Adam said what I am longing for politicians to say. I am a pro life Catholic independent and all I want is a candidate that is willing to focus on addressing the crisis in a crisis pregnancy. Giving the woman support and dealing with problems that are driving her choice allows her to be free to choose. You cannot be pro choice when there are no real viable options to choose from and
abortion is the only choice. The worst is that neither side wants to do anything real for women in these situations and just use this issue to raise money and votes.
To answer the question posed below the episode title, "No." Strap in for, "No, but explained." To do a little more throat clearing, I am only commenting on the proposed mechanism for change, not what I think is a total misunderstanding of why politics is dire, what about human nature makes it dire, and why it tends to be a better vehicle for creating problems than solving them at a national scale.
My politics are so radical that I am effectively unrepresented at all levels of politics. I can still function and speak to how I think a thing should be done best given all other constraints, but I am temperamentally pessimistic about the political process. I am not in one of those groups he hopes to court with the right candidate, and I suspect most in those groups won't go along either because preferences are ordinal and ultimately revealed through action.
His is an idea conceived after a bong rip. It is the Underpants Gnomes approach to changing how Congress functions in Washington. I am an engineer, I know a lot about systems. The purpose of a system is what it does. The national political system is at a stable equilibrium. The outputs change slightly over time, but we can expect spending to go up over time, and that is because the purpose of the system is to re-elect people within the system, and the mechanism by which it does that is transferring money to politically connected groups of client in the Unbreakable Patronage Loop.
When a system is at a stable equilibrium you have to do one of two things to upset it, rewrite the laws of the system or perturb the system with a sufficient input. Your guest is suggesting a major perturbation through the election of independents.
1. It won't happen because the electoral system is also at a stable equilibrium. It is an immune system very adept at eliminating outsider threats from non-Republicans and non-Democrats. For instance, even at the high water mark of Libertarian Party efficacy, they have never won a head-to-head or three-way national race...or statewide race. Pretty much they can win dog catcher or non-party office if they try really, really hard.
2. The potential perturbation is minor because Congress has a similar immune system for outsiders. There is a reason why
The only people lining up to tell independents they can win as independents are political consultants and researchers who stand to make money selling the Brooklyn Bridge over and over to suckers with more money than sense. The most successful independent candidate of our time was not Ross Perot, it was Donald Trump. He effectively ran as an independent candidate within the Republican Party, took it over, and was elected president at least two times. The blueprint is there, run likeable, LOCAL insurgent candidates in districts with weak incumbents. Don't fly in a billionaire. This other strategy sounds like a jobs program for the former student council presidents who aren't already Congressional staff or working for a think tank.
He mentioned Javier Milei in one breath, and then shortly after brushed aside the idea of taking a chainsaw to government. The patient has gangrene, it requires the amputation. Argentina has suffered for so long it was willing to take the medicine, America will have to suffer longer before it demands the medicine, because its caretakers are doing everything possible to obscure the illness.
Adam said what I am longing for politicians to say. I am a pro life Catholic independent and all I want is a candidate that is willing to focus on addressing the crisis in a crisis pregnancy. Giving the woman support and dealing with problems that are driving her choice allows her to be free to choose. You cannot be pro choice when there are no real viable options to choose from and
abortion is the only choice. The worst is that neither side wants to do anything real for women in these situations and just use this issue to raise money and votes.
Rebellions are built on hope. This guy sounds hopeful!
To answer the question posed below the episode title, "No." Strap in for, "No, but explained." To do a little more throat clearing, I am only commenting on the proposed mechanism for change, not what I think is a total misunderstanding of why politics is dire, what about human nature makes it dire, and why it tends to be a better vehicle for creating problems than solving them at a national scale.
My politics are so radical that I am effectively unrepresented at all levels of politics. I can still function and speak to how I think a thing should be done best given all other constraints, but I am temperamentally pessimistic about the political process. I am not in one of those groups he hopes to court with the right candidate, and I suspect most in those groups won't go along either because preferences are ordinal and ultimately revealed through action.
His is an idea conceived after a bong rip. It is the Underpants Gnomes approach to changing how Congress functions in Washington. I am an engineer, I know a lot about systems. The purpose of a system is what it does. The national political system is at a stable equilibrium. The outputs change slightly over time, but we can expect spending to go up over time, and that is because the purpose of the system is to re-elect people within the system, and the mechanism by which it does that is transferring money to politically connected groups of client in the Unbreakable Patronage Loop.
When a system is at a stable equilibrium you have to do one of two things to upset it, rewrite the laws of the system or perturb the system with a sufficient input. Your guest is suggesting a major perturbation through the election of independents.
1. It won't happen because the electoral system is also at a stable equilibrium. It is an immune system very adept at eliminating outsider threats from non-Republicans and non-Democrats. For instance, even at the high water mark of Libertarian Party efficacy, they have never won a head-to-head or three-way national race...or statewide race. Pretty much they can win dog catcher or non-party office if they try really, really hard.
2. The potential perturbation is minor because Congress has a similar immune system for outsiders. There is a reason why
The only people lining up to tell independents they can win as independents are political consultants and researchers who stand to make money selling the Brooklyn Bridge over and over to suckers with more money than sense. The most successful independent candidate of our time was not Ross Perot, it was Donald Trump. He effectively ran as an independent candidate within the Republican Party, took it over, and was elected president at least two times. The blueprint is there, run likeable, LOCAL insurgent candidates in districts with weak incumbents. Don't fly in a billionaire. This other strategy sounds like a jobs program for the former student council presidents who aren't already Congressional staff or working for a think tank.
He mentioned Javier Milei in one breath, and then shortly after brushed aside the idea of taking a chainsaw to government. The patient has gangrene, it requires the amputation. Argentina has suffered for so long it was willing to take the medicine, America will have to suffer longer before it demands the medicine, because its caretakers are doing everything possible to obscure the illness.