r/PoliticalDebate

What problem is it actually trying to solve?

Historically, nationalism was a way for people to consider themselves as one people and deserving of representation as that people. It served both to control & standardise as well as liberate. In the case of Germany, we have a stamdardised german identity so that a whole german state could emerge. In the case of the balkans under Ottoman rule, it was a way for these ethnicities to organsie around a common identity and resist Ottoman rule, to have a state for themselves.

With regard to the US historically, there has never been an American people, even today there's hardly an American people. America is understood by the differences between people and how even with differences, you can all get along. (Never mind fot now actual american history thats full of prejudices and their atrocities). The melting pot, the statue of liberty, the way you become american not by adopting some american identity, but by believing in that hope of America.

Not until recently has there been a push for a distinct American People who deserve the land over other people who are Not American. Often times this is just blatant racism and xenophobia.

But what im really curious about is what you conservative nationalists or something similar are really trying to solve? How does it make your life better by believing in this stuff? Especially against other potential solutions that more directly solve your problems? Why do americans need a national identity and why do you need to ruthlessly exclude other people from it?

I recently came across Jason Brennan's defense of free market capitalism (he has described himself as a bleeding heart libertarian) and I was surprised considering he's for an Epistocratic political model.

For context epistocracy is a form of government in which representatives are elected by the knowledgeable part of the population as opposed to universal suffrage. I'm aware he proposes maintaining the free market as a way for those that feel excluded from the political mechanism that would keep out large sums of the population if implemented. But doesn't this proposal constitute a weak pitch, considering it doesn't commit to its political principles enough to apply them economically? If epistocracy is meant to ensure that political power is at the hands of the knowledgeable, why doesn't it advocate for the same on economic power? In a strictly State Socialist model, private property would not exist and therefore resources and wealth would be managed by state appointed experts and planned centrally, as opposed to Marxian economics which puts economic power on the hands of the workers on the grounds of combating alienation, and capitalist economics which places it on the hands of the entrepreneurial class on the grounds of promoting competition. I do know that Brennan himself is a skeptic and doesn't believe that epistocracy is an idea that can produce a perfect system. What I want to know is if this idea is more compatible with first, second, or third position economics, or something completely different.

I’ve been working on something called CounterSwipe.

The premise is simple: everyone says they want to hear different opinions, but most people never actually sit across from someone who disagrees and defend what they believe.

CounterSwipe turns that into a game.

You swipe on a prompt, pick a side, then match with someone who picked the opposite side. From there, you debate one-on-one and get scored on things like logic, persuasion, and civility.

No hiding behind vague takes. No just agreeing with the crowd. You either defend your opinion or realize it is weaker than you thought.

The prompts can be serious or fun: politics, culture, moral dilemmas, relationships, free speech, sports, anime, health, and random hot takes people already argue about anyway.

The part I’m testing is whether people actually want disagreement when it is direct, structured, and a little competitive.

A few questions I’m thinking through:

Would people debate someone who disagrees if it felt like a game?

Would scoring make people try harder, or would it make the conversation feel too artificial?

Should the app lean into serious issues, fun chaos, or both?

Would people rather debate friends, strangers, or AI first?

The bigger idea is to make challenging your own opinions feel more fun than just collecting agreement.

For context, this is the project:

https://thinklavender.com/counterswipe

Would love honest feedback on the concept, landing page, or what would make this actually fun to use.

A lot of people are confused as to why Trump won, why Reform are doing well, why the right-wing is capturing the centre and working class rather than the left. I thought I'd sort of break this down from a British perspective and give some insight as to why this is happening.

In the UK we have three major liberal & left-wing parties which are the Labour party, Green party, and Liberal Democrats. Whilst we currently have a Labour government they won with 33.7% of the vote (the lowest vote share in modern history) however, since this has happened the Labour Party has collapsed in the court of public opinion. Some would assume that the working class would move to the Green party after this but they seem to have moved to Reform UK, but why is this? How come the right has captured the working class and swing voters when that is normally the left and liberal territory in the UK?

Left and liberal parties seem to be committing to some very unpopular and disruptive policies. The first mistake is committing to open borders and mass immigration. Mass immigration mostly affects the working-class since they tend to be based in the North and in large cities in the UK which is where the demographics have been changed the most. They've been impacted by the job competition, wage depression, housing competition, and cultural changes the most which is why the liberal/left seems to have lost them. In several western countries polling shows that immigration is one of the most important issues to people and the majority of the population would like net zero or net negative immigration.

Left and liberal parties also seem to be committing to certain social issues that we seem to have imported from America. Considering the British people are on average quite conservative when it comes to social issues this is off-putting. UK YouGov data shows growing scepticism when it comes to the rapid policy pushes when it comes to youth transitions, bathroom access and "gender affirming care" for minors especially off the back of the Supreme Court ruling. Another social issue that is turning people off is the anti-family agenda. The rhetoric coming from these parties is that traditional family units are oppressive or undesirable. There is also the issue of crime and policing where calls to defund the police and getting soft on crime is off putting when a lot of the liberal/left's historic voter base lives in urban areas with more crime.

The final commitment the left and liberal parties are making is the welfare state and net zero policy. Whilst the working-class and swing voters like a safety net the welfare state is funding healthy shirkers and "new entries" into the UK. What once was a safety net has now become waste and high taxation. Over 50% of UK households are net recipients of benefits and it is destroying the country and the economy. The UK has also introduced a 2050 net zero target however, we have the highest energy bills in Europe and we cannot afford to do this, its economic suicide. Energy bills sky rocket from the costs of this policy, new net zero infrastructure and renewable obligations. This is also nonsensical because we have less sun than Alaska in the UK and little wind.

In order for the liberal/left parties in the UK and the wider West to recapture the hearts and minds of their historic voter base they have got to abandon their post 2000 consensus. Rather than doubling down they have to reconsider the rapid social experimentation and fiscal activism.

Geographically, this is true.

Looking at an election map from 1924 and comparing it with one from 2004, obviously the states that were red before "switched" with the blue states

But when it comes to the actual political positions of the two parties, they didn't literally switch

Republicans are and have always been more protectionist than Democrats

Republicans have more consistently been strict on or anti-immigration

Republicans have most commonly been laissez - faire on the economy while Democrats have been more in favour of government programs and spending

The southern strategy was certainly real but the GOP didn't just up and change all of its positions at any point

I think that most people either deny that the parties evolved at all or they believe that they switched on everything, but neither view is the complete truth

Consider the extreme for explanatory purposes: imagine a world with no crime, no conflict, a society of intelligent and peaceful people working together to solve their common economic and social problems.

If someone appointed themselves the governing authority, how would they justify their existence? How would they justify imposing laws on society and enforcing them with guns when the people were already solving their problems themselves? By its nature it would divide society, it would create conflict and crime and then justify its actions as an effort to resolve the conflict and crime.

Political institutions make their living promising to solve social and economic conflict while at the same time imposing social and economic conflict. It's like anti-virus companies creating new viruses so you have to buy their software to protect your computer from the viruses they created.

How would defense contractors and their suppliers and the ancillary industries make a living if the state didn't perpetually start wars?

I am pro tech, global trade, capitalism, and even billionaires but support robust safety nets, public goods, and services. I probably am a third way neoliberal.

Healthcare and education don’t function like normal consumer markets. Healthcare is relatively inelastic, patients often lack information compared to providers, and society generally agrees people shouldn’t go bankrupt or die because they can’t afford treatment. Education also has massive long-term benefits for society and the economy, which is why many countries view it as an investment rather than just a private good.

They are positive investments for society and we already pay taxes towards them (more so than some of the countries that have better access to them), so the problem seems like allocation and set up of the systems.

Are there any case studies of nationwide successful free market healthcare or education initiatives?

Even market-oriented countries like Sweden, Norway, Germany, and others still maintain large public involvement in healthcare and education while remaining capitalist economies. So the real debate doesn’t seem to be “markets vs socialism,” but rather what balance of markets and public systems creates the best outcomes.

Propaganda, now has effectively made 2 groups. Left vs Right. Which is a fallacy itself, people’s political opinion is not 1 dimensional, on some subjects you agree on what is formally known as right wing or left.

Propaganda has made it into us vs them, we are completely right and you’re wrong. Whatever side should you be. The herd, they all believe in the same thing, the propaganda narrative.

Look at today, either you’re pro Palestine leftists or pro Israel right wing. Each side believes they’re righteous.

Is it just me or when you think about it isn't the entire system of companies and rich people dodging taxes by using tax loopholes and the fact that governments don't go after these tax loopholes but they go after the guy just trying to make 20 bucks isn't that when you think about it the same way that France was before their Revolution or many other medieval kingdoms work when well the peasants had to pay a majority of the taxes and the rich didn't pay a red Cent.

We have seen often that it is too easy to elide things based on how you frame positions. Propose that every political position requires some kind of template so that soft pedaling issues is lessened. Something like:

1. What is the position and its constitutional underpinnings

2. What is the actual implementation of the position (not just "trans gender rights " but what does the actual implementation of that mean? Includes timings and expected dependency changes.

3. Cost and how will it be funded and where will that money come from (new taxes, cuts to other program, what are you offering up from your own side's budget to pay)

4. Success metrics and time frame and how you will measure and validate

5. Graduation criteria and how you will rescind the policy if not met

6. Edge cases (this is the hardest one because it requires poking holes in your own story and offering those up)

Too often parties are unwilling to address these proactively and a tennis match media is unwilling to ask these of candidates. What else might be valuable?

Ever heard the joke: "how do you know a politician is lying? His mouth is open."?

That's because there are tremendous benefits to lying in politics and almost no consequences. A political candidate can promise voters anything he wants -- a pony and ice cream for everyone -- but he has no obligation to honor his campaign promises if elected. They just blame it on the other party blocking their attempts to get things done. It lays the foundation for re-election when he can use the same unfulfilled promises as "there's still work to be done!"

And since being elected is a popularity contest, it makes sense to promise people what they want in order to be popular with them. If even one competitor lies likes this then everyone has to in order to remain competitive.

If elected the benefits of sensationalizing, half-truths and outright lies become so abundant, the consequences aren't significantly different from zero. Six figure salaries, Cadillac health-care, free coach class flights, $2 million expense budget, go to the office, don't go to the office etc. guaranteed for four years. It bears no resemblance to reality.

Every now and then congress will put on a dog and pony show of political theatrics claiming to be policing their own but it's not much more than grade schoolers squabbling at each other with "yes you did", "no I didn't" for an hour and then nothing happens.

"Laws" are written so vague and abstract that they can be successfully manipulated by a clever enough "Lawyer" who knows how to manipulate the system.

A "Judge" is some guy like, George or Bob or Dave, in a dress sitting at an elevated position in order to present a position of superiority who gets to decide people's fate.

A jury is a collection of strangers -- some with a grade school reading level -- who get to decide whether someone is guilty or not.

Then they all squabble like grade schoolers claiming "Objection", "Overruled", "Objection", "Sustained" based on the Judge's interpretation of the vague and abstract rules of the game and his/her subjective biases.

The people on trial are game pieces and at the end of the day, their life hangs in the balance but for the players, it's all just a game of win or lose.

Then they all go home and sleep like a baby knowing a jury of illiterates, a judge with a porn fetish and a corrupt prosecutor sent a working man to prison because it's not a perfect system but it's the best we got.

The three fifths compromise was an attempt by the North to stop the South from inflating their representation by counting their entire slave population.

They negotiated it down to 3/5ths to even out the North and South representations.

And when a state abolished slavery, they would get full representation.

So it would have been even worse if the South could have counted their entire slave population.

Yet people say the entire slave population should have been fully counted and given representation and the fact that they the South couldn’t do that was racist?

I don’t get how so many misunderstand this.

Also, it never says slaves are “3/5ths of a person”

It says apportionment will be provided to “the full free person population, plus 3/5ths of the population of all other persons.”

So when SCOTUS ruled slaves are property and not people, they got it wrong. Slaves were people according to the constitution.

Politicized issues are created by those who want to use the force of politics and government to mold the society they want regardless of the social, economic or personal costs to others. These are issues that never get resolved so those financing them can remain in power. These are non-issues outside the realm of politics.

Climate change, women's rights, wage gap disparity, minority rights, covid, gay rights, handicap rights, elderly rights, animal rights, free speech etc. Everything is a political issue now because people have learned how to manipulate the narrative, leverage the process and get what they want.

If you adhere to and obey these movements you are politically correct, a badge of social honor that shows you are a team player, a patriot, a useful idiot.

Freedom used to be the badge of honor, now it's used as a punchline. You can't help those not willing or able to help themselves.

Pennsylvania holds its primaries on Tuesday May 19, but 1.4 million registered independents and third-party voters are excluded from participating.  That’s because Pennsylvania is one of only eight states left with a "fully closed" system where independent voters are excluded from the major party primaries that often decide who represents them.  https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/state-primary-election-types 

As a registered independent and a native Pennsylvanian who started my career in Philadelphia, I put together a quick 3-minute video detailing the current legal and legislative battle over open primaries in PA.

Some argue that an open primary is like being in the "Elks Lodge" and naturally not wanting people from the "Moose Lodge" to help pick your leaders. But here’s the problem with that: what if the folks from the Moose Lodge were required to pay dues to the Elks Lodge, just as Independents must pay taxes to help run the major party primaries? And because of gerrymandering, the primary is often the only election that matters. So the real question is: why are you forced to pay for a club that won't let you in?

And I’m not alone in that view.  My video features data from the latest Franklin & Marshall poll showing 77% voter support for open primaries (see: https://www.fandmpoll.org/franklin-marshall-poll-release-august-2024/), the ongoing constitutional lawsuit (see: Independent voters file Commonwealth Court lawsuit to end closed primaries in Pa. • Pennsylvania Capital-Star), and support from five former PA governors of both parties who are pushing to open up the ballots (see: https://www.ballotpa.org/).

For anyone local to Philadelphia who wants to get involved on the ground, the grassroots organization "Let Us Vote" is hosting an informational picket line on Tuesday May 19 at the Community College of Philadelphia at 1700 Spring Garden Street from 4:00 to 5:30 PM to draw attention to voter exclusion.

Check out my full video breakdown here if you are interested: 1.4 Million Pennsylvanians Cannot Vote Tomorrow 

I usually see that people from all sides of the political spectrum get mad if someone tells them that they didn't vote. That it is considered irresponsible or morally wrong. But the problem are actually uneducated voters.

If a person who doesn't feel educated enough in politics to cast a meaningful vote decides to abstain then that is a completely fine and rational decision. Also if none of the candidates represent your views then the best thing is to abstain.

Voting is often framed as a civic duty but it isn't it is a right and one is free to choose to exercise or not his/her rights.

Just to be clear, I am not from the US and we have a lot of parties here with usually around 5 to 7 parties being elected.

Blaming voters perfectly encapsulates a total misunderstanding of how elections operate and what they mean.

An election is simply a snapshot of persuasion as a decision to pick someone, and people express their opinion of who they trust more.

If the candidate you supported lost, that’s a failure on your candidate for failing to convince the electorate.

Not on the people for not agreeing with the candidate you support.

A question primarily based on the context of this clip, in which the premise that ethno religious identity or self determination is somewhat repressed in a state of equal rights is heavily implied.

It has always baffled me as to why the interviewers are posing this contention between "jewish state" and "state of equal rights" as if they are necessarily mutually exclusive. I understand that proponents of zionism claim that jewish sovereignty is necessary to ensure the protection of jewish interests and safety, and often cite historic oppression and their vulnerability in the unpredictable changes in political environments they cannot control. I don't believe that a group's goals of self preservation in itself is inherently wrong. But is jewish sovereignty and governance not possible as a state of equal rights, in which all citizens are equal, individual rights are preserved, and the rights of minority groups are also protected? It's reasonable to assume that this is what Mamdani meant in this context.

We see this possible in the case of native americans in America, where, as another ethno-religious group, one wouldn't (?) usually claim that self determination of their identity is prevented despite their existence in a secular state, but it is instead actually protected by laws. Or famously in Singapore, where the interests of each religious group is protected equally in a multicultural society.

So I suppose, giving the BOD to the interviewers that they aren't simply trying to make Mamdani look bad and actually wish to make a distinction between a Jewish state and a state of equal rights, in that a state of equal rights is implied to be the somewhat less desirable option between the two, in what cases or policies typically observed in an equal, non-hierarchical society might we see Jewish interests being repressed or ignored?

On the other hand, if the interviewers are wrong, and it IS possible, as seen in other multicultural societies, why is this not yet a reality - or rather, what is preventing this from becoming a reality in Israel?

One thing that I think is an intention of democraric republics that has been distorted by practical application is having people who choose to enter, what i call, the political game and represent constituents.

In its ideal form, this person is a learned and educated person with regard to political philosophy, material governance, and diplomacy. They will take their responsibility if representing hundreds, even thousands, seriously. While they may not be able to understand all thousands of people... they will nonetheless make the honest effort. Perhaps arriving at some acceptable average. Sure, they will have their biases and they will do what they think is right.

However what we get are career politicians who are interested in power and money. They want to influence the whole country to what they think is right. You, the constituent, are a means to that end. You are a vote. One vote closer to their power. When actually engaging in the process of decision making, it is a game. Their political bloc needs just one more vote over the other to win. Who cares what the constituents think, the bill must pass! Whos bill? Whoever pays me enough money. Are you not interested in this and what to be the ideal representstive? It doesnt work that way so its you against entire ossified political blocs. Conform or go home.

So what of the consituent then? If theyre just a vote, what does their opinion actually matter? Well well start telling you what it is you want to hear and what you should think matters. We'll play off your material woes and instead redirect you to what you should actually be mad at. They tell you what to think. We let politicans speak for us.

Alternatively, why dont we simply speak for ourselves? Why dont we organise in our communities and talk among each other? Not people of political identities, but as people who live in similar material conditions and can understand each other. Why dont we organise ourselves to push for the change that would *Actually* help us? Or even better... to Make the change that would actually help us. To create subverssive and alternative systems that dont rely on the silliness of the political game.

We only have one life to live. Are we really going to live it passively?

Considering that the resolution's terms have many different interpretations and that constitutionality and military capabilities are key topics. Are you for or against the resolution and why.