum's reporting on lead paint.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...me-connection/

I’ve written several posts recently about the idea that America’s great crime epidemic, which started in the 60s and peaked in the early 90s, was caused in large part by lead emissions from automobiles. Long story short, we all bought lots of cars after World War II and filled them up with leaded gasoline. This lead was spewed out of tailpipes and ingested by small children, and when those children grew up they were more prone to committing violent crimes than normal children. Then, starting in the mid-70s, we all began switching to unleaded gasoline. Our kids were no longer made artificially violent by lead poisoning, and when they grew up in the mid-90s they committed fewer violent crimes. This trend continued for two decades, and it’s one of the reasons that violent crime rates have dropped by half over the past 20 years and by more than that in our biggest cities. It’s one of the great underreported stories of our time: big cities today are as safe as they were 50 years ago.

I didn't say that we need to accept mass shootings, but the policies proposed by Democrats don't work.

The so-called common sense regulations that are proposed tend not to have a significant impact. Matt Yglesias had a decent summary about this two years ago.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/nationa...ded-re-embrace

People who own guns, and are knowledgeable about guns, know this. They come to the conclusion that Democrats want to go further. This leads to an increase in firearm and ammunition sales anytime it looks like there might be some restrictions at some point in the future.

Politically, the wisest response would be to lower the temperature, and to figure out solutions that don't immediately fall into existing partisan divides.

[Kirby101]

What I always laugh at is when one of the GOP tell me how tough on crime their party is.

The party that blocks ever gun control measure, the party that openly supports and praises domestic terrorism, the party that wants to defund the FBI.

These are the people that will make our streets safer.

The GOP is soft on crime.

Red States Have Higher Murder Rates Than Blue States, According to New Study

[Gray Lensman]

The GOP is soft on crime.

Red States Have Higher Murder Rates Than Blue States, According to New Study

I also remember the bigot from Arizona who billed himself "America's Toughest Sheriff", a moniker that fell apart once you looked at anything past his camera chasing. Rape victims had a legitimate case to call him "America's Most Pathetic Sheriff" as he had one of the worst rates in the country for investigating sexual assaults, much less actually doing anything past that stage.

[Tendrin]

I also remember the bigot from Arizona who billed himself "America's Toughest Sheriff", a moniker that fell apart once you looked at anything past his camera chasing. Rape victims had a legitimate case to call him "America's Most Pathetic Sheriff" as he had one of the worst rates in the country for investigating sexual assaults, much less actually doing anything past that stage.

Yes, but he made brown people wear pink underwear.

[Mister Mets]

That is factually incorrect. According to American voter registration statistics as of October 2020 29.48% of all registered voters are Republicans, 29.58% are Democrats and 28.39% have no official party preference.

So a few percentage points over a quarter of registered voters are Republican, which his a little over half of half.

Close to half of voters consistently vote for Republicans (and the other half consistently vote for Democrats), so while there are a lot of registered independents, these are often people who consistently support one party over another.

Parties serve to check each other’s actions and their own leadership to an extent. The system you’re suggesting would make it much easier for a single individual or cabal to consolidate enough power to dominate.
Honestly, nearly any system of government could fully benefit its citizens if human greed could be taken out of the equation. Good luck with that though.


Not related to that: SLAVA UKRAINI!

Parties have some advantages in terms of signaling and forming coalitions, but I have been thinking more about this question and there are some major problems in how things are set up.

Two parties allows for negative partisanship, where it's no longer about what your party can do when they're in power but what the other side might do. It encourages sloppy thinking, as commentators are expected to be the equivalent of lawyers advocating for their client, rather than people out to inform and to follow facts wherever they lead.

The current system of elections basically means a party will get the most done if they have united government, so much of the goal is to use that limited window as much as possible. This drives up the temperature because the other side recognizes that a win can have repercussions for generations.

The biggest problem is that neither side in American politics is willing to moderate. It would hurt them with the base, who would rather have a decent shot at maximalist wins than some kind of compromise that largely takes major issues off the table. The Republicans or Democrats could get to 55 percent or more if they were to ignore the crazies, but too much of the base doesn't support that.

There are some alternative systems like coalition governments (ranked choice voting avoids the problem of splitting the vote) where you have multiple parties that have to work together, which should mitigate some of the tension. Voters would be more comfortable switching from one party to another, and a win by the other side won't be the end of the world.

[kidfresh512]

Ads Attacking Same-Sex Marriage Bill Will Air During Thanksgiving NFL Games–But Here’s What They Get Wrong

The conservative Heritage Foundation think tank will reportedly air ads during NFL and college football games on Thanksgiving Day and through the weekend that attack the same-sex marriage bill moving through Congress with misleading claims the “far left” legislation will “expose religious schools and nonprofits to lawsuits,” falsehoods that parrot misinformation shared on social media in recent days.

The “Respect for Marriage Act” would require the federal government to grant the same privileges, including tax and Social Security benefits, to same-sex married couples that it offers opposite-sex couples. It would also require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Both of these new requirements already occur as a matter of practice, but could be threatened if the Supreme Court overturns rulings that established the right to same-sex marriage.

$1.3 million. That’s the amount the Heritage Foundation is spending on the ads, which include a TV commercial and digital campaign, according to Fox, which reported it’s the group’s most expensive campaign ever.

Millions on hate even on thanksgiving.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The GOP is soft on crime.

Red States Have Higher Murder Rates Than Blue States, According to New Study

The only time the GQP is supposedly tough on crime is during election season, that much was evident in all the attack ads saying Democrats let crime run rampant in blue states in the recent midterms. However, there hasn’t been so much as a peep from Qpublicans about crime (save of course for the perfidy regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop) since they lost a few weeks ago.

Ads Attacking Same-Sex Marriage Bill Will Air During Thanksgiving NFL Games–But Here’s What They Get Wrong







Millions on hate even on thanksgiving.

Can’t say I’m surprised. The LGBTQ community is firmly in the crosshairs of conservatives, and they’re going all out kill same sex marriage legislation.

[babyblob]

Ads Attacking Same-Sex Marriage Bill Will Air During Thanksgiving NFL Games–But Here’s What They Get Wrong







Millions on hate even on thanksgiving.

And there are still members of the LTGBQ+ community that vote GOP and I will never understand why.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

And there are still members of the LTGBQ+ community that vote GOP and I will never understand why.

Two words: Tax. Breaks.

[Malvolio]

While it is unfair to blame modern Democrats for the shortcomings of Southern Democrats in the 1960s, that came well after the end of the Civil War, and it's in living memory for people today. My dad was in his mid-20s when George Wallace won several Democratic primaries.

This is going to bother people like Cotton who are not in the center.

Personally, I like ranked-choice voting. It forces candidates to have widespread support.

It's a wise idea in primaries and general elections, although there is a concern that the results are delayed (On the other hand, I'd rather compromise on the speed with which we get results than on other aspects of elections.)

I think you're responding to points I haven't made.

An increase in violent deaths is a bad thing, but it's incorrect to suggest that there was an earlier time when young men were much less likely to resolve disputes with violence.

I'll note that the initial comments didn't really distinguish between gun homicides and mass shootings. Mass shootings are a subset of gun homicides. This doesn't make much of a rhetorical difference, but it has some policy implications in that there are some forms of firearms common in mass shootings that do not form the majority of gun deaths or gun homicides.

The decline in crime from the 90s has multiple potential causes. One argument is that it correlated to wider access to abortion. Another view is that it was due to better standards when it came to lead paint. It's also been attributed to high incarceration rates (criminals in jails are unable to commit crimes outside of jail), an increase in policing, increase in standards of medical care and better policing strategies.

I really recommend the Freakonomics chapter on that question, as well as Kevin Drum's reporting on lead paint.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...me-connection/



I didn't say that we need to accept mass shootings, but the policies proposed by Democrats don't work.

The so-called common sense regulations that are proposed tend not to have a significant impact. Matt Yglesias had a decent summary about this two years ago.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/nationa...ded-re-embrace

People who own guns, and are knowledgeable about guns, know this. They come to the conclusion that Democrats want to go further. This leads to an increase in firearm and ammunition sales anytime it looks like there might be some restrictions at some point in the future.

Politically, the wisest response would be to lower the temperature, and to figure out solutions that don't immediately fall into existing partisan divides.

"Lower the temperature?" Let's see someone from your side of the aisle set an example on that first.

[babyblob]

Two words: Tax. Breaks.

Are they really saving that much money to make it worth it? I mean the GOP do tax breaks mostly for the rich and corps. Are there really that many gay people that would benefit? Enough to make supporting the hate of their own kind worth it?

[Kirby101]

Are they really saving that much money to make it worth it? I mean the GOP do tax breaks mostly for the rich and corps. Are there really that many gay people that would benefit? Enough to make supporting the hate of their own kind worth it?

Trump raised taxes on most of the people who supported his "tax breaks". One of the great con jobs the GOP has pulled.

[Malvolio]

Are they really saving that much money to make it worth it? I mean the GOP do tax breaks mostly for the rich and corps. Are there really that many gay people that would benefit? Enough to make supporting the hate of their own kind worth it?

It's the same principle as poor white people who vote Republican. They have an idea for a business and they believe that someday that business will make millions and they don't want those millions taxed.

Of course, that business is usually a pipe dream, or it takes off at first, but goes bankrupt after a few years. Dan's bike shop on Roseanne would be a good example of that.

[nose norton]

Germany and France join forces against Biden in subsidy battle (or so they would have you believe)

"China has been in this globalization for a very long time with massive state aids that are reserved exclusively for Chinese products, the fact is that the U.S. has just entered this new globalization before our eyes to develop its industrial capacity on American soil. Europe must not be the last of the Mohicans."

Bruno Le Maire's choice of words is very telling. Mohicans, indeed.