Best products from r/PoliticalDiscussion

We found 52 comments on r/PoliticalDiscussion discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 586 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/PoliticalDiscussion:

u/jonawesome · 0 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

A dictator is a fundamentally bad thing. The best interests of all leaders (dictators or democrats) usually reside in getting/staying in power. For democrats, that means keeping a winning coalition of the people at large happy, but since a dictator has only to keep a small group of powerful supporters happy (usually a military, or a group of rich elites), they have no direct motivation to invest in public goods that benefit the population as a whole when keeping just a small inner circle happy is so much cheaper.

This is not to say there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Altruism is rare, but it does exist. Lee Kuan Yoo, the former leader of Singapore, is the best example modern history has of someone with near-absolute power who used it mostly for the betterment of the people. The problem is that hoping for altruism is playing the lottery, with pretty bad odds since it usually does take some level of ruthlessness and conniving self interest in order to become a dictator in the first place. It's hoping that someone chosen for his lack of niceness might turn out to be nice after all.

Democracy doesn't function very well without democratic institutions. It needs a system where it's beneficial for all involved to maintain the system as opposed to exploiting it. Military leaders have to feel that they're better off supporting the ruler than strong-arming them. Lower class minority groups have to believe that the system is close enough to them to not be worth rising up against. Everyone has to feel that following the law is better than bribing officials or ignoring the rules, without the necessary threat of force for it. It's hard to get there, and especially when democracy is put in place from the top down. If the power of a leader is guaranteed by American military aid, then the leader has a bigger motivation to appease the American military than to invest in public welfare. If a democrat draws support from anything other than a winning coalition of the populace, democratic institutions will lack enough power to enforce stability through democratic means.

I think your question could be asking two different things: "Can dictators be good for the people they rule over?" and "Can keeping dictators in place be good for American interests?"

The answer to question 1 is a near-unequivocal "No," though there are a few counterexamples. The problem is however that replacing them is extremely difficult.

For question number 2,the answer is often "Yes." Be careful not to confuse the two.

It is however worth remembering that even the most successful democracies had a lot of difficulty getting there. Most European countries had monarchs slowly give up more and more power over time, and have had several different political systems over the years. The initial governments put together after the American and French Revolutions were failures. The American Revolution began in 1776, and Washington was inaugurated in 1788. One could reasonably argue that America didn't have working democratic institutions until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Remember that (and the progress made in Tunisia) whenever someone writes off everything about the Arab Spring.

If you're interested in the motivations for public welfare for dictators and democrats, I would suggest reading [Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's The Dictator's Handbook.] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Politics/dp/1610391845) It explains the way that preferences affect systems in an easy to understand way with great real-life examples.

u/wellyesofcourse · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

I feel pretty good about being an American.

I vote, I rally, and I commit a significant portion of my time away from work helping to campaign for individuals whose campaigns align with my own ideals.

I know that my vote, and only my vote, can influence the outcome of elections. This isn't true in a singular sense, but if only if you are aware of Down's Paradox and actively work against it.

The United States economy is going through a great resurgence and as a direct result I've seen my salary raise by nearly $25k in the past year.

I know that the imprisonment of prisoners of war is happening and I know that it is not necessarily happening legally. I also know that despite how much chagrin we place towards "advanced interrogation techniques" that they do in fact provide some good intelligence. Albeit not all or even a majority of the time, but sometimes they do.

The major thing that we cannot truly calculate is the number of attacks that have been thwarted due to torture, phone tapping, email screening, or otherwise invasive maneuvers into my personal freedom.

I do not agree with the way that these things have come about, but I actively do my part to try and corral them.

I look at how much the US government "spies on its citizens" and then I look across the pond at the UK where there are CCTVs everywhere - the amount of "spying" that is actually occurring against your average every day citizen is not as much as some people would like for us to believe - just as it is definitely more than what some agencies would like for us to believe.

Which portions of the Constitution are you referring to? Please give me a list of specific articles and I will either agree with you wholeheartedly or I will help to explain why the Constitution is not being ignored as much as being spread by the ambiguity of legal definition; a key point considering the fact that the Constitution is a legal document.

The "frequently corrupt" police force that murders innocent people and frequently aren't held accountable is not, and I repeat, is not a staple of the US Government. In fact, each police force is representative of each individual state government and the powers held therein, in accordance with the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. So, by inherently ascribing the "corruption" of the "US" police force, you're creating a false narrative in itself - there is no "US" police force and each individual department is governed by the individual states.

These individual states would probably hold more power and sway if we, the people, did not consistently decide that we wanted the US federal government to have more control and power in our daily lives. Because of our nation's general lack of understanding of the generic makeup of our government and the underlying backbone of federalism within, we tend to make these broad assumptions.

We have the most people incarcerated of any country, sure. We also have a higher population than most of the other countries that we are often ranked against - a hugely determining factor that is so easily swept under the rug whenever any statistic such as this one is brought up. We also have an outdated drug policy that will eventually be overturned and eventually will release the vast majority of these prisoners. The key term there being "eventually" because our government was specifically drawn up to require a good amount of time for major pieces of legislation to be overruled. This helps to fight against vast swings in public opinion and also tends to help combat bouts of demagoguery - another thing that we should probably teach more about in our schools.

I'm not going to comment on "going after journalists and whistle-blowers" because the big bad US government isn't, in fact, singling these people out en masse. That being said, I'm sure that it does happen, and I'm sure that when it does there are indeed some grandiose underpinnings to it. Do I agree with it? No. So what do I do? I do what I can to help place politicians in power who can do something about it.

The US has not invaded or bombed a single country this side of 2000 where the overall achieved effect could be considered "profitable." Look at the deficit that we grew in response to the Iraq/Afghanistan war if you need further clarification.

I'm proud to be an American. I'm proud because I can see people coming from countries of true destitution come here and make something of themselves - maybe not something for them individually, but something that allows their children to have a better lot in life than they did; a most respectful endeavor.

I'm proud to be an American because I was able to study political science and focus on American politics so that I could better understand the machinations of our government and rise above the general populace and the notions of fear-mongering that so easily encapture us (something you are engaging in now, believe it or not).

I suggest that you embark on a well encouraged journey to help better your own understanding of the Constitution, the powers held within, and the intent of those who wrote it.

A good and short starting point is Philip Hamburger's paper (PDF warning) The Constitution's Accommodation of Social Change

Moreover, a large amount of the issues that you address are issues of comparison between legal thought and the ever-changing opinion of morality. I suggest you read Richard Posner's work (PDF warning) The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory

Lastly, to truly help increase knowledge of our international relations and the policies within, I suggest reading three books for three different reasons:

  1. John Stuart Mill - On Liberty - This book lays a good foundation for the questions you raise concerning the rights of citizens in relation to the government.

  2. Debra Liang-Fenton - Implementing US Human Rights Policy - This book helps to tackle the problem that you discuss concerning "profitable" bombings/invasions. It will most likely align very well with your underlying interests.

  3. Continuing on the path of international relations, I suggest you pick up David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace to help better understand some of the underlying machinations of our foreign policy fumbles.



    Often, I think that people find themselves ashamed of our country and our government due to their lack of knowledge of the underlying struggles that dictate our leaders' decision making, coupled with a lack of understanding of how exactly our leaders come into (and subsequently stay in) power. These issues are not unrelated, but instead part of a larger network of issues that all stem from a basic lack of education in the realm of civics and American government.
u/[deleted] · 9 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> is exacerbated by the juxtaposition of extreme wealth and poverty, which is illustrated clearly in Silicon Valley, a place where insane, tech wealth and a high standard of living outlines poverty in stark relief.

Having spent several years working in economic development in an African developing nation I actually find it incredibly offensive that you would even attempt to contrast US poverty with African poverty, you are confusing relative and absolute poverty too.

Poverty in a developed nation is extraordinarily different to poverty in a developing nation.

Also inequality is not correlative or causal with poverty.

> Capital gains and dividends are a big part of the problem:

Taxing capital is extraordinarily bad for growth. If you want to tax wealthy people then tax wealthy people directly, don't do it when they are doing something that benefits all of us but instead when they leverage those gains to acquire property. If you want to tax their consumption and property in to oblivion then go right ahead but to do it on the production end is absurd.

> Corporate profits and CEO pay is higher than ever, but employee pay has stagnated:

For corporate profits you are using a bogus measure. Corporate profits should be higher then they have ever been, this is called inflation and population growth. Using the same absurd measure of nominal aggregate, wages are also higher then they have ever been.

The problem is that when much of the press reports on economics they use this book as a how to guide rather then actually ask an economist to provide them with a reasonable stance on the issue. Wages continue to increase (but relatively slowly, 4.8% a decade over inflation) and all of the "missing" growth is actually accounted for as part of net compensation, increasing retirement and healthcare costs have simply been overwhelming wage growth. Spending power is massively up over the last generation, food costs have been reduced nearly 11% while incidence for every form of consumer device imaginable (from cars to air conditioners) have increased dramatically even while household size shrinks.

What has changed is our expectations, many things that were not regarded as a need but instead a nice to have are regarded as a need today which makes people often feel poorer as a result. Are there still challenges with wages and spending power? Absolutely but the grim picture that is often painted is simply wildly inaccurate, as ever our problems are with absolute poverty way down at the bottom of the scale not generally with working adults.

For CEO pay you are first wrong (pay != compensation) and secondly you are falling in to the zero-sum trap, income increases and decreases as required by the needs of the labor market and the relative change in anyone's income (be it a greeter at Walmart or a CEO) has no impact on anyone else's.

If you want to look at CEO compensation you need to be looking at executive cost of compensation not total compensation, all stock issues are no cost to the company issuing them (they are a cost to the shareholders instead) so when a CEO receives a $50m stock award and $5m of pay only the $5m in pay is incurred as a cost to the company.

> he rate of social mobility has declined over the years: A study done by the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which has collected data on economic, health, and social behavior of U.S. families and individuals since 1968 revealed that among all income brackets, about 36% of families in the 1970’s and 37% in the 1980’s experienced no social mobility. In the 1990’s this number grew to 40% of families. Among the poorest income groups the number rises to 53% of families that saw no improvement in their economic situation. Basically, this means that the American dream or the ability to go from rags to riches is becoming just that, a dream.

False. While there is some dispute regarding where we stand with economic mobility most economists place it as being relatively static as it is in most advanced economies.

Economic mobility is strongly related to growth, the higher growth you have the more opportunities individuals have to exploit that growth and climb the economic ladder.

> Increase the tax rate on capital gains:

After they were already raised at the start of the year which moved us from high middle of the pack to an expectation of one of the higher effective rates in the world when the IRS publish effective rates next year.

What is it you seek to accomplish with this? Do you know how much income actually originates as long term CG today?

> In order to ensure this is possible a living wage would be indexed to the local consumer price index every year.

No. If you want to actually do something useful eliminate all income support programs (other then medical & retirement) and the minimum wage and replace them with an expanded EIC/Full NIT instead.

If you do this then congratulations, you have just effectively ended poverty in the US and you also managed to lower public spending very slightly in the process.

> Get rid of the cap on the top marginal tax bracket: In 2013 the top marginal tax rate is 39.6% for individuals making $400,000 more and for married couples filing jointly it's $450,000, and for head of household it's $425,000 and up. Why stop here? Modest increases in the top marginal tax rate and adding another bracket or two, say a $700,000+ at 41% and a $1,000,000+ at 43%, would help to ameliorate income and wealth inequality.

Why are you so focused on inequality? Many of the suggestions you have made so far would have certainly lowered inequality but would have made everyone (including the low-income workers you are seeking to protect) worse off as a result.

The easiest way to tackle inequality is not by directly tackling inequality, its by increasing economic mobility. Improving education, improved access to apprenticeship programs and advertising the new small investor funding options for start-ups would all help correct this problem.

> We should be working to make healthcare and education affordable for everyone.

No one disagrees with this but with respect economists have been telling politicians how to fix the post-secondary system for decades and they are not listening, replace all the subsided loan programs with need scholarships and stop trying to push post-secondary enrollment beyond the natural demand point. We have the highest post-secondary enrollment in the world not because its a requisite for entry in to the workforce but because the way we subsidize it is absurd.

With healthcare we have various other models which would be effective and we have been telling you about for decades but one side isn't interested in reform and the other is fixated on a bizarre single-payer insurance model which wouldn't resolve the delivery price problems.

u/FacelessBureaucrat · 50 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

One of the most-discussed current theories of American politics is "The Party Decides," which basically argues that party members (Governors, Senators, Representatives, as well as party leaders at state and local levels) play a much larger role in selecting their party's Presidential nominee than most people realize. Many primary voters end up following endorsements and other signals from these leaders about what candidate is best for the party. This is why, despite the Tea Party and other right-wing movements that have been around for at least a decade, moderate 'establishment' candidates like John McCain and Mitt Romney have actually won the nomination.

Based on that theory, it is very likely that the 2016 Republican nominee will be someone with experience in political office whose views fall within the mainstream of the party. That excludes Trump and Carson. It also strongly suggests that the nominee will be someone that most of the party members like and get along with, which excludes Cruz. Rubio at this point seems to be the candidate with the most support who has government experience and mainstream party views. The fact that the GOP isn't lining up behind him yet is most likely because they don't like or trust him. My prediction is that they'll come around to him when it becomes clear that the other establishment candidates (Bush, Christie, Kasich) are not going to pick up enough support to win.

Edit: Jonathan Chait examines a few theories about why the GOP establishment hasn't coalesced behind Rubio yet.

u/ethyn_bunt · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Sorry for the late response, I've been pretty busy all day.

Anyway,

> The problem, I think, is trying to make an issue that's not so black-and-white look black-and-white. In the poll you linked, read the write-in responses below. Most of the comments for the 'agrees' say things like "gains and losses are not spread evenly" or "economists understate short-term employment costs"

True. Trade is not black-and-white, there are winners and losers. There is consensus on that as well -- the losers are those who lose their jobs, and the winners are literally everyone else (not just the uber-rich). If you're interested in reading about trade and how it does and does not affect the economy, I'd suggest this Paul Krugman essay.

However, the consensus is still there. Although some particular trade deals might not be considered favorable to the US (Krugman described himself as a "lukewarm opponent" to the TPP) trade overall is seen as a massively positive benefit to the economy due to comparative advantage. The extremely quick drop in world poverty and rise in living standards can mostly be attributed to trade.

Also, I see you've noticed Acemoglu's comment. You left out

> probably less than benefits

Which makes a huge difference. I highly recommend his book, Why Nations Fail though if you are more interested in his thought process.

> It's worth noting that Sanders is only 'anti-free-trade' in the black and white world, and in reality his stance is that these agreements can be good if there are stipulations like retraining programs, comparative working condition requirements, etc.

Sander's view is about as black-and-white as you can get. He has opposed literally every single trade deal he could, whether or not they had any of those stipulations.

And, I know I've linked Krugman a lot -- I don't think he's infallible but he's one of the very best resources on trade -- here he explains in plain English why "comparative working conditions" may not lead to quite as good an outcome as you'd expect. I agree with you and Bernie that retraining programs are necessary, as would many economists (there's not quite a consensus because that is more a matter of opinion on what is "right") but the fact is that there is and has been a solid consensus in economics on the benefits of free trade, comparable almost to that of global warming for climate scientists.

u/vdau · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I posted more links to you last night. Here they are again:

> Ah yes you’re right David Autor is the chap. Fascinating work! This is what I call structural technological unemployment, though it would be more accurate to call it UNDER-employment. Of course, if these trends continue in the same direction or amplify because of technology in different ways, things could go very badly.

> This is why adaptation to Human-Centered Capitalism is so important

> https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.29.3.3

> These papers are starting to get rather old to me at least! Here’s also The Race by Man and Machine, by Acemoglu and Restrepo

> https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/aer.20160696

> These two are experts in the technological impacts on economies. Check out The Second Machine Age by Brynjolfsson and McAfee. I’d bet you could find some good papers by them if you search for it:

> https://www.amazon.com/Second-Machine-Age-Prosperity-Technologies/dp/0393350649/ref=nodl_

> Another good one about post-scarcity economics might be Abundance by Peter Diamandis. He’s not an economist but check out all those boards he’s on!! Guy knows his stuff

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance:_The_Future_Is_Better_Than_You_Think

> Really was trying to find a good paper for you by Young Joon Kim, Kyungsoo Kim, and Su Kyoung Lee in 2017... shucks. Published in the journal Futures. In any case you can find a good related article here: http://earchive.tpu.ru/bitstream/11683/52262/1/jess-62-288.pdf

> This last one was very much a clincher study, so enjoy! Behold: Technological innovation and employment in derived labour demand models: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis
Mehmet Ugur, Sefa Awaworyi Churchill and Edna Solomon! So much glorious MATH

> https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/16035/1/16035_Ugur_Technological%20innovation%20and%20employment%20%28AAM%29%202016.pdf

Btw I’ll let you know more how to persuade me after I finish breakfast but check them links out

Ooo I really wanted to find this one for you but can’t find a non-paywalled link. This would show you a lot of the data for manufacturing

Technological prospective of manufacturing for the year 2030 by Miguel Alfaro, Manuel Vargas, et al

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8609728

This one was great as well, but also pay walled. This one suggests that the US workforce is incredibly lacking in higher skill sets and so will be more susceptible to automation-caused job losses. “Problem-Solving Skills of the U.S. Workforce and Preparedness for Job Automation” Sorry couldn’t find a way for you to access it for free.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1045159518818407

This one isn’t pay walled! You should definitely take a look, they mention UBI, but it was published from a law school, not an economics institute or think tank. “Technology, unemployment & policy options: Navigating the transition to a better world” by Gary Marchant, Stevens, and Hennessy which appeared in the Journal of Evolution and Technology

https://jetpress.org/v24/marchant.pdf

This one was incredibly informed, shows more figures and evidence in an easily-understandable way than I’ve seen elsewhere. “The impact of technological change on jobs and workforce structures” by Chandon Bezuidenhout, published by the Gordon Institute of Business Science

https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/64525/Bezuidenhout_Impact_2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

EDIT: so how will you persuade me that technological unemployment isn’t a problem??

I need evidence that shows conclusively that other factors are more important than automation in causing job losses and depressing wages since the 1970s. Or evidence that shows more jobs were created since the 1970s than phased out because of new technology.

Not sure how you could calm me down about Artificial Intelligences since they aren’t exactly around to test yet. Perhaps you could send me evidence for why the AI industry will not face accelerated technological research and development? Could you send me evidence for why the labor replacement potential of AI is overblown, maybe because their advancement has some kind of natural ceiling or impediment somehow?

The historical precedent of new job creation following technological destruction of jobs doesn’t seem to have kept up since the 1970s and 1980s, and seems like enough evidence for why we should be skeptical it’ll pop up some time in the future but because it popped up in the 1950s and earlier in the century. What conclusive evidence is there that Artificial Intelligence isn’t a game changer for our economy? Obviously you can’t use evidence from before there were computers for such a rebuttal. There’s no good comparison for AIs in history to use for economic predictions other than computers. It’s a tough road to persuade someone that machine intelligences will always be inferior to humans. That’s a nice story but it’s entirely based on treating Hollywood movies like real life

u/repmack · 4 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer. It's a book that looks at the validity of the government coercion. It's probably the best philosophical book in defense of libertarian Anarcho Capitalism out there.

A little outside the usual as far as political philosophy goes, but if you were ever to read a book written by a libertarian it is this one.

The book is expensive, so if you don't want to buy it these two books while not as good are a great replacement.

The Machinery of Freedom PDF by David D. Friedman, son of Milton Friedman.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard.

I'd recommend Friedman over Rothbard in this case. It's shorter and I think better.

u/SravBlu · 8 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

I'm basing it on the story told in Game Change, wherein he asked her on November 13th, 2008. Up until that point, she was privately under consideration for either State or Defense (though she did not know it), but many in his circle thought she'd pursue her own agenda, bring her husband in, or undermine Obama. Daschle, Kerry, Richardson, and Clinton were all under consideration for State, but Obama wanted a "wow factor" selection and respected her greatly. Excerpt below:

The following week on November 13th, Hillary met with Obama in his transition office in Chicago. She had some theories about why she was there, but being offered Secretary of State was not among them. Two nights earlier at a dinner in New York with her and Bill, Terry McAuliffe had asked about the rumors swirling in Democratic circles that the gig might be tossed her way. "It's the craziest thing I've ever heard," Hillary replied. Not that she thought a job offer was out of the question, but she expected it to be a token unity gesture, something both sides knew she would almost certainly turn down - maybe Health and Human Services. When the chatter about State picked up, she assumed the Obamans were floating it and was suspicious about their motives. "Why are they putting my name out?" She asked her friends. "How does it help them? What game are they playing?" But now, here she was, sitting alone with her former nemesis, and Obama was talking about the job in earnest.

After that, the story goes that she initially turned the position down, but later accepted it after he more or less talked her into it.

Belated Edit: The above book relies very heavily on unattributed "insider" quotes, so there's no guarantee of the above story being true. Just wanted to provide some more background info on this version of events.

u/ShadowLiberal · 16 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

To be fair, he's hardly the only one.

In 1969 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Republican Majority that correctly predicted coming Republican dominance due to demographic changes. And the book was quite right when you look at presidential contests. From 1968 to 1988 Republicans won 5 out of 6 presidential elections. And the 1 they lost (Carter, 1976) they only narrowly lost.

In 2004 someone wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority, making much the same prediction based on demographic changes. Sure Bush later won reelection that year, but the exit poll numbers only reinforced the author's point about how the GOP was losing in growing demographic groups, and hence likely to struggle more at winning elections.

These kinds of demographic changes DO NOT mean it's impossible for one party to win the white house however. Only that until demographics or voting behavior starts changing significantly that one party will struggle more at winning national elections.

To say that demographics mean Democrats will control the government for the next 4 or however many decades goes too far.

u/wordboyhere · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

I strongly recommend The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer, to everyone here.

  1. No controversial moral assumptions: NAP? Egoism? Nope, just commonly accepted moral premises.

  2. Very charitable interpretations of statist arguments. Defenders of democracy (including Rawlsian liberals) and consequentialists will not find strawman among these crowds. Here's a talk by him on these topics.

  3. A thrilling chapter on the psychology of authority - why do we even accept the state if it's immoral? Here's a talk by him on this chapter.

  4. The empirical case for anarcho-capitalism (second half of the book). Can defense, justice, and police be provided in an anarchist society?

    This is probably the best libertarian intro book other than the Machinery of Freedom.
u/skybelt · 4 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

In college, Cleveland's History of the Modern Middle East was my favorite history book about the Middle East. A little clinical and textbook-y but I thought it was very objective with a good level of detail.

Edit - I also thought From Beirut to Jerusalem was excellent. This was before Friedman became his current hacky self, and is very different from his work the last 10+ years. This book was very enjoyable and easy to read, and therefore would be very accessible for somebody just treating it as pleasure reading. The big downsides are that it may be a bit outdated and it isn't comprehensive or complete - it largely focuses on covering the highlights of the Israel-Palestine conflict and Lebanese civil war; it also isn't as academic.

u/prinzplagueorange · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Becoming politically literate is not like learning how to fix a car. There is no "unbiased" how-to manual. The reason for this is that political discussions consist of claims about: a) what the facts are, b) which facts matter and how they matter, c) whose claims about the facts are trustworthy, and d) what justice consists of. Most of these disputes are ideological, and so you will not find an ideologically netural ("unbiased") account of politics.

I would suggest immersing yourself in different political media and then see which points of view tend to best account for the facts and to best correspond to your sense of justice. Spend some time watching Fox news (hard-right), skimming through the NY Times (center-right), and and then listen to FAIR's Counterspin (hard-left).

Here are some books I would recommend. (These are all written from a hard-left to center-left perspective, but their authors are all serious scholars/intellectuals, and you will learn a lot from them.)

-Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States

-Vijay Prashad's The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World

-Joseph Stiglitz's The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them

-Doug Henwood's After the New Economy

u/Zenmachine83 · 25 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Attempting to blame democrat migration for the state of gerrymandered districts is weak tea and intellectually dishonest. While gerrymandering has always existed in our country, it has never been conducted on the scale which the GOP engaged in gerrymandering after the 2010 census and tea party rise to power. All of this is well documented in this book which shows a coordinated effort by the GOP and their donors to subvert democracy through gerrymandering of congressional districts. We are not only talking about red states here either but also blue and purple states where the majority of voters are dem but are represented primarily by republicans since 2010.

Fortunately gerrymandering is fairly easy to prove in court and we have seen a number of successful legal challenges to the practice over the last year. If this continues, dems may not have such a steep road to re-taking the house, especially when one considers the recent results in special elections...

u/delmania · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> How do you square that description with his support for Trump policies that clearly clashed with his principles?

That's easy to answer, it's rule 4 of the excellent Dictator's Handbook, which is Pay your key supporters just enough to keep them loyal. The Republican Party depends heavily on the financial donations of 3 ultra-rich families to run elections and stay in power. These families despise Trump's personality, but love his policies (for the obvious reason these policies enrich them). It's not even a stretch to say that Ryan was told by the GOP leadership to support Trump to ensure the financial donations continued. I think resigning is probably the only principled action Ryan has ever taken.

u/freudian_nipple_slip · 26 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

I also think there's some kind of bond that the First Families share, despite political differences. They go through an experience that almost no one can possibly relate to, other than other First Families.

One of the more fascinating books I've read was called the President's Club and it's how past Presidents kind of serve as someone a current President can bounce ideas off of, even when they're the different party. This didn't always exist, I think around the Eisenhower/Truman era is when it started, but it was a really interesting read.

It makes sense how Bill Clinton and HW Bush have worked together so much on things like aid relief.

u/Not_Pictured · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I've been reading The Righteous Mind and find it incredibly enlightening.

I come from a conservative background and am now a right anarchist (anacho-capitalist) and it helps explain my own moral journey in a way that fits global trends and humanity in general.

I really think liberals stand to gain the most from learning about the differences you talk about.

Good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmz10uQsTYE

u/tehfunnymans · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

OK, I understand. With that out of the way, I'm not sure I buy that the GOP and Democrats have had major differences in their ability to nominate the candidate they prefer. It's been a while since I read it, but IIRC, this book on the subject concluded that partisan elites have effectively controlled the outcome of almost every primary since the primary system was put in place in both parties.

u/NFB42 · 57 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

People who don't like Nate's predictions (because he says their candidate is going to lose) have always liked to attack Nate as wrong and not knowing what he's talking about.

There's a very legitimate track of criticism against Nate this cycle. One that I followed since last August and one that Nate himself ended up confessing was true: How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump

Nate's not a political scientist. As a pundit he's no more informed than the average pundit, and way less informed than the (rare) knowledgeable pundit. He and many at 538 screwed up in 2015, because they'd tried to fill the Political Science shaped hole in their data journalism by adopting The Party Decides theory. Which wasn't stupid, this was the most popular theory in Political Science up till this year, just so happens 2016 is the election cycle that pretty much proved The Party Decides theory wrong (or at least no longer applicable in the 21st century). So the 538 lost their fig leaf and the gaps in their knowledge was exposed for everyone to see.

But they're still great at data journalism. They've acknowledged their mistakes, which already puts them ahead of 99% of pundits, and unlike in 2015 now in 2016 they've got actual polls and data to work with so imo they are now delivering truly great stuff very much worth following.

Also, I picked Nate Silver for the attention grabber and ease, but he wasn't the only person doing demographic predictions. Nate Cohn did a lot, to name just one other, with equal success. And the demographic models only got more predictive as they got more actual primary voting data to go on.

u/mrhymer · 0 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

There is no such thing as a system of wealth distribution. The only definition of distribution that applies to wealth is a statistical measurement. There is no single owner of wealth that has any kind of system for distributing (verb) it anywhere.

I see your book and raise you two better books on the subject.

  1. http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Revolution-Rands-Government/dp/0230341691/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371834968&sr=1-1&keywords=Free+market+revolution

  2. http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y
u/cassander · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Start here if you want to understand how people believe different things than you. Self interest aside, haidt has the best examinations of the foundations of political difference I have ever seen in a single book.

u/pondiki · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

A History of the Modern Middle East

> This comprehensive work provides a penetrating analysis of modern Middle Eastern history, from the Ottoman and Egyptian reforms, through the challenge of Western imperialism, to the impact of US foreign policies. After introducing the reader to the region’s history from the origins of Islam in the seventh century, A History of the Modern Middle East focuses on the past two centuries of profound and often dramatic change. Although built around a framework of political history, the book also carefully integrates social, cultural, and economic developments into a single, expertly crafted account. In updating this fifth edition of the late William Cleveland’s popular introductory text, Martin Bunton provides a thorough account of the major transformative developments over the past four years, including a new chapter on the tumultuous Arab uprisings and the participation of Islamist parties in a new political order in the Middle East.

u/jub-jub-bird · 30 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

You might be interested in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which has to do with the moral psychology of the left and right.

The main gist of the book is that people have several different hard wired foundations for morality... things that we are predisposed by human psychology to see as good vs. evil. He tentatively identified five of them as: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation (and he later added another: Liberty/Oppression). He ran a variety of studies to get people to rank how important each of these foundations were to them and discovered that people on the left prioritized Care/Harm over all others (Fairness/Cheating was also important to leftists but less so... the other three were not important at all). The right surprisingly was almost as compassionate ranking Care/Harm only slightly lower than the left did but they ranked all others much higher to the point where all five (and later six) moral foundations are ranked roughly equally in the right wing world view. In instances where left and right disagree there is almost always one or more of the other moral foundations which the right is balancing against compassion and which the left is disregarding as unimportant.

The book is of course much more involved that that discussing where and how he came up with his thesis, the experiments he did and his speculation about the social utility of each of the moral foundations and why they appear to be hard-wired in our heads and changes he made to his theory along the way. It's definitely worth reading.

u/patron_vectras · -1 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> Then every government or party that ever existed, republicans included, is socialist.

Yes.

I'm a Constitutional Libertarian. I think the Constitution needs a bit more definition and enforcement, but is the best way to go about running this country - for now.

> Name one thing any government has ever done that does not affect an economic market.

Can't - we all affect the market. Governments are made to spend money collected from people who have other ways to use it.

> The fact that democrats just forced 15m people to buy insurance from private companies, should nix any ideas that democrats are socialists.

Making everyone buy insurance or pay a fine/tax is pretty darn socialist, no matter if they funnel people through existing channels. Which are corrupt and protected, anyway.

u/LtNOWIS · 10 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Well, the interesting part of the story is John Yob. He traveled with his wife Erica, and another couple (Ethan and Lindsey Eilon) from the mainland to the US Virgin Islands in late December or January. John, Erica, and Lindsey were elected as delegates, so they comprise half the delegation. John Yob is a Republican party campaign guy who worked for the presidential campaigns of Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and John McCain, along with various statewide campaigns in Michigan. He has a lot of experience working conventions in Michigan, and just published a book called "Chaos: The Outsider's Guide to a Contested Republican National Convention." Being a delegate doesn't just let him hang out in Cleveland and cast his vote, it lets him put motions on the floor, try to organize other delegates, and so forth.

There's a court case about whether Yob's people fall under the 90-day residency requirement to be able to vote and serve as delegates, and whether that restriction is even constitutional. It will be decided on March 22. If those 3 people are removed, then the alternates would replace them and Rubio would pick up a pledged delegate. But like I said, I don't think Yob wanted to be a delegate just so he could vote for his preferred candidate and hear a bunch of speeches.

u/mamapycb · 7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

1949: The First Israelis is a good one for Israel.

All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror This one is a good primer to understand the politics that got america so deeply involved in the middle east.

u/joshTheGoods · 2 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Not only that, but he was instrumental in how the second bailout was spent. The New New Deal is a great inside look on what happened there.

u/HeavySweetness · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

I recommend a book called "Rat F*cked," by David Daley, which details how Republicans took advantage of the 2010 Census through their "REDMAP" plan. Every 10 years, we redraw districts once we get new data from the census. While Democrats have a decided technological advantage on GOTV, Republicans applied that same type of data analytics to Gerrymandering, capturing many state houses which then decide federal level districting plans.

u/favorite_person · 32 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Books: Game Change and Double Down

Both amazing books about elections with behind the scenes information. I can't wait until this year's book comes out!

u/BCSWowbagger2 · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Based on his Twitter feed, he seems to lean more Trump than Cruz, but honestly I think he just wants to be at the RNC because he lives for the idea of a contested convention that sticks it to The Man. He literally wrote the book on it.

u/vaginalodor · -1 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0230341691/

http://www.amazon.com/Econoclasts-Supply-Side-Revolution-Prosperity-Enterprise/dp/1610170245


those are the two best books on the subject

The free market revolution being less trickledown economics then it is a book that defends capitalism from the modern assault of "socialism is better".

u/elonc · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> The President doesn't have to save the country he just has to keep the lights on and not do anything dumb.

If you enjoy reading, you should read The Presidents Club.

u/FranciscoDankonia · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

And if they hadn't picked Obama, Kennedy, and Reagan, they would have picked McCain, Nixon, and Carter, none of whom were terrible choices either. Primaries are not especially democratic and before this year "The Party Decides" was the prevailing theory for how nominees were effectively chosen. It's only when the party elites have lost control over the electorate that we end up with candidates like Trump. It's no secret that the DNC was dealing behind the scenes to give Clinton an edge over Sanders, as they should.

u/Old_Army90 · 7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Complete side note, if you're into this kind of stuff, you ought to read The President's Club. It goes into a lot of detail about the relationships each president had with the others. Really interesting read.

u/kormer · 7 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

The book that originated the theory.

This should be mandatory reading for any aspiring political analyst. Too many people read the book and concluded that since demographics would allow democrats to win no matter what, they could abandon the center and push whatever the base wanted without consequence. Trump unfortunately is the consequence of not reading the book more closely.

u/brennanfee · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

> YES! The people had a choice to choose anyone they wanted, based on his platform, supported by Lobbyist A or not, and they didn't.

You are just simply wrong. The system, as described, is broken. No matter who tries to run only a supporter of Lobbyist A is the result. Over and over again, year after year.

> Right, which is why the parties represent exactly what they've been representing for the past 150 years and have never changed at all.

The change we are talking about only began in the last 50 years.

> If the people want Jared, and Jared isn't supported by any lobbyists, they can elect him anyway. That's possible!

No, the reality matters. In our example, Jared might be part of the Owl party or even outside party. What's "possible" doesn't matter... only what happens given the reality of the workings of the machine. With FPTP, Jared will have no chance. Code and Pepsi rule the "soft drink" market. No challenger will come along and take first or second place ever again. The fact that it's "possible" technically but impossible practically is what we are talking about here. They simply wouldn't allow it. That's how we define monopolies and duopolies - not by what's possible but on how things actually function. Of course, given our pro-business government we allow them to retain their control without encouraging real competition because that's what the business want - who cares if it is no longer capitalism as a result. We no longer seem to care about monopolies or unfair competitive practices because the businesses own the politicians.

> I read the stupid paper. It's not very convincing.

I never referenced the paper, you did. This is a more fundamental concept then that paper. [Besides, it was a peer reviewed paper so making it sound like just a one-off is disingenuous.] Where we are at an impasse is the method used to determine the form of government.

> Stop treating me like a child. It's unbelievably stuck-up.

Reflect on your viewpoint. That's what adults do. You have mistaken my willingness to use your definitions as tacit approval of that definition. You keep dodging the fundamental question because you are clearly WRONG on the fundamental question when using your definition. That is very child-like behavior. Still, I apologize for getting snippy, it is uncalled for regardless.

> He supports PR for the UK because people vote for actual parties there, unlike here where they don't.

That's a painfully simplistic view of what he "supports".

Finally, I'll note yet again you dodge the question of what method to use to determine what a government is. You maintain the structure is enough. Yet, when provided clear examples both in the world and through the thought experiment that your definition becomes untenable you refuse to reflect and examine the more established definition or viewpoint. As I have said repeatedly, having the vote is not enough. In our thought experiment the structure is sound (you have yet to indicate a problem with it)... and yet, it is clearly a system to deny the people what they desire. It has clearly been manipulated to prevent the people from having real control or say in who they vote for and the policies produced as a result. Democracy in name only; autocracy in result. Might as well just get rid of the vote. [Which is coming, that's where we are headed. Once the labor force collapses, the people will no longer be necessary and autocrats will simply rule.]

In a functioning democracy, you should be able to see a link between the vote tally and the seats and policies created. When 55% of the people vote monkey and 45% vote tiger... your legislation should be as close as practicable to a 55/45 split. The policies created should than reflect a compromise between the views of monkey and tiger. Owl is is still screwed in this example and so still produces an issue. Again fixable.

The only reason we have lasted with this imbalance so long is due to the checks and balances and the Bill Of Rights. The genius of the founders was to avoid that centralization of power and a corruption of the people's basic rights. But as I have said, they failed only in addressing one issue; defacto control by outsiders through the party system. As I have said, they were just unaware that that outcome is inevitable with FPTP. During their time, FPTP was the only known method. Genius is always weighted within its time; it is unfair to use the knowledge of today to reflect on their inability to "see" it. Our problem is that even people today aren't aware that there are better ways.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486938000&sr=8-1&keywords=dictators+handbook

u/etherael · 3 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

> Why wouldn't corporations, left to their own devices in a stateless society, be able to do the same?

When the government does this, there is no recourse. They forcibly extort the resources that they subsist upon. If a private organisation attempted to do this, they would be enormously unpopular and their competitors would be well served to capitalise on their idiocy by both highlighting it, and offering concrete assurances as to how such a thing would never be done on their watch.

It really comes down to that, political authority gives an institution the ability to parasitically extort its funding. Destroy political authority and the institution has no such ability and must actually compete for custom and serve its customers.

> private entities are subject to the same corruption that governments are because they are made of people.

People aren't the problem, [political authority is the problem] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Political-Authority-Examination/dp/1137281650). Take away political authority and the state is just an extremely unwieldy and incompetent private organisation that would fail very quickly in the event that it had to actually compete with other parties and finance itself directly from its own activities. It is political authority that gives it the ability to parasite and thus survive, and only political authority.

This is why in any argument with a strident statist, they will cede any ground, exactly as you are doing now, in agreeing that the state is corrupt and broken and utterly incompetent, they will go to any length to agree that the state of reality is not as it should be, accept any potential political compromise or diversity of political opinion, shift and move with the punches as quickly as they flow. But the last, rocky outcrop of defense that these people will not countenance ceding is the idea that the state has the right to impose upon society its existence via forcible parasitism and extortion. This is because they know that without that right, it is surely doomed.

With that right, nothing else matters, it's all just political wrangling over the slowly devoured carcass of actually productive wealth generating economic activity within a society. Deciding which parasite gets which piece of the decaying pie, while those with the power to not end up roadkill flee from the crumbling edifice altogether.

Not a good view of the future, my intent however is not to inspire or acquire converts, but to warn, and to reach out to the remnant that understands where this inevitably all leads. If you want to stop it, they must be destroyed, otherwise, sit back and enjoy the decline.