Well, last time i tried to take a look at this, it was too vague for me to look at these in detail for the most part as they seemed very buzz wordy, and hard to disagree with on the surface, but who knows where they actually stand. More details were needed. Well, the forward party website is up, and I can now look at these in detail and discuss them.
Rank Choice Voting & Open Primaries.
Democracy works best when we increase voter representation through inclusive electoral policies and practices. Party primaries disenfranchise the majority of voters. In 80 percent of cases the general election is essentially a foreordained conclusion. Non-major-party candidates are regarded as a “waste” of a vote and can never compete. Candidates spend millions trashing their lone opponent, making us all more cynical. Ranked-choice voting better captures voters’ true preferences and enables a more dynamic and truly representative democracy while addressing all of these problems. It is the key to unlocking real reform.
Yes, this is what I've been saying for months, if not years now. Voter participation in this country is awful in general and primaries are worse. Closed primaries are why most primaries end up leading to the same kinds of candidates winning. The people who end up voting in primaries are the ones most affiliated with the party and like its current brand. Independents who dont identify with the parties end up not being able to even vote in primaries for the most part. So the "true democrats" end up voting for more "true democrats", and everyone else is forced to choose between lesser evils. Thank you for voicing something I've been trying to say all year, Andrew. RCV is also a policy I strongly identify with, so I agree with this point completely.
Fact-Based Governance.
Utilizing data in order to establish standard and shared baselines of where we are and how we are doing will ensure that our elected representatives are doing their jobs. Politicians today compete in messaging and news cycles. They should compete on results. The only way to know how you are doing is if you agree on facts and if all parties can agree on one version of reality. We should be very concerned about political leaders who don’t accept that measurement of social and economic health have weight and that science is real. Spin must have limits. Parties can differ on what goals they would most like to pursue, but we need to share a baseline of where we are and how we are doing.
I agree with this conceptually, but I do have one concern. And that is censorship. I feel like those who are insistent on us all working with the same reality, kind of want to force everyone to believe in their concept. While I agree with democrats more than republicans on "reality" in terms of things like vaccines and not governing based on ancient religious texts, I really think it's a dangerous road to start censoring people who we don't agree with.
Regardless, I agree with the concept of fact based governance. This is actually why I left the GOP back in the day. After I started researching and realized their entire platform was based on religion and misinformation, and that they very rarely added anything to the intellectual conversation (which is a huge reason I never really discuss them on this blog, I see discussing their ideas as below me and a waste of my time as a person), I just abandoned them. I mean, I want representatives who have some bearing of, you know, reality. And listen to scientific facts. That's not to say we can ever be truly free of ideology, but at the same time, we shouldn't deny reality because of it either.
As long as the party dedicates itself to only endorsing candidates with a sound head on their shoulders and not nutjobs like say, Marjorie Taylor Greene or something, I'm fine with this plank. I just believe actively trying to censor those who are misguided goes too far. After all, the right to free speech includes, in my opinion, the right to be wrong, even dangerously so. If there are limits on freedom of speech beyond the absolute bare minimum necessary, do we really have it? By that point we're like dictating an overton window for people to operate in, and that's dangerous in my opinion.
Human-Centered Capitalism.
The purpose of an economy should be to improve the way of life of its people—that is, to improve the measurable quality of life of each and every person in a society. We measure our economic health based on GDP, stock market prices, and headline unemployment rates. Meanwhile, life expectancy is declining, deaths of despair are surging, and millions of Americans are getting pushed aside. Our economic system should be geared to benefit us, with life expectancy, average income and affordability, childhood success rates, mental health, clean air and water, and other measurements of our well-being front and center. We must humanize our economy to work for us instead of continuing to see ourselves as inputs into a system.
Agree completely, and this plank is one of yang's strongest selling points in my opinion. I've always said it since becoming an atheist (and still accept it as spiritual as let's face it rediscovering "god" hasnt changed my political views much). The economy is made for humans, not humans for the economy. We shouldn't be slaves to our social institutions. Those institutions exist to serve us. And Andrew Yang GETS it. He sees the economy beyond the traditional measures, which are generally rich people indicators and abstract numbers with little bearing on peoples' lives. That's not to say that these numbers are worthless, as that would go against fact based governance, but on a values level, they are of limited application. While GDP might matter in Africa where people are literally walking 3 hours a day to get clean water, by the time you hit $40k, 50k, or 60k per capita, do you really even notice any more? I mean at that point you might as well measure mcdonalds per square mile. Because more mcdonalds means more economic activity and higher gdp right? And more JERBS! Seriously, capitalism is dystopian, so yang is a breath of fresh air here.
Now, to be fair, I dont think yang's proposed measures are perfect. I think we should be getting to things like work life balance, and individual liberty within capitalism, although these things aren't always easy to measure. Yang still comes off as somewhat jobist if you read the war on normal people on this subject as many of his measures involve various forms of engagement in the economy, and as an indepentarian, i think that we should be free to NOT engage.
Still, Yang's measures are helpful, and are a step forward. He's at least trying to get to the crux of the issue rather than "numbers on chart go up."
Effective & Modern Government.
A modern and effective government knows the value of each individual and allows elected representatives to pursue legislation that benefits the electorate. Americans have lost faith in our government at multiple levels because it often seems hopelessly bureaucratic and behind the times. Interacting with our government should be easy and painless—even elevating—instead of something to dread. In many ways, the best way for us to restore faith in our ability to accomplish big things is to adopt higher standards for what we are doing right now. Imagine if a trip to the DMV or interaction with the IRS were as easy and seamless as online banking. You might become more optimistic about our solving big problems. Most important, our government should treat us as human beings and owners.
YES! This is why I support policies like UBI and medicare for all. Rather than have to deal with bureaucracy, people should get results. UBI would bypass tons of bureaucracy just by existing. And M4A would be miles ahead of the ACA. Speaking of the ACA, i had an interesting conversation with a friend today. He is getting screwed on his employer not following the ACA's requirements on giving employer healthcare...but can't report them. It's apparently not a department of labor problem, but an IRS problem, and the IRS, being underfunded and overwhelmed as it is, simply can't keep up with these cases. So, people are getting screwed on healthcare. People get denied disability, welfare, etc, all the time for tons of BS reasons too. Our system is broken.
Heck, growing up as an ex conservative, wanna know why I hated government to some extent? because it didnt work. As Ronald Reagan once said, the scariest words in the english language are "Im from the government and I'm here to help." Conservatives are anti government because they dont trust it. They dont trust it because it never does anything right. It's bloated, inefficient, full of BS jobs, and so bureaucratic it doesn't help when you really need it. A significant portion of conservative thought is based on the idea that government doesnt work.
And sadly, this is why i end up falling out with democrats either. When I propose solutions, I propose elegant pieces of art. I know that sounds arrogant, but it's true. I look at policy from a rational policy making model. I look at what the problems are, and try to solve them. Democrats like to muddle through. It's like evolution vs intelligent design. An intelligently designed policy gets to the point, is effective, and gets the job done. Muddle through involves tons of compromise, watering down, and pushing policies that end up broken and not doing anything. Let's take my favorite punching bag, the ACA again. On paper, it should provide health insurance for all. In practice, there are coverage gaps, and employers are avoiding paying for coverage, and states are refusing to cover medicaid expansions, and even in states with medicaid expansions the sign up process is so complicated and broken many people STILL don't have healthcare. And then when people get insurance they face insane deductibles they can't afford. it's a mess. Democrats will act like this is the greatest thing ever, but it sucks. Democratic policies suck. And this is why people don't like democrats. Heck, I'd argue a core reason reagan was able to win on his anti government message was because people trusted the government so little that they just didn't care any more if stuff was gutted, what was that stuff doing anyway? Given the 40 years of new dealism led to implementing complex piecemeal solution on top of complex piecemeal solution, the government was so complicated it caused people to not understand why they were spending so much money on stuff they didn't even know what it did.
I am an ex conservative, I believe in government. But, I believe in what yang believes, government that works. Simple solutions to problems. Why doesn't the IRS file taxes automatically like other countries? (The turbotax lobby), why is welfare and healthcare so complicated? People just want crap that WORKS. This is an extremely strong aspect of Yang's platform and one I agree with completely.
Universal Basic Income.
Each American dream is unique, and unlocking potential is the best way a government can support the well-being and success of the citizens that comprise the nation. In a period of unprecedented economic change and technological disruption, we should acknowledge that millions of Americans will need a new way to meet their basic needs and a pathway to stand on. We all have intrinsic value. The majority of Americans are now for universal basic income. Putting money into people’s hands will shore up our economy, create jobs, and improve physical health, mental health, the ability of children to learn public trust, optimism, and rates of business formation. It is the biggest step we can take to a human-centered economy.
One thing I'm glad yang acknowledged is that each persons' dream is unique. And UBI gives people freedom to pursue...whatever they want. We tend to define the american dream in this weird rat race type way, where you work your balls off to get more stuff, and that theres a perfect job and calling for everyone, and we all live up to whatever god given potential we have, blah blah blah. It's very protestant work ethicy.
Yang also implicitly acknowledges that there isn't a perfect job for everyone, the economy is screwed yo, and it's getting worse. He sees what I see, that jobs aren't the solution to the problem! So he wants to give people money to have a bare minimum to live on, and then people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps from there. And in doing so, it creates a trickle up economy that jumpstarts a lot of economic activity in areas, ultimately leading to more prosperity in the first place. Yang is a bit more jobist than me in framing stuff in this way, but hey, gotta appeal to the normies somehow I guess. It's a good pitch.
Honestly, I think I'm a step ahead of yang here, but at least he acknowledges that the economy has structural problems we can only solve with a UBI.
Grace & Tolerance.
We live in a nation where our freedom to disagree is one we take for granted. It is what empowers us to continually evolve. Most parties need an enemy. Our enemy is those who would cast our fellow Americans as enemies and an existential threat, and the forces of inertia that make our government out of touch with the people. We all come to the table with different experiences and qualities. We are all human and fallible. We are polarized and tribal. We will give the benefit of the doubt to ourselves and each other and avoid engaging in the politics of personal attack or destruction. If my family member disagrees with me on politics, they remain my family and I love them as much as ever.
I see where Yang is going with this, but this is where I diverge from him a bit. Maybe it's from my years of on the frontlines of the internet, but I'm exhausted man, I got full on Dillahunty syndrome. And that makes me a lot less than civil sometimes. While I get conceptually that we all mean well, and I personally believe most people, yes, including republicans and democrats, mean well, I tend to have this internet craplord mindset of believing most people are idiots these days. Not idiots per se, but ignorant. And dealing with other peoples' ignorance is tiring. So i rip on people. I sometimes believe people are trolls, because they are. I acknowledge not everyone engages in good faith. I understand a lot of people come off as full on brainwashed. And it gets exhausting dealing with this crap.
That said I'm gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. At this point, being an edgelord is part of my style, and I'm not afraid to call out stupidity as I see it.
At the same time, I see where he's coming from. One thing I hate is how tribal politics is. I see it in my recent analyses of the republicans and democrats. I believe most people mean well. ANd spiritually, I do too. Like, we're all souls here to learn, and one thing I notice when I look at people across the political spectrum and ideologies and cultures is we're all the same. Russians hate the Americans, Americans hate the russians. But they're both people. Republicans and democrats do their own respective tribalisms and idpol and at the end of the day they just want a better life for themselves. So, I see wisdom in yang's words somewhat. But, I'm gonna be honest, dealing with people has made me jaded and cynical, and to some extent part of this pattern of behavior. As you guys know, I'll break molds and criticize people I disagree with. Heck I criticized Yang today, after weeks of basically being pro his party. Simply because his stated methods and goals were different than what I expected and I believed he was making a mistake. So I am independent, and I'll sometimes agree with various sides while sometimes NOT doing so. Just how I am. You can't put me in a defined box and expect me to agree all the time. So I am more honest than most people. But, honestly, I do tend to not really agree with this point either.
Conclusion
All in all, what grade do I give this set of priorities? At worst, it's 4.5/6, which si 75%, and honestly, its probably best as 5/6 or 83%. That's a very high level of agreement. As I said before, you hit 80% and I'll basically follow you nearly unconditionally. Almost no one hits that. Not on major issues. But Yang, he gets a lot of things on such a deep level that almost no one else does. Because he is that independent guy with the self made ideology, which happens to very closely reflect mine. He isn't that tribalistic guy. Republicans I agree with maybe 10-20% of the time. Democrats much higher on paper, but once you take into account the naunce of my ideology and dont just look at things in a weird 2 party way, democrats are normally only around the 40-50% mark for me, and much lower on major core values. Democrats will go against most points Yang made here. RCV and open primaries? They literally are actively hostile to third parties trying to get ballot access. Fact based governance? Eh, yeah, i guess. Human centered capitalism? Nah. They're establishment craplibs. Effective and modern government? Uh, would you like more bureaucracy on top of your bureaucracy? UBI? Why do you think im pushing yang and third parties so hard? Grace and tolerance? i guess this is why yang is that guy, but no, democrats are some of the most caustic and toxic ***holes I've deal with and that's actually a huge reason Im so jaded and cynical in the first place. So, to be fair, do they agree with yang? maybe 17% of the time. Maybe.
But that's the thing. You get out of that duopoly, and even democrats SUCK. Like if you grade the two parties on these metrics, while I'd get a 75-83%, democrats get 17% and the GOP gets 0%. Democrats be like "well at least we have some level of fact based governance, wouldnt you rather get 17% of what you want than 0%?" while totally missing the point. Yeah, you understand why I'm so gung ho on third parties? This is where I'm at in general. The GOP are antithetical to 90% of what I stand for, the democrats still fight me on most of my priorities but are slightly less crappy, and I just hate everyone right now.
And the only reason i aint totally going gung ho for yang 100% is BECAUSE I hate everyone right now and because my mental fortitude is so low on this stuff that most people just genuinely frustrate me these days, so I cant do the grace and tolerance thing particularly well.
But yeah, so far I give his top priorities a B.
One final thing I would like to mention though, as this bugs me a lot. What happened to medicare for all? When yang ran in 2020, his 3 signature policies were UBI, M4A, and human centered capitalism. 2 of those tenets made it into the forward party, but Yang mysteriously abandoned medicare for all over the course of his campaign. If you guys recall, it was the big thing that alienated me last time, since I do tend to be a bit of a "bernie bro" on this subject. First he supported M4A, then he shifted to a public option, which was disappointing but in retrospect not the end of the world given the funding issues (to be fair i believe lesser healthcare plans do worse on the "effective and modern government" tenet of his platform). And by the end of the campaign he just had incremental fixes.
Maybe he will come back around to it. I mean, honestly, if he really wants to take the effective and modern government thing to its logical conclusion, single payer is THE way, as public options, insurance mandates, etc., lead to bureaucratic messes full of holes. We'll have to see. I just wish he mentioned it more prominently. I mean it's an important issue, it's my #2, and yeah. Where is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment