Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

This is a little like saying that cyber crime is a good thing because it keeps organised crime syndicates busy rather than their going out and demanding protection money directly. A Trump presidency is also preferable to, for example, jonottawa but that does not mean that I am looking forward to it. As a liberal I believe strongly in the rights of individuals and one such right is the ability to choose which organisations to belong to. I think it is perfectly possible to make unions strong enough to fulfill their role without imposing such measures on workers.

 

If someone gets to take advantage of the collective bargaining, it is only right that to pay for that benefit.

[Cyberyeti]

If someone gets to take advantage of the collective bargaining, it is only right that to pay for that benefit.

 

It allows a lot of bullying, if you don't agree with a dispute and you're in a closed shop, it's a lot more difficult to not be involved in it.

[helene_t]

I used to (when I lived in Denmark back in the days before the death of the social-democratic movement) be against the IMO too strong power of unions. I considered the political system to be more democratic and more likely to represent the will and the interests of employees.

 

When I moved to the Netherlands (which is a slightly more right-winged country but also the zeitgeist was about the change in 1996), I became more sympathetic. The Dutch political system is reasonable and the press is not bad either, but there is a lack of political interest among ordinary people which means that we cannot really rely on voters keeping an eye on politicians. So we need other ways of represent ordinary people's interests. Unions are by no means perfect and I would certainly not like unions to seize the power which politicians currently have. But unions add to the mix.

 

Currently (hopefully not too long any more) I live in the UK, a country in which the political system is almost complete dysfunctional. We need all the grassroot movements we can get to make sure that the voices that are not heard in politics are at least heard somewhere else.

[mikeh]

In the 1950s, GMC wanted cars built, the UAW wanted decent wages and working conditions. Even this simple model went awry first when the Volkswagens hit and then much more so later on. But it was a fairly straightforward arrangement of adversaries. Winston mentioned police unions and firefighters. This is already more complicated but at least we can assume that nearly everyone wants fire protection and police protection. With the schools it is tougher yet. Perhaps most people agree that educating our children is important, but for many people this is an abstract obligation. They don't have kids, or their kids are grown, or they have kids but are planning on sending them to a private school, etc. Through their vote, they influence what happens. Also, there is far from universal agreement about what's important in education. When I was in high school, Paul Rosenbloom gave free Saturday lectures in mathematics to those of us who were interested. This was my first encounter with that level of brilliance and it was very useful to me. Of course this did not do much for the kid thinking of dropping out of school.

 

Give us five dollars an hour, a forty hour workweek, time and a half on Saturdays and the we will put the pistons correctly into the cylinders and get the valves attached to (or rather correctly placed for) the camshaft. That sort of negotiation was straightforward. With education it is much less so.

You use an interesting reference. Afaik, unions have a management role in VW, including the right to have seats on the Board of Directors. This is common in large companies. Altho technically, workers have two ways of being involved: unions and workers councils, which co-exist.

 

One of the main problems with unions in the US, Canada, and the UK, in terms of the private sector, is the us v them attitude. Now, that isn't just because of the unions: it takes both sides to create an adversarial relationship. That's why co-opting the workforce into ownership/management seems like such a powerful approach.

 

This approach would not seem to translate well into public sector unions.

 

Police, firefighters, paramedics are special cases, imo, in that they routinely get involved in highly stressful situations. They deserve special consideration, especially since it would seem ill-advised to allow them to go on strike!

 

Teachers are another special case, imo, since they are or should be regarded as an investment in the future of society. My impression is that teachers are grossly undervalued in the US. The salary scale in most places is miserly, and this cannot help but be a disincentive to many who might otherwise make excellent teachers. The reasons for this are surely many. The role of religion in American life seems to be a major factor, since it is generally known that a reality-based education tends to lessen religious conviction....remember Santorum's proud claim that he went to college and remained a fundamentalist despite doing so?

 

Btw, anyone who thinks unions are a bad idea is either a person utterly lacking in empathy or someone ignorant of relatively recent history....say the late 1800's into the mid 1930's. Are unions ideal? I don't think so, but imagine any industrial or post-industrial society in which the wealthy can dictate working conditions and pay without regard to collective action by the workers.

 

Even in sectors or subsets where unions do not exist, the fact that unions exist elsewhere influences compensation, benefits, and working conditions.

 

In my firm, for example, we have no union. However, the Provincial Government is a major employer of clerical workers. The government is unionized, with a strong union. I guarantee you that firms such as ours would likely be paying less to our staff were the union rates over at the government not what they are. The same is true in the construction industry, where the rates negotiated with the large, unionized, employers trickle down to the non-union shops, who need to be competitive (at least when times are good) or risk losing their good workers.

 

As for the closed shop: it has its downsides, but I agree with Richard that the alternatives are designed to destroy unions, not to preserve individual rights. Unions depend on being able to mobilize the workforce to pressure the employer. This includes such things as having funding to pay a modest amount in strike pay in some cases, to prevent the employer's usual economic clout from prevailing. This is difficult to do if employees perceive that they can get a free ride by staying out of the union.

 

The idea that forcing someone to be part of a union against their wishes is wrong falls flat once we realize that in any civilized society citizens are required to comply with many majority decisions despite finding them to be antithetical to their values. Indeed, a lot of Americans are going to be finding out over the next four years, in a very real way, that they are compelled to abide by decisions made by a minority of voters.

[jogs]

Your summary suggests that Bourdain engaging in precisely the same behavior that he is criticizing...

WOW, amazing. The elitist progressive left has dehumanized Trump supporters. The left has called them every vile name under the sun. Yet, you believe the left is above criticism.

The left is really good at dishing it out. Not so good at taking it. PC against the 1st amendment. Trump will end PC. And you guys won't like it.

[billw55]

WOW, amazing. The elitist progressive left has dehumanized Trump supporters. The left has called them every vile name under the sun. Yet, you believe the left is above criticism.

The left is really good at dishing it out. Not so good at taking it. PC against the 1st amendment. Trump will end PC. And you guys won't like it.

What does it mean that he will "end PC"?

[Winstonm]

It allows a lot of bullying, if you don't agree with a dispute and you're in a closed shop, it's a lot more difficult to not be involved in it.

 

There are flaws, for sure. But labor is a lot like the field of medicine in that one always has to weigh the benefits versus the detriments - collective bargaining does more good than harm.

[hrothgar]

WOW, amazing. The elitist progressive left has dehumanized Trump supporters. The left has called them every vile name under the sun. Yet, you believe the left is above criticism.

The left is really good at dishing it out. Not so good at taking it. PC against the 1st amendment. Trump will end PC. And you guys won't like it.

 

I'm not sure how you were able to go from

 

"Bourdain is being hypocritical" to "Hrothgar believes that the left is above criticism".

 

Then again, given that you are simultaneously praising Trump for "ending political correctness" and complaining the the left is calling you "vile names" perhaps the problem isn't with me...

 

It's almost as if you are exhibiting some extreme form of tribalism that causes you to label anything that the left does as "bad" and anything that Trump does as "good".

 

How does that old poem go

 

Do you contradict yourself?

Very well then you contradict yourself,

(You are petty, You hear voices.)

 

or something to that effect...

[Winstonm]

WOW, amazing. The elitist progressive left has dehumanized Trump supporters. The left has called them every vile name under the sun. Yet, you believe the left is above criticism.

The left is really good at dishing it out. Not so good at taking it. PC against the 1st amendment. Trump will end PC. And you guys won't like it.

 

One question only: if you alone had to make a decision that would either protect the U.S. or destroy the U.S., whose advice would you trust: Hillary Clinton or Julian Assange?

 

Edit: Let me ask another: which group is a more honest and reliable source for Trump to listen to about intelligence, United States intelligence agencies or Wikileaks, Putin, and Julian Assange?

[Zelandakh]

One question only: if you alone had to make a decision that would either protect the U.S. or destroy the U.S., whose advice would you trust: Hillary Clinton or Julian Assange?

If I am responsible for making such a decision, why am I limited only to the advice of these 2 individuals? It is simply a stupid question, on the same level as: "If you were Declarer in 7NT, whose advice would you trust: Britney Spears or Justin Bieber?"

[Winstonm]

If I am responsible for making such a decision, why am I limited only to the advice of these 2 individuals? It is simply a stupid question, on the same level as: "If you were Declarer in 7NT, whose advice would you trust: Britney Spears or Justin Bieber?"

 

Fair enough. Let me rephrase it, then. Who do you think most concerned about protecting U.S. interests, Hillary Clinton or Julian Assange?

[Zelandakh]

Fair enough. Let me rephrase it, then. Who do you think most concerned about protecting U.S. interests, Hillary Clinton or Julian Assange?

"Concerned about".....clearly Hillary as she is (or at least was until a few years ago) paid to do so and Julian Assange is regarded as a fugitive by the US government and has no responsibilities in that area. Whether that concern is a positive force in practice, or merely a cover for personal interests (or even a dark plot to enthrall the country! :lol: ) is another thing entirely and the answer probably depends on the political biases of the respondent. It is perfectly possible to think that neither has any great concern for protecting US interests. I could naturally ask the same question back - who do you think is most concerned about protecting US interests, Britney Spears or Justin Bieber?

[Winstonm]

"Concerned about".....clearly Hillary as she is (or at least was until a few years ago) paid to do so and Julian Assange is regarded as a fugitive by the US government and has no responsibilities in that area. Whether that concern is a positive force in practice, or merely a cover for personal interests (or even a dark plot to enthrall the country! :lol: ) is another thing entirely and the answer probably depends on the political biases of the respondent. It is perfectly possible to think that neither has any great concern for protecting US interests. I could naturally ask the same question back - who do you think is most concerned about protecting US interests, Britney Spears or Justin Bieber?

 

Your response goes along way to explaining the thinking of populists - that all ideas have equivalency.

 

I think this equivalency fallacy is possibly the result of gaslighting.

 

Although it is perfectly possible to think neither Hillary or Assange care about the U.S., is it perfectly reasonable to do so? When you remember that Hillary spent 30 years working in public offices for the U.S. and Assange, not a U.S. citizen, created Wikilieaks, do you really think there is an equivalency? Only if you discount the past and inductive reasoning based on that evidence and emphasize a reality based on a Kafkaesque set of maybes.

 

Myself, I think it displays a troubling disregard for reason to even suggest the possibility that Julian Assange and Hillary Clinton neither has an interest in protecting U.S. interests.

 

And it is clear that because she is older and a woman, Britney Spears cares more! :P

[Zelandakh]

Now we can get into a discussion on levels of concern. Almost everyone in the West has an interest in protecting US interests to an extent, if the alternative is being ruled by an authoritarian regime. If I gave you the name of a random Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian/Georgian/etc you would probably also not consider them concerned about US interests but the majority are surely hoping that America is there if Putin comes knocking on the door.

 

HC has considerable assets that depend for their value on the US being a viable state. It would hurt her personally if the US failed so I am quite surprised to read you suggesting that she would have no interest whatsoever in protecting US interests. The same answer could equally be given for BS and JB, although you have pointedly refused to answer these questions thus far. :o

 

JA I know less about - it might be that he feels that greater openness is very much in America's interest, even if you and the government would disagree. That could lead to a discussion about what concern for US interests even means. After all, a white supremacist will often have a strong concern about national interest but that interest is probably not for the same America that you would want.

 

In short, I suspect we have different ideas for what an interest or concern in US interests might be. There are naturally different levels of this and differing ideas for how to show national interest. Nationalism, well that is another discussion.

[Winstonm]

Now we can get into a discussion on levels of concern. Almost everyone in the West has an interest in protecting US interests to an extent, if the alternative is being ruled by an authoritarian regime. If I gave you the name of a random Lithuanian/Latvian/Estonian/Georgian/etc you would probably also not consider them concerned about US interests but the majority are surely hoping that America is there if Putin comes knocking on the door.

 

HC has considerable assets that depend for their value on the US being a viable state. It would hurt her personally if the US failed so I am quite surprised to read you suggesting that she would have no interest whatsoever in protecting US interests. The same answer could equally be given for BS and JB, although you have pointedly refused to answer these questions thus far. :o

 

JA I know less about - it might be that he feels that greater openness is very much in America's interest, even if you and the government would disagree. That could lead to a discussion about what concern for US interests even means. After all, a white supremacist will often have a strong concern about national interest but that interest is probably not for the same America that you would want.

 

In short, I suspect we have different ideas for what an interest or concern in US interests might be. There are naturally different levels of this and differing ideas for how to show national interest. Nationalism, well that is another discussion.

 

Yes or no questions are somewhat unfair, I understand. How about a different tack. Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

[Zelandakh]

Yes or no questions are somewhat unfair, I understand. How about a different tack. Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

Clearly not as I have no first-hand information on the subject whatsoever and indeed had not even heard of JA's claim until reading this message. Until more details come out, I doubt any private individual can make a truly informed decision. I sometimes work on a "balance of probabilities" basis in such cases but there are enough examples of both misinformation from the state and from the internet not to be able to rule out either case for now. It might well be that the security agencies do have enough details that Trump could, if he so wanted, rule out JA's claims but that is another matter and I doubt he would choose to do so even if that information was available to him.

[Winstonm]

Clearly not as I have no first-hand information on the subject whatsoever and indeed had not even heard of JA's claim until reading this message. Until more details come out, I doubt any private individual can make a truly informed decision. I sometimes work on a "balance of probabilities" basis in such cases but there are enough examples of both misinformation from the state and from the internet not to be able to rule out either case for now. It might well be that the security agencies do have enough details that Trump could, if he so wanted, rule out JA's claims but that is another matter and I doubt he would choose to do so even if that information was available to him.

 

First, to what "misinformation from the state" do you refer?

 

Second, are you now arguing that personal lack of specific knowledge makes all likelihoods equivalent (because that's what it sounds like)?

[olegru]

Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

"Who are you going to believe, your loving wife or your lying eyes?"

It should not be question of believes at all. It should be question of evidence. For the best of my knowledge 0 evidences to support that claim were presented by intelligence agencies so far.

[hrothgar]

For the best of my knowledge 0 evidences to support that claim were presented by intelligence agencies so far.

 

I am shocked! SHOCKED I say, that Olegru is not being looped in on classified intelligence briefings.

[billw55]

Yes or no questions are somewhat unfair, I understand. How about a different tack. Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

 

Heh. For me "Julian Assange said so" is about as convincing as "Donald Trump said so".

[rmnka447]

Yes or no questions are somewhat unfair, I understand. How about a different tack. Can you give me reasons, i.e., explain, based on past and present behavior, why Julian Assange's claims about Russian interference in the U.S. election should be believed over the U.S. intelligence agencies?

Assange claims the information WikiLeaks released wasn't from the Russians. But how can he know? It could easily have been funneled through several hands to uncouple it from the Russians. So anything Assange says has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

 

However, in yesterday's testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a couple things clear. There is no evidence that the Russians hacked or otherwise interfered with the mechanisms of the election. (So, the implication is that the vote was a true reflection of the people's will.) Also, the intelligence community can't define what effect, if any, the Russian attempts to affect the election had on the final result.

 

Those comments differ from the slant of stories from unattributed intelligence sources that attempt to insinuate that Russian interference turned the election for Trump. As far as I'm concerned, any such unattributed stories amount to fake news or political hyperbole until they are confirmed by public on-the-record declarations by intelligence agencies. So far, that hasn't happened.

[olegru]

I am shocked! SHOCKED I say, that Olegru is not being looped in on classified intelligence briefings.

Sarcasm does not prove anything.

[Winstonm]

"Who are you going to believe, your loving wife or your lying eyes?"

It should not be question of believes at all. It should be question of evidence. For the best of my knowledge 0 evidences to support that claim were presented by intelligence agencies so far.

 

I agree that evidence should drive beliefs, and so far the evidence is that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have stated that Russia was responsible for the hacking and one non-U.S. citizen with a history of trying to damage U.S. national security and evading prosecution has stated Russia didn't do it.

 

So, which evidence are you going to believe?

[alok c]

One question only: if you alone had to make a decision that would either protect the U.S. or destroy the U.S., whose advice would you trust: Hillary Clinton or Julian Assange?

Edit: Let me ask another: which group is a more honest and reliable source for Trump to listen to about intelligence, United States intelligence agencies or Wikileaks, Putin, and Julian Assange?

Short term or long term?

[Winstonm]

Assange claims the information WikiLeaks released wasn't from the Russians. But how can he know? It could easily have been funneled through several hands to uncouple it from the Russians. So anything Assange says has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

 

However, in yesterday's testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a couple things clear. There is no evidence that the Russians hacked or otherwise interfered with the mechanisms of the election. (So, the implication is that the vote was a true reflection of the people's will.) Also, the intelligence community can't define what effect, if any, the Russian attempts to affect the election had on the final result.

 

Those comments differ from the slant of stories from unattributed intelligence sources that attempt to insinuate that Russian interference turned the election for Trump. As far as I'm concerned, any such unattributed stories amount to fake news or political hyperbole until they are confirmed by public on-the-record declarations by intelligence agencies. So far, that hasn't happened.

 

I gave you an up vote but I am unclear about any media stating that the election was compromised by the Russian hacking - their misinformation and fake news campaign success or failure is probably impossible to quantify. I don't see that as an issue and I doubt anyone else on the Democratic side of the aisle thinks it is an issue.

 

The issue is that even after receiving the intelligence briefings Trump still feels he has to discount the effects of the Russian interference because he misguidedly believes that would somehow diminish his victory - that everything - including an attack on our very democratic process itself is not important, his concern revolves solely around his need to feed his damaged ego. This is such a profound symptom of a crippling narcissistic disorder that it should medically disqualify the man for high office.