You're viewing part of a thread.
There's a huge difference between "decisions being colored by the need to get elected again" and "being so singularly focused on reelection campaigns that they are unable to enact policy." It's just another BS excuse.
Of course their decisions are colored by the need to get elected again, as they should be in any reasonable government. Part of that includes actually doing their jobs.
If you could spend three times as much time enacting legislation by giving up on reelection, then anyone who's ideologically committed should simply do that. Biden especially has no excuse, what reason was there for him to spend 3 years of his 4 year term worrying about reelection when he was just going to end up dropping out due to age? If that's what actually happened, it's worse than any alternative explanation.
When did I say anything about being "so singularly focused [...] that they are unable to enact policy"? They choose not to pursue the policy positions you want largely because it's politically expedient.
Part of that includes actually doing their jobs
This right here is where you're not hearing me
What you define as "doing their jobs" and "doing the thing most effective at getting them re-elected" are not the same thing. That's literally the problem. Humans aren't as ethical, self-aware, intelligent, and future-thinking as you seem to want to believe.
Humans are, in fact, incredibly easy to manipulate, as it turns out.
Your idealism is noble but untempered by reality. Solving this particular problem will require something far different from simply abstaining from voting or whatever, and until you and others are ready for that, shitting on Harris and Biden for playing the rhetoric game when the alternative at the moment is a literal extreme fascist is not only a pointless endeavor but actually puts other people in harms way
When did I say anything about being “so singularly focused […] that they are unable to enact policy”?
Right here, in the part I quoted:
due to how our government is structured and how elections work, an administration gets maybe two years (more like 12-18 months) of actual governing before they have to start focusing on getting (re)elected.
You seem to have misconstrued what "actual governing" means in this context
Then what did you mean by that? Because I think it's pretty reasonable to interpret "actual governing" as "enacting meaningful policy."
One can enact policy for many reasons, not just legitimate efforts to govern effectively. Enacting policy for the sake of political expediency is still enacting policy, but not what I would consider actual governing
Ok, so my interpretation of "actual governing" as "enacting meaningful policy" is correct? Or does meaningful policy not count as actual governing if it's done for the sake of earning people's support? I can't make heads or tails of your terms.
See? It’s as I expected. I may not have the patience to deal with you, but I knew others would. And it didn’t end well for you, bud.
I'm glad that I have you as a totally fair and neutral arbitrator on whether or not I "got wrecked." You definitely hadn't already decided that would be your conclusion before seeing any of it.
Oh it absolutely was. I’ve dealt with you before. I knew exactly how this would go down. You’re just that predictable.
Are you implying policy only has meaning if it supports your specific goals? Because there has been plenty of meaningful policy that does absolutely nothing to protect or advance the very narrow goals you've defined above in this conversation, or even what one might call moral and ethical. What exactly is "meaningful" when it comes to policy? That is such a vague, garage term in this context
Are you implying policy only has meaning if it supports your specific goals?
No? I have no idea how you got any of that from what I said.
I'm just trying to make sense of what the hell it means to "actually govern" if not "enacting meaningful policy." I thought maybe you were suggesting that, after the initial period of actually governing and enacting policy, they spend the rest of the time enacting meaningless bullshit policies that might win votes but don't actually affect anything. Based on your response, I'm guessing that's not what you meant, but that just leaves me even more in the dark about what you do mean.
Can you please just spell out the distinction you're making? If they're enacting meaningful policy, how is that not "actually governing?" Stop making me guess.
Sure.
The important starting point is:
Your perspective is not the only perspective. Every other person has a complex life, just as complex as yours with its own perspectives
And no one perspective is objectively right or wrong. There is only the opinions we bring to the table, what we each choose to do, how that impacts the world, and who we successfully bring to our cause
And most importantly, the policies I believe are morally and ethically the best path forward are often not widely popular without intense, direct conversation on the nuance of a subject, or until after the policy yields long term success that won't become apparent until after the next one or more rounds of elections
With that said, acquiring votes often involves identifying what resonates with others and pursuing their support rather than enacting the ideal policies you want to pursue
Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity
But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.
Through a history of electioneering, the political machine in the US has produced an environment where administrations have a limited amount of time in which they can feasibly prioritize idealistic goals (if they even want or bother to) while still having enough time and political capital to recover any lost support. And the more disregard your opponent has for selflessness and mutual aid, the more risky it becomes to pursue unpopular positions.
You and I may know that it's good policy. That doesn't make it popular. And "it'll be popular when it works" is not a viable strategy when the opposition has become so good at obstruction, deconstruction, consolidation of power, and manipulation of public perception
I hope that clarifies
Tbh I just don't think I'm going to be able to make sense of what you're talking about.
Actual governing means negotiating to enforce a collective will, agreed upon through genuine discourse and collaboration motivated by improving society and humanity
But you can still enact meaningful policy that has nothing to do with those goals and ideals, but rather seeks to generate support through various means.
So, only in the first year or so is it possible to enact policies aimed at improving society, but then afterwards you can still pass policies that somehow meaningful despite not being aimed at improving society(?) and the latter isn't actually governing(?).
None of this makes any sense. If there are "various means" available to pass policy, then why would it not be "actually governing" to use those means? And if the policies passed through those means aren't aimed at improving society, then in what way are they meaningful? And for that matter, why can you only enact policy that has nothing to do with improving society during that time period?
Honestly, I'd just suggest scrapping this point entirely and finding a different way of phrasing what you're trying to say.