• neatchee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Tell me you’ve never worked in US politics without telling me you’ve never worked in US politics, speedrun edition

    I’ll try to remember to explain the details to you when I’m not actively deplaning from a week-long work trip, because I’m not down with the “do your own research” attitude. But for real, if you have the opportunity to talk to someone who has actually dealt with state or federal election campaigning I encourage you to discuss the nuance of this with them.

    In truth, politicians literally never stop campaigning. Every single decision they make until the moment they decide not to run for office again is colored by the need to get elected again. And even then, they are all thinking about how their actions are going to impact their colleagues and successors

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • neatchee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        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

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Then what did you mean by that? Because I think it’s pretty reasonable to interpret “actual governing” as “enacting meaningful policy.”

              • neatchee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                40 minutes ago

                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

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  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.

                  • neatchee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    37 minutes ago

                    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

                  • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 hour ago

                    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.