This morning I heard filmmaker Michael Moore describe friends of his who are planning to vote for Trump because they view him as a human hand grenade. Trump represents a rare opportunity to blow up American politics as we know it. They are sick of the system. They are sick of the lies. They are sick of every aspect of politics as usual. In some cases they have lost jobs and homes due to political agendas. They just want to see the current way of doing politics destroyed and see Trump as the vehicle that could bring that destruction to fruition. They also believe we may not get an opportunity like this again for years.

I have to say, I've not looked at the election in this light. And it is tempting to vote for him if only for this reason, especially since America has become an oligarchy.

Prior to hearing this argument I have been caught up with which candidate might possess the most integrity. Platforms and political ideology have remained secondary to me since these are often pie in the sky dreams and lies anyway. I have been looking instead for a moral agent and thought I had one in the Berndog.

I have a couple of days to consider the "human hand grenade" argument. I find it most appealing, namely because I no longer view America as a democracy. We truly have become an oligarchy in every sense.

And although Trump's appeal to my frustrations and anger is enticing, I continue to view him as a petulant child unfit for the office. But insomuch as he would be an agent of change for American politics, maybe.

People seem to want these pure heros to come in to save us but it just does not work that way. Lyndon Johnson who ushered in civil rights and Medicare was massively flawed. So was MLK. So was FDR.

If you look at US history the Depression so uprooted the system that there was a fairer deal for workers from about 1930s to the 1970s. Then in the 1970s we see a reaction. We see conservative think tanks being funded. Corporations and monied interests were dissatisfied with the returns on their money and the conservative movement provided an ideological underpinning for it. They supported lower taxes, fewer regulations, no minimum wage, getting rid of the safety net, free trade, free movement of capital to get cheaper labor, etc. And they were successful in getting Reagan elected in 1980. And conservatives have been very successful in getting their ideas implemented, which is why wealth is so stratified in this country.

The Clintons are hated by the Right because they have served as a check on the right-wing. Without the Clinton do we have any Democratic presidents since Carter? They understand the system, they understand how to defeat the Right wing, and they have been able to at least check the country from moving even more to the right. If you don't believe that, consider how far the country moved to the right under Reagan and Bush II.

Why would anyone think that Trump is an agent of change? He is a massive beneficiary of the oligarchical system whose ideological underpinnings were laid out in the 70s. He cynically appealed to white voters uncomfortable with changing demographics and, under financial pressure due to conservative policies, looking for a scapegoat. Trump won't blow up the system. He will help out his oligarchs.

It ain't pretty because people who can survive the onslaught of the Right have to be very tough people, but the Clintons will hold the line and push the country slightly to the left, which they have been doing for 30 years. They should be praised not exciorated by anyone who is anywhere left of center, who cares about average folk. I assume that is you Dags. People like Sanders don't change the system. I encourage you to read the biographies of Robert Caro on LBJ to see how messy real change is. He used to lecture Hubert Humphrey--a civil rights idealist--that you can't get legislation passed unless you have the votes, unless you understand the Senate rules and how conservative Southerners were blocking legislation.

You are so, so wrong about the Clintons. Liberals like me can dream of more liberal legislation but it ain't gonna happen. The Clintons have been able to prevent the country from going even more to the Right. Hillary will move the country a little more to the left. Just like Obama did. Unless there is a crisis that's how positive change for the average person happens--in little increments.

You are so concerned about the investigations of the Clintons. First of all, I know you understand that there conservative forces trying to crush the Clintons for 30 years. Secondly, If you expect angels to withstand that you are sadly mistaken. The Clintons know how to manipulate the system and it ain't pretty but they are not criminals. What's criminal is redistributing money from working people to billionaires.

I guess you see Clintons as part of the oligarchical system. Bill and Hillary Clinton were not born rich. I see them as pragmatic liberals who work within the existing system to make things better for average folk. And of course they have made a lot of money, too. So what? As long as it's legal and they helped better the country (which they have), I don't care. I think the US is much better off that the Clintons have around to stave off the right-wing. I urge you Dags to imagine if the Clintons had not been around what this country would look like.

dag

I have been looking instead for a moral agent and thought I had one in the Berndog.

And what does your man Bernie say you should do with your vote?

Good stuff here Freeman. I appreciate your response. Always do, even when I disagree with you which is somewhat often as of late. I'll think about what you've written as well.

For the record, when I say that America has become an Oligarchy, I'm not limiting my aim at the Clintons necessarily. I'm talking about the fact that no one gets a serious look in this country to run for this office unless you are filthy rich. This includes Trump for sure.

People like Sanders don't change the system

First of all, Freeman, he has already changed the system. But beyond that, in this selection process he never had a fair chance. He was cheated by your party. I will forever wonder what he would have accomplished. I think he would have beaten Trump for sure.

Everyone in your party followed the narrative that Bdog wouldn't be able to win because he is a socialist. Freeman, that narrative was floated and heavily sustained by your party and their allies in the press. There are a great many of us who never bought that narrative. Nonetheless, now we will never know. The Clintons and their far reaching team of political allies outfoxed him and cheated him.

Ricky, I've addressed it elsewhere but to answer your question, the Bdog would have me vote for the criminal on Tuesday. I won't. I cannot.

Here's why....

Bernie's error is in thinking that what he brought to the platform is more important ultimately than who it is who implements that platform. I disagree with him. I'll plead Kant's categorical imperative in this case. The ends never justifies the means. There is a reason why Kant chose the word "never."

In other words, he would have me believe that the Clintons are now the means by which the Democratic platform can advance. Freeman, you would have me believe this as well. And obviously an argument can be made that this approach is now politically pragmatic. But I reject this line of reasoning. The end, namely, the Democratic platform, never justifies the means, namely, the Clintons. Furthermore, the means or Clintons in this case are a new and record breaking low in American politics. And by electing them, we give our blessing to who they are and what they have done to crap from a great height on the presidency. No way boys. That won't be on my head.

And then there's Trump...

I do believe he has brought some important issues to the fore. However, for too many reasons already listed here, he is so flawed as a human being that I can not vote for him unless I can somehow come up with some kind of convoluted reasoning that would see him as a means of destroying the current status quo of American politics. Such a position moves far beyond Kant I realize but I wonder if it isn't needed and I'm curious to "try the experiment" since there is no longer any recourse.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I wonder if it isn't needed and I'm curious to "try the experiment" since there is no longer any recourse.

You're thinking too short term. There is clearly huge dissatisfaction out there. Just look at the relative success of Trump and Sanders: two completely out of the box candidates. But think beyond 2016: What's going to happen in the next election cycle? Will the parties respond and adjust, or will the dissatisfaction just get worse? If it continues to get worse, then you'll see more, and hopefully better contra-candidates. If you're thinking longer-term, you see a positive trend of political revolution: but you don't want to blow that up with Trump.

If Trump were elected, the anti-establishment movement in this country might end, dead. "Oh, my goodness, what did we do? We elected an amoral narcissist as president. Bring the grown ups back!" See what I'm saying? It's not enough to throw a hand-grenade into the system because it blows everything up, even the good stuff.

Yeah man, just like we did to Weimar.

Dags the question comes to this: Would you rather have a perfect person who tries to change the world for the better but is ineffectual or the imperfect person who has flaws but knows how to get things done in the real world? Kant was a philosopher who was a deontologist who prescribed perform model forms of behavior without considering the consequences of actions or how things are actually made better in the world. So would you rather live in a world with more poverty, more unfairness, more crime, more unhappiness because the people who would alleviate it have flaws that you find unacceptable? A related question is whether it's been mostly people who have had significant flaws that have been typically been able to operate in the messy world of politics and make the world better? I would say the answer is yes. Would we rather FDR and Churchill had not been our leaders in WW II even though they had significant flaws?

Sanders would have been easily defeated. The genius of the Clintons is that they know where to be on the political spectrum in order to get majority support. Sanders, on the other hand, would stick to his views and he would have gotten trounced even against Trump. Republicans would have scared middle America with threats of huge taxes and the US becoming a socialist country and the race would be over.

dag

In other words, he would have me believe that the Clintons are now the means by which the Democratic platform can advance. Freeman, you would have me believe this as well. And obviously an argument can be made that this approach is now politically pragmatic. But I reject this line of reasoning. The end, namely, the Democratic platform, never justifies the means, namely, the Clintons. Furthermore, the means or Clintons in this case are a new and record breaking low in American politics. And by electing them, we give our blessing to who they are and what they have done to crap from a great height on the presidency. No way boys. That won't be on my head

Could it be that your evaluation of the Clintons is wrong? Ot at least highly exagerated?
I think so. I mean you listed once some of the socalled scandals which never amounted to anything. I mean Whitewater? A real estate deal they lost money on and that ken Starr couldn't find evidence of wrongdoing for???
BTW Given the chance I probably would have voted for Bernie too. Largely because he did't have the baggage Hillary carries. But he lost.
But Hillary has more skill as a political actor, and more skill at maneuvering on Capital Hill. Bernie realizes she will enact a fair amount of the platform, given the chance. And she'll move things incrementally.
In your political system, it is impossible to enact change quickly or make large changes very often.(WIth rare exceptions.) The best you can hope for is incremental change... And Hillary is an incrementalist (as is Obama). The most important thing is to continue the direction of change....
Trump would be a grenade. But the damage to the institutions, to the economy and to society would be enormous.
And there are no guarantees that what would eventually take shape would be a revitalization of democracy. It would rather more likely be an end to liberal democracy....
Here's Louis CKs reasoning...which is kind of interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFOkBnYGfIM

Geo, I hear you but your line of reasoning suggests that I simply wait things out and allow the current state of affairs to degenerate even more in the hope of some kind of glacial change for the better. Geo, I'd like to be alive to see things improve for my kids.

Freeman,

Would you rather have a perfect person who tries to change the world for the better but is ineffectual or the imperfect person who has flaws but knows how to get things done in the real world?

I'd rather have a moral agent. Give me Jimmy Carter any day. To choose the latter is to go the path of Machiavelli and the utilitarians. I can't have that. I'll take my chances with the moral agent. Now does that mean that the moral agent be perfect? of course not, but you get the point. The other route Freeman is why our country is in the shape its in.

And Freeman,

"Sanders would have been easily defeated...Sanders, on the other hand, would stick to his views and he would have gotten trounced even against Trump"

Your making the same mistake that so many others have made with these comments. You do not have a crystal ball. You've never had one. No one has one. I would like to argue that Bernie was cheated and never had a fair chance. I would argue that he most certainly could have beat both the criminal and Trump. I do question his efficacy once in office but to say with such certitude that he would have easily defeated is hubris, especially in light of the fact that he was cheated. And Ricky, either you didn't grasp my point about Kant or you did and simply don't care.

These points about refraining for voting for a human hand grenade due to the untold longterm effects it could have on liberal democracy are tempting, however, killing the kind of liberal democracy we currently have namely, a body of actors who cheat and lie to get ahead then in the words of Voltaire, "kill the infamous thing!" I don't want anything to do with this version of liberal democracy.

Instead of a few centuries of waiting around for things to get better (political sado-masochism btw), how about rolling the dice and destroying the broken thing now? What do we really have to lose? The current version of liberal democracy does not deserve to continue.

I would think Geo and Freeman that the two of you would be open to the utilitarian notion of a Darwin phoenix rising.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:What do we really have to lose?

See Ray Jay's posts.

freeman3 wrote:The Clintons are hated by the Right because they have served as a check on the right-wing.

No. No. No.

They are "hated" because they are sociopathic narcissists.

At least Bill Clinton was an articulate spokesman on policy. Hillary is almost as inarticulate as Trump, and, without a doubt, she is the most awkward at connecting with an audience I've ever seen in my life.

No one "hated" Bernie Sanders. O'Malley? Maybe a little (because of the ridiculous stories he tells about how well he governs).

Here's the problem Democrats have: they want to believe what Hillary says. They want to believe that all of the scandals, every single one of them, are either made-up or overblown. And yet, it's impossible to explain how two folks who entered politics with little, ended with so much.

Oh yeah, they gave speeches.

Lots of people give speeches. No American has ever made so much money while contributing nothing tangible to the economy. Nothing.

They are corrupt. They are Ferdinand and Imelda. The Democrats are their dupes and the American people are their victims.

Ray Jay wrote:Yeah man, just like we did to Weimar.

While I understand the reference, I believe it is flawed. We are not the Weimar Republic. Trump, as loathsome as he is, is not Hitler.

I don't believe "a human hand grenade" is the solution.

I believe we are heading for a revolution. It will be either political or it will be physical. But, a government that does not address glaring problems and instead selects boutique issues against the will of the majority cannot last.

dag

And Ricky, either you didn't grasp my point about Kant or you did and simply don't care.

I grasp what you say. The problem is that you recognize that your system is constructed in such a way that corporations and rich special interests have a great deal of control. That the system isn't responsive to the needs of the greatest number of people.
And yet you think electing one idealist as the president can have a substantial effect....
There are too many levers throughout the system, upon which special interests and corporations can lean to stall, change or obstruct.
Like you I think it would have been worth giving Bernie a chance. Perhaps he could have exacted more change to the system. But your now in a situation where you are down to two choices. An incrementalist or a hand grenade. The mature, wise choice is the incrementalist.
Hand grenades are not agents of change but of destruction.
Given the choice choose some change over destruction. Too many get hurt by the kinds of destruction elected demogogues enact. And usually societies retreat.

Fate

I believe we are heading for a revolution. It will be either political or it will be physical. But, a government that does not address glaring problems and instead selects boutique issues against the will of the majority cannot last.

Obama has an approval rating of 56%.
Clinton may earn 50% of the electorates votes today.
That represents a will of the people that perhaps you don't recognize then?
The American system of governance gives an enormous power for the minority or for special interests to obstruct, stall, change, and manage the way laws are enacted. When that minority mistakes its power to accomplish this as a reflection of the will of the people .... rather than the clever use of a convoluted and complex system to achieve the wll of special interests .... then you give rise to Trump supporters. Living in a media bubble that distorts their view of the world, they never realize that they are the minority.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Yeah man, just like we did to Weimar.

While I understand the reference, I believe it is flawed. We are not the Weimar Republic. Trump, as loathsome as he is, is not Hitler.

I don't believe "a human hand grenade" is the solution.

I believe we are heading for a revolution. It will be either political or it will be physical. But, a government that does not address glaring problems and instead selects boutique issues against the will of the majority cannot last.

Yes, I agree that Trump is not Hitler. I am arguing against the sentiment that we have nothing to lose so we may as well blow it all up. People talking this way do not understand history and they have no sense of how good things are relative to what they could be. They mistake sentiment for logic; they mistake imperfection for disaster. They are tweens and teenagers being led by a man-boy.

All you ever get is a good chance to push the policies you want,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), one of a handful of members of Congress who endorsed Sanders over Clinton. “Would you rather hold Clinton to a progressive platform that includes a $15-per-hour minimum wage and action on climate change, or would you fight like hell to stop Trump from signing the Republican platform into law? Anyone who’s still convinced that Clinton is not a great candidate, bear in mind, your role does not end on Election Day.”