What's wrong with Progressivism?

[Peterkin]

24 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Looking at Rowling's travails, I do see that hyperreactivity is one of the flaws of some progressives (and overreacting, as we've learned, is amplified by social media).  Her comments seem pretty anodyne compared to the trans bashing that goes on this side of the pond.  

I think it was in large part because she had previously been set up as an icon of progressive thought. Fans hate to see their heroes' clay feet. (or else, like Johnny Depp's, refuse to look down) Mass media gave us superstars; social media brought them within our grasp. 

[CharonY]

23 hours ago, MigL said:

Seems 'progressives' have an endearing label for anyone who disagrees with their 'conclusions', and only use statistics to buttress that view.

I do not see that as an inherent progressive trait, but that of virtually most of folks on any topic. Minus the statistics, which increasingly is replaced just by opinion. I am not saying that everyone with a progressive view is inherently correct or even informed on the subject matter. However, many folks who are researching various aspects of the human condition tend to be progressive almost by definition. 

The more you look at human society and its mechanisms, the harder it becomes to accept that these things are unchangeable. It is their job to try understand why certain things are the way they are and from there it is almost a natural step to think about how these things can be changed (ideally for the better). 

It is easy to dismiss the whole thing just by pointing at folks who agree at least somewhat with the conclusions but are unable to follow the details. It is a bit jarring like Oz trying to explain human biology (some things are correct but then wild and unfounded assumptions are put on top and sold as the real thing). But it is important to acknowledge that this is going to be true for the vast majority of the population for anything even slightly complicated.  Just because someone on youtube doesn't understand special relativity, we are not going to dismiss theoretical physics. Likewise, we cannot use internet mobs to dismiss actual societal issues and theoretical frameworks.

As another addendum to the example of male criminality, I forgot to mention that there are studies and pilot programs where certain interventions (such as providing money and training) for violent or at-risk folks are tested and mostly found to significantly reduce risk of criminal behaviour. Because we find that men are more at risk, these interventions are mostly targeted at them (similar to interventions targeting black folks or specific minorities). 

Example are programs like BAM (becoming a man) that can be considered rational progressive programs. There are also studies that show that e.g. in Ecuador, legalization of gangs and integrating them into societal programs reduced murder rates (and thus criminalization of men). 

 

[MigL]

On 6/5/2022 at 4:08 PM, CharonY said:

in Ecuador, legalization of gangs and integrating them into societal programs reduced murder rates (and thus criminalization of men). 

All depends on the purpose of these 'gangs'.

A 'gang' that plays cards and golf together, is a social club.
A 'gang' that runs women, a protection racket, or sells drugs, is not.
And I don't see how you can decriminalize it.

Keep in mind that most progressive revolutions have 'eaten' themselves, when some revolutionaries did not think the simple progressives were radical enough.
It happened with the French Revolution, which had just and noble causes, but eventually became an excuse to chop off anybody's head who had disagreed with you.
Or the November ( Orthodox calendar ) Revolution in Russia, where the Bolcheviks usurped the power and ruthlessness of the Oligarchs, and after massive killing sprees, replaced them.

If I had to, I would classify myself a social liberal/progressive, but because I like to question some of the ideologies/methods, I'm not considered 'progressive' enough by those who spout ideology verbatum.
Off to the guillotine with me ( and a couple of others ) then!
 

[CharonY]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

All depends on the purpose of these 'gangs'.

A 'gang' that plays cards and golf together, is a social club.
A 'gang' that runs women, a protection racket, or sells drugs, is not.
And I don't see how you can decriminalize it.

It is quite a bit more complicated and as so often, things are not intuitive. The gangs in question were predominantly street gangs and the path to decriminalization is not, as you might imagine, to allow the criminal acts to happen, but rather it is an attempt to move gangs away from criminality.

See, the classic (and often unsuccessful) approach to criminal gangs is policing. However, that does not address the issue of why gangs are formed. They are not simply an association of criminals who want to do criminal things, but there is a combination of various factors (poverty, social connections, marginalization) that promote criminal behaviour. By legitimizing certain organizations, they became eligible to state funding for social initiatives, that either disincentivized criminal activities. 

(a couple of short reads on the initiative: https://www.iadb.org/en/improvinglives/inside-ecuadors-surprising-gang-violence-strategy#:~:text=In parallel%2C juvenile arrests spiked,youth group" by the state.

https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/ecuador-legalizes-gangs-slashes-murder-rates/

For more details and insights there are a couple of studies e.g. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09505-5)

Of course this is not a magical solution, but the initiative is one example of trying out something new and see where you lead us. And sure, things may not work out the way as intended. But I doubt you are actually arguing that the revolution should not have happened and we were better off living under monarchies?

The critical point in my mind is to study these outcomes and decide new policies based on them. There always will be failure and successes but the risk of future failures does not in my mind justify the acceptance of clear existing failures. In the end it becomes a cost-benefit analysis. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is quite a bit more complicated and as so often, things are not intuitive. The gangs in question were predominantly street gangs and the path to decriminalization is not, as you might imagine, to allow the criminal acts to happen, but rather it is an attempt to move gangs away from criminality.

See, the classic (and often unsuccessful) approach to criminal gangs is policing. However, that does not address the issue of why gangs are formed. They are not simply an association of criminals who want to do criminal things, but there is a combination of various factors (poverty, social connections, marginalization) that promote criminal behaviour. By legitimizing certain organizations, they became eligible to state funding for social initiatives, that either disincentivized criminal activities. 

(a couple of short reads on the initiative: https://www.iadb.org/en/improvinglives/inside-ecuadors-surprising-gang-violence-strategy#:~:text=In parallel%2C juvenile arrests spiked,youth group" by the state.

https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/ecuador-legalizes-gangs-slashes-murder-rates/

For more details and insights there are a couple of studies e.g. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09505-5)

Of course this is not a magical solution, but the initiative is one example of trying out something new and see where you lead us. And sure, things may not work out the way as intended. But I doubt you are actually arguing that the revolution should not have happened and we were better off living under monarchies?

The critical point in my mind is to study these outcomes and decide new policies based on them. There always will be failure and successes but the risk of future failures does not in my mind justify the acceptance of clear existing failures. In the end it becomes a cost-benefit analysis. 

 

It's always tough to turn to respecting the good in people that have deservingly lost respect.

It's one of the reasons I think those incarcerated or on parole should be allowed to vote, at least provincially or nationally (and it is allowed in Canada, though I doubt it will come any time soon in the US, for reasons that have nothing to do with democratic fairness)

[J.C.MacSwell]

Progress on the way?

Apparently a new party is forming called Forward (the same name Yang's movement/political organization has already) to compete with the two backward parties in 2024:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/politics/andrew-yang-forward-party-whitman-jolly/index.html

"Jolly is a former Republican congressman from Florida, Whitman a former Republican governor of New Jersey and Yang is a former Democratic presidential and New York mayoral candidate. The three will merge their political organizations into the new party, whose launch was first reported by Reuters."

It will be interesting to see how the two backward parties respond especially where each of the parties was not at fault for any of the obvious problems created by recent polarization, with 100% of the blame belonging to the other party, not theirs.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Apparently a new party is forming called Forward

I absolutely support this in spirit, but worry a LOT about how it’s going to siphon votes from the least bad / less crazy candidates given our lack of a ranked choice voting option. 

For example, maybe I’d like to vote for Yang as my first choice, but if the other 2 candidates are Trump and Biden, I’d HATE for my Yang vote to lead Biden to lose and allow Trump to slide his greasy thieving fascistic self back into office.

Would be ideal instead to say, “I want Yang, but if he doesn't win then my vote must be counted for Biden.” But we don’t have that, so my concerns outweigh my support for these Forward folks. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

I absolutely support this in spirit, but worry a LOT about how it’s going to siphon votes from the least bad / less crazy candidates given our lack of a ranked choice voting option. 

For example, maybe I’d like to vote for Yang as my first choice, but if the other 2 candidates are Trump and Biden, I’d HATE for my Yang vote to lead Biden to lose and allow Trump to slide his greasy thieving fascistic self back into office.

Would be ideal instead to say, “I want Yang, but if he doesn't win then my vote must be counted for Biden.” But we don’t have that, so my concerns outweigh my support for these Forward folks. 

+1. Yang is in favour of ranked choice voting. Of course you have to get there first, without it, so Catch 22, and for now the new Party has no platform, just a commitment to join forces to give reasonable options.

Interestingly their plan for the 2022 midterms is not to have candidates, but endorse some candidates that are running that they feel are reasonable.

Of course, if it does become Trump vs Biden 2.0...I think a new party could do more than act as kingmaker...

[MigL]

We also have a 'first past the post' system in Canada, and vote splitting has been a concern in the past.
It led to the unification of our two Conservative parties, and has been mentioned with respect to our NDP ( socialist ) and Liberal parties.

In our case, the Governor General ( historically a representative of the Queen ) could decide to give power to two losing parties, if the winning party lost Confidence of Parliament in a minority situation.
This obviously would not work in American Government.

The proportional representation method has been talked about, but only when parties lose an election; if they win all the talk is discontinued.
( Liberals, two elections ago )
this system also has major problems.
Witness Italy, whose Government is usually made up of at least 4 parties, and which regularly falls every 6 months to a year.

I would like to see an upper age limit on running for the Presidency.
Even if set at 65, typical retirement age, winning two terms would make the President 73 years old; already a little high. Maybe 62 ?

[TheVat]

The Catch-22 on ranked choice is a problem.  Even Teddy Roosevelt, in 1912, couldn't break through in spite of garnering a large coalition behind his Progressive party.  Which resulted in Taft, who would have likely won, losing to Woodrow Wilson.  Taft had won easily his first term.  ("Bull Moose party" was the nickname of TR's Progressive party)

If it actually were Biden v Trump in 2024, as @J.C.MacSwell mentioned, it does seem possible there could be some unprecedented win of a third party.  That would be two uniquely poor main choices.  A third option like Yang, or maybe Amy Klobuchar, could start to look pretty good.