946
Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
946 points (98.2% liked)
politics
31081 readers
3248 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The old guard (both literal and figurative) need to get the fuck out of the way for the AOC's and Crockett's who will actually speak to power instead of cowering in the corners.
The other big problem is that politics have become such a negative impact on people's lives in the US that regular people don't want to run for office anymore, which is what we really need.
They sure as eff do!
Pelosi hated the left long before the left hated her.
It's to the point that I might prefer either a direct democracy with no representatives at all or electing reps via a lottery system. Most of the people with the desire to run for office, and all but a handful of those with the characteristics necessary to wade through the muck of special interests and campaign finance to actually get in office, are the kind of people you want as far away from power as possible.
The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C. Clarke has government by lottery.
Impossible. You can't have tests like that for candidates or voters. You just end up reinventing literacy tests.
Not to mention the eugenicism this would ignite.
The eugenicism is because of the tests; not the politicians.
https://www.tumblr.com/dovewithscales/714693265828478976/very-much-so-the-early-comics-were-written-during
You think this would work because you assume we could write such tests with such accuracy as to evade bias (or that such requirement for testing wouldn't be exploited by opportunists to place metrics much more aligned with whom said opportunists would like to eradicate).
I'd point out that you say the tests should test for empathy but Empathy Deficit Disorder exists and, as EDD people often point out, the lack of being able to feel empathy doesn't stop them from wanting to help people and making choices based off that desire. They just don't feel empathy when they do it.
Of course, you're not using that word to mean literally understanding and relating to others' feelings; sympathy would certainly qualify.
But how do you ensure that? Who gets to implement these tests? And what stops it from being someone who just sees Empathy Deficit Disorder and goes, "Eew…keeping them away from this…."
I always feel to like I sound like I'm being condescending but (and I mean this as genuinely as possible) you should try selling out writing and theory by disabled authors. Because of the way disabled people are erased from both culture and society as practically a matter of function, it can be really hard to even realize the ways in which our assumptions don't factor them in. Stuff covering ability and autonomy are incredibly interesting in the ways they think about concepts due different lived experiences.
And, again, – if you had even passing familiarity with disability circles – you'd know that there are many people who have criticisms of his this currently works. This isn't remotely a perfect system and its existence doesn't suddenly make it so.
You have an idea of a system that has already gained a complete understanding of human psychology and, also, is able to assess it without fail or error.
Think very hard and long about what that sounds like…
And disabled people have discussed, at length, of how jobs like these are heated towards abled people!
I have you that answer, in my first response. Can you guarantee that these tests won't get highjacked or used by opportunists? Can you ensure they won't unfairly exclude those who shouldn't be there (gay people had to struggle with the psychiatric community to get them to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; https://daily.jstor.org/how-lgbtq-activists-got-homosexuality-out-of-the-dsm/)? And these tests are not perfect, even right now (again, it isn't surprising you don't know this as many people don't; but continuing to ignore the erased disabled voices which have pointed this out isn't going to make them a smart idea).
And many people pointed out that this was wildly unprofessional and irresponsible (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/health/analyzing-donald-trump-psychology.html). It's common amongst psychiatric professionals to not do armchair diagnosis since there's no way you can get accurate assessment from that position. But it's a great example of the way even professionals can exercise bias and poor judgement! Again, how will you ensure this won't happen with a system you've now put in charge of gatekeeping what change is even possible?
That's a problem of other systemic issues, not because we didn't use an assessment of human psychology that's far from as black-and-white or accurate as you are presuming it is.
There are other means of detecting this than using psychiatric tests. And, while you've adjusted your requirements to include sympathy, can you guarantee that others will? Autistic people struggle with cognitive empathy, too; can you guarantee that a fear campaign won't start up, that influences those running these tests to just, well, play it safe and keep these people out of the decision-making, for now? I have no interest in spending another century arguing with people who don't belong to a marginalization while the supposed findings of psychology is used to justify civil restrictions and criminal proceedings while those groups don't get a say because, well, didn't you know that psychiatry has found those people to be antisocial and unproductive?
i don't love the implication here that politicians are corrupt due to mental illness. they can be perfectly average mentally and still be corrupt because corruption is an innate and ever-present exploit of human psychology. empathetic people can be mistaken of where to place their empathy. mentally ill people can be a better option for a public office than someone else who is neurotypical, it all comes down to their platform and record of reliability. disability should not be mutually exclusive with ability to govern.
i think the second we open up the avenue for certain character traits to be banned from public office, it opens up a new avenue and mechanism for oppressive government bodies to prevent their opponents from gaining power against them. Who gets to decide what traits count as disqualifying? what measures do we use to identify who has met this threshold? where and how could someone be treated for these in order to gain back eligibility? how difficult would it be to change these rules if they were incorrect? how hard would it be for a bad actor to change these rules for their own gain? how much money would be spent on this and the lawsuits that return from it?
i think it would be infinitely simpler to just ban the actions you don't want people to do and a better mechanism to enforce it than to try and police the amorphous qualities of their character and behavior. Like, our problem here is that the executive branch has been granted too much power by congress, corporations are treated like people and can vote with their dollars, and congress + the supreme court have no mechanism to enforce laws against the executive branch. If the system was actually segregated enough in duties and insulated from capital, it would be immune to the effects of someone even as bad as trump. It would also prevent all of the false positives and the mechanisms for abuse that would open when we start calling people ineligible for innate and immeasurable qualities.
More and more this monty python sketch was spot on. With the DNC as Arthur only caring about the lord of the castle, centrists carrying the bags and clapping the cocnuts together, and progressives as the peasants: autonomous colletcive
We have the technology for direct democracy. The reason we dont do it is that it would take the rich out of power. With direct votes we'd have universal health care and Israel wouldnt have gotten its war support. We'd have action on climate control. We'd have signed onto the ICC. We'd have much stricter gun laws. We'd hold police to professional conduct standards. We'd have term limits and codes of ethics. We'd fund our teachers and firefighters better. Our military would be much smaller.
Yep. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I am thinking "shut the fuck up and go fetch AOC".