To hate the Establishment is to Hate having a Majority

MrT · Mar 2, 2016

I have started to come up with a new political theory that I would like to put out there for debate and to hopefully get some guidance on whether I might be onto something or how I could make the argument more compelling. This theory germinated from numerous statements made by Republican candidates and their voters who have repeatedly stated and demonstrated their hatred for the establishment. For the sake of this argument, I think we can agree that "establishment" should be deemed synonymous with "political experience." After all, the political polls support this link given the fact that Republican voters are repeatedly stating during the exit polls that they would prefer an individual from outside the political realm.

If you think about the current political system that is used in the United States, seniority is one of the most important elements to the Senate and the Congress because these individuals are given preferential treatment for their desired committee positions. These appointments, in turn, make it easier for candidates to get re-elected because they are able to tout their positions and the legislation that their seniority allowed them to successfully pass for their respective constituents.

The implications of a significant voting block that hates political experience are rather far reaching. As you might expect, the implications for individual candidates is rather undesirable given the fact that holding onto power becomes tougher (instead of easier) with each successful election. And yet, the implications for a political party are even more daunting if that hatred for political experience is not evenly spread between the two political parties (and it is currently does not). If you hate political experience, then a logical extension of that philosophy is that you will hate having your own political party in the majority. The only way that a political party maintains a majority status in our current political system is to have a significant mix of senior politicians along with a minority mix of fresh individuals (who would subsequently become experienced as the older individuals retire). The desire to go without political experience also means that you are constantly seeking turnover amongst your political candidates. As such, you are inevitably going to draw upon fewer and fewer qualified candidates to run against the opposing party.

Now I recognize that if you put these two questions - "Do you want political experience from your candidate?" And "Do you prefer that your political party be in the majority?" - to the voters that dislike political experience, then you are very likely to receive a "No" as a response to the later question. However, distaste for political experience in your candidate will lead to a much higher likelihood that your political party will not be able to obtain or remain in the majority.

What do you think?

P.S. Perhaps the individuals that dislike political experience are limiting that preference to their presidential candidate and not to the Senate or House, but I have yet to see that argument being made.

Ntharotep · Mar 2, 2016

MrT said:
I have started to come up with a new political theory that I would like to put out there for debate and to hopefully get some guidance on whether I might be onto something or how I could make the argument more compelling. This theory germinated from numerous statements made by Republican candidates and their voters who have repeatedly stated and demonstrated their hatred for the establishment. For the sake of this argument, I think we can agree that "establishment" should be deemed synonymous with "political experience." After all, the political polls support this link given the fact that Republican voters are repeatedly stating during the exit polls that they would prefer an individual from outside the political realm.

If you think about the current political system that is used in the United States, seniority is one of the most important elements to the Senate and the Congress because these individuals are given preferential treatment for their desired committee positions. These appointments, in turn, make it easier for candidates to get re-elected because they are able to tout their positions and the legislation that their seniority allowed them to successfully pass for their respective constituents.

The implications of a significant voting block that hates political experience are rather far reaching. As you might expect, the implications for individual candidates is rather undesirable given the fact that holding onto power becomes tougher (instead of easier) with each successful election. And yet, the implications for a political party are even more daunting if that hatred for political experience is not evenly spread between the two political parties (and it is currently does not). If you hate political experience, then a logical extension of that philosophy is that you will hate having your own political party in the majority. The only way that a political party maintains a majority status in our current political system is to have a significant mix of senior politicians along with a minority mix of fresh individuals (who would subsequently become experienced as the older individuals retire). The desire to go without political experience also means that you are constantly seeking turnover amongst your political candidates. As such, you are inevitably going to draw upon fewer and fewer qualified candidates to run against the opposing party.

Now I recognize that if you put these two questions - "Do you want political experience from your candidate?" And "Do you prefer that your political party be in the majority?" - to the voters that dislike political experience, then you are very likely to receive a "No" as a response to the later question. However, distaste for political experience in your candidate will lead to a much higher likelihood that your political party will not be able to obtain or remain in the majority.

What do you think?

P.S. Perhaps the individuals that dislike political experience are limiting that preference to their presidential candidate and not to the Senate or House, but I have yet to see that argument being made.

The problem with this theory is that the Establishment wants to keep things like delegates and super delegates alive. This flies in the face of democracy which should be one vote per American citizen.
So, wanting to do away with that particular establishment rule would be against the establishment but for the people. See?

The problem is that none of the "anti-establishment" candidates have actually talked about giving more power to the people than the "establishment".

MrT · Mar 2, 2016

Ntharotep said:
The problem with this theory is that the Establishment wants to keep things like delegates and super delegates alive. This flies in the face of democracy which should be one vote per American citizen.
So, wanting to do away with that particular establishment rule would be against the establishment but for the people. See?

The problem is that none of the "anti-establishment" candidates have actually talked about giving more power to the people than the "establishment".

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. It's been that way for a couple hundred years now.

FieldTheorist · Mar 2, 2016

MrT said:
I have started to come up with a new political theory that I would like to put out there for debate and to hopefully get some guidance on whether I might be onto something or how I could make the argument more compelling. This theory germinated from numerous statements made by Republican candidates and their voters who have repeatedly stated and demonstrated their hatred for the establishment. For the sake of this argument, I think we can agree that "establishment" should be deemed synonymous with "political experience."

That may be a problem, because I don't agree. Speaking on the Left, Bernie Sanders has experience in droves, and has more national and local experience than most candidates that have obtained the presidency, but he's definitely not part of the "establishment."

When I (and most of the people that I know) use the term "establishment," I am referring to the group of rich assholes who have sealed up the majority of avenues into Washington by taking corporate money (and corporate marching orders in return) in order to obtain, finance, and control the pieces of pie that they and their friends hold in Washington. It generally refers to being a shill for corporate America and special interests. It means taking marching orders from lobbyists. It means being a part of the Washington elite and dominating the corporate media airwaves.

Watching the entire Bernie Sanders campaign is an exercise in Washington's use of overt power and misinformation to subvert the democratic process and rig it for the Establishment. And the Establishment means multi-national corporation, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and so on. So when I look at Hillary or Rubio or Cruz, or even Trump who's just another branch of Big Business, I just see another shill isn't even begging people to a big pay day to sell out on their principles --they never had principles to begin with. They're in it for power, greed, and money. If you could have an honest conversation for thirty seconds with them, you'd immediately recognize that they are all the most selfish, self-centered, and egotistical people you'll ever meet.

Visbek · Mar 2, 2016

Well...

I don't think disagreeing with a political party's establishment means they don't want the party to have a majority. The "establishment" refers to a cadre of party elites, with a large amount of control over the party's process. It doesn't necessarily mean a majority, because that cadre may be maintaining political control through the exercise of various mechanisms (e.g. access to voter databases, provisioning funds for elections, controlling delegates).

It may result in the party relegated to a minority position. I don't think that is anyone's intention.

Fenton · Mar 2, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
That may be a problem, because I don't agree. Speaking on the Left, Bernie Sanders has experience in droves, and has more national and local experience than most candidates that have obtained the presidency, but he's definitely not part of the "establishment."

When I (and most of the people that I know) use the term "establishment," I am referring to the group of rich assholes who have sealed up the majority of avenues into Washington by taking corporate money (and corporate marching orders in return) in order to obtain, finance, and control the pieces of pie that they and their friends hold in Washington. It generally refers to being a shill for corporate America and special interests. It means taking marching orders from lobbyists. It means being a part of the Washington elite and dominating the corporate media airwaves.

Watching the entire Bernie Sanders campaign is an exercise in Washington's use of overt power and misinformation to subvert the democratic process and rig it for the Establishment. And the Establishment means multi-national corporation, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and so on. So when I look at Hillary or Rubio or Cruz, or even Trump who's just another branch of Big Business, I just see another shill isn't even begging people to a big pay day to sell out on their principles --they never had principles to begin with. They're in it for power, greed, and money. If you could have an honest conversation for thirty seconds with them, you'd immediately recognize that they are all the most selfish, self-centered, and egotistical people you'll ever meet.

You think Cruz is a establishment Politician ?

I think he's a Constitutionalist and a Conservative. When has he been a Corporate shill ?

MrT · Mar 2, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
That may be a problem, because I don't agree. Speaking on the Left, Bernie Sanders has experience in droves, and has more national and local experience than most candidates that have obtained the presidency, but he's definitely not part of the "establishment."

When I (and most of the people that I know) use the term "establishment," I am referring to the group of rich assholes who have sealed up the majority of avenues into Washington by taking corporate money (and corporate marching orders in return) in order to obtain, finance, and control the pieces of pie that they and their friends hold in Washington. It generally refers to being a shill for corporate America and special interests. It means taking marching orders from lobbyists. It means being a part of the Washington elite and dominating the corporate media airwaves.

Watching the entire Bernie Sanders campaign is an exercise in Washington's use of overt power and misinformation to subvert the democratic process and rig it for the Establishment. And the Establishment means multi-national corporation, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and so on. So when I look at Hillary or Rubio or Cruz, or even Trump who's just another branch of Big Business, I just see another shill isn't even begging people to a big pay day to sell out on their principles --they never had principles to begin with. They're in it for power, greed, and money. If you could have an honest conversation for thirty seconds with them, you'd immediately recognize that they are all the most selfish, self-centered, and egotistical people you'll ever meet.

So I think it is safe to say that the "establishment" is a bit more amorphous than the fairly simplistic definition that I gave. But you have to admit that it is nearly impossible (there are very few political landscapes that have allowed a true independent like Bernie to survive for so long) to obtain a degree of experience without becoming linked to special interest. After all, the term "special interest" is a fairly amorphous notion that could be attached to the collective opinion of your constituents.

MrT · Mar 2, 2016

Visbek said:
Well...

I don't think disagreeing with a political party's establishment means they don't want the party to have a majority. The "establishment" refers to a cadre of party elites, with a large amount of control over the party's process. It doesn't necessarily mean a majority, because that cadre may be maintaining political control through the exercise of various mechanisms (e.g. access to voter databases, provisioning funds for elections, controlling delegates).

It may result in the party relegated to a minority position. I don't think that is anyone's intention.

And therein lies the rub. How do you maintain a distaste for party elites (read: leaders within your party) without removing individuals from office after they have obtained the requisite level of leadership (read: experience) and simultaneously maintain a majority position within the congressional branches of the government?

As I said, I don't believe that there is an intent to deprive themselves of a majority and they would, probably, express an interest to do the exact opposite (obtain or maintain the majority status). And yet, if you wish to remove the individuals with leadership experience from office, I see a tendency that this will also remove the majority status from your political party.

JumpinJack · Mar 2, 2016

MrT said:
I have started to come up with a new political theory that I would like to put out there for debate and to hopefully get some guidance on whether I might be onto something or how I could make the argument more compelling. This theory germinated from numerous statements made by Republican candidates and their voters who have repeatedly stated and demonstrated their hatred for the establishment. For the sake of this argument, I think we can agree that "establishment" should be deemed synonymous with "political experience." After all, the political polls support this link given the fact that Republican voters are repeatedly stating during the exit polls that they would prefer an individual from outside the political realm.

If you think about the current political system that is used in the United States, seniority is one of the most important elements to the Senate and the Congress because these individuals are given preferential treatment for their desired committee positions. These appointments, in turn, make it easier for candidates to get re-elected because they are able to tout their positions and the legislation that their seniority allowed them to successfully pass for their respective constituents.

The implications of a significant voting block that hates political experience are rather far reaching. As you might expect, the implications for individual candidates is rather undesirable given the fact that holding onto power becomes tougher (instead of easier) with each successful election. And yet, the implications for a political party are even more daunting if that hatred for political experience is not evenly spread between the two political parties (and it is currently does not). If you hate political experience, then a logical extension of that philosophy is that you will hate having your own political party in the majority. The only way that a political party maintains a majority status in our current political system is to have a significant mix of senior politicians along with a minority mix of fresh individuals (who would subsequently become experienced as the older individuals retire). The desire to go without political experience also means that you are constantly seeking turnover amongst your political candidates. As such, you are inevitably going to draw upon fewer and fewer qualified candidates to run against the opposing party.

Now I recognize that if you put these two questions - "Do you want political experience from your candidate?" And "Do you prefer that your political party be in the majority?" - to the voters that dislike political experience, then you are very likely to receive a "No" as a response to the later question. However, distaste for political experience in your candidate will lead to a much higher likelihood that your political party will not be able to obtain or remain in the majority.

What do you think?

P.S. Perhaps the individuals that dislike political experience are limiting that preference to their presidential candidate and not to the Senate or House, but I have yet to see that argument being made.

It's not that a candidate be a non-politician. I think it's that hte politician be his own man (or woman), rather than one more suit that does what he's told.

Congress has been obstructionist, and has had different factions trying to eat each other for not following the policies decreed by the leaders of those factions. Corruption is rampant...politicians do the bidding of lobbyists, ins. cos. and energy companies and pharmaceutical companies actually write our laws, politicians are "appointed" by big money donors.

Both Sanders and Trump are different in that they are not funded by big money donors. All the others are. This means they would be free to act in the way they want, rather than feel obliged to a donor.

For example, Jeb Bush got I think over $300 Million dollars from big money donors. I think when someone gets that amount of money, the politician will likely NOT work to pass any laws adverse to those donors. Not sure if they'd actually work to pass bills advantageous to them, but I doubt he'd work to pass a law that would hurt those big donors financially. Cruz is backed by evangelicals and oil & gas. Cruz would likely veto any law that hurt those groups financially. Rubio is backed by hedge funds and investment cos. Hillary is backed by Wall Street.

Trump is himself a big money donor, of course, which I think many don't realize...that he would likely not pass any law that would hurt himself financially.

Sanders is the only one who is funded by small donations by voters.

FieldTheorist · Mar 2, 2016

MrT said:
So I think it is safe to say that the "establishment" is a bit more amorphous than the fairly simplistic definition that I gave. But you have to admit that it is nearly impossible (there are very few political landscapes that have allowed a true independent like Bernie to survive for so long) to obtain a degree of experience without becoming linked to special interest. After all, the term "special interest" is a fairly amorphous notion that could be attached to the collective opinion of your constituents.

I can agree with that as a point in principle, but that's why I support Sanders being "bought off" by labor unions, grassroots activists, and people who are trying to fix income inequality, civil liberties, etc, and many millions of individual donors. Although I don't call that being "bought off" so much as I call it "democracy."

FieldTheorist · Mar 2, 2016

Fenton said:
You think Cruz is a establishment Politician ?

I think he's a Constitutionalist and a Conservative. When has he been a Corporate shill ?

This is going to get off topic, but just being a conservative is already buying into corporate America's ideology, hook line and sinker. It's basically tautological --let's keep on pumping the military industrial establishment, let's keep on lower taxes for corporations, let's deregulate markets, etc. All modern conservatives are neoliberals first, and everything else second.

Abbazorkzog · Mar 2, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
This is going to get off topic, but just being a conservative is already buying into corporate America's ideology, hook line and sinker. It's basically tautological --let's keep on pumping the military industrial establishment, let's keep on lower taxes for corporations, let's deregulate markets, etc. All modern conservatives are neoliberals first, and everything else second.

Cruz is a Theocratic-Authoritarian.

But to be back on topic, I feel the OP is misguided. The Establishment is not the People, much less the majority.
Anti-Establishmentism (omaigawd I think I invented a new political sub-ideology) is merely the dissatisfaction (possibly as extreme as outright fury) at the notion of a tiny elite ruling with disproportionate wealth and power.
This is my reasoning for supporting Bernie and (loosely-speaking) Trump.

Fenton · Mar 3, 2016

FieldTheorist said:
This is going to get off topic, but just being a conservative is already buying into corporate America's ideology, hook line and sinker. It's basically tautological --let's keep on pumping the military industrial establishment, let's keep on lower taxes for corporations, let's deregulate markets, etc. All modern conservatives are neoliberals first, and everything else second.

Off topic ? You brought it up.

Give a specific example of Cruz being a shill for some Corporation and spare me the lazy, hackish Progressive talking points.

Also, it wasn't " Neo liberal " economic policies or a lack of Regulation that created the last Financial crisis.

It was REGULATION, corruption and unprecedented Govt interference into the private sector economy under the pretense of " fairness ".

Thoreau72 · Mar 3, 2016

Fenton said:
You think Cruz is a establishment Politician ?

I think he's a Constitutionalist and a Conservative. When has he been a Corporate shill ?

Isn't Cruz on record as saying something to the effect that he is a Christian before he is anything else? There was a thread about that here at DP.

He is a Christian before he is a constitutionalist or a conservative. Very bad for politics IMO.

fmw · Mar 3, 2016

MrT said:
What do you think?

I think a lot of people are tired of government incompetence and corruption. Why does it have to be any more complex than that?

jimbo · Mar 3, 2016

Fenton said:
You think Cruz is a establishment Politician ?

I think he's a Constitutionalist and a Conservative. When has he been a Corporate shill ?

I don't think Cruz is as much establishment as most of the rest. I also think he's principled more than most. My problem is I don't like his principles.

jimbo · Mar 3, 2016

Fenton said:
Off topic ? You brought it up.

Give a specific example of Cruz being a shill for some Corporation and spare me the lazy, hackish Progressive talking points.

Also, it wasn't " Neo liberal " economic policies or a lack of Regulation that created the last Financial crisis.

It was REGULATION, corruption and unprecedented Govt interference into the private sector economy under the pretense of " fairness ".

Cruz is not a shill for corporations. Cruz openly shills for the evangelists. I can't or won't get past that. It's a shame as I agree with a lot of his positions, but state and church must be kept separate. Cruz disagrees.

Fenton · Mar 3, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Isn't Cruz on record as saying something to the effect that he is a Christian before he is anything else? There was a thread about that here at DP.

He is a Christian before he is a constitutionalist or a conservative. Very bad for politics IMO.

Yea and so what ? The poster I was refering to said he was a Corporate shill

He has yet to give me an example of Cruz pandering to some Corporate lobbyist.

ReverendHellh0und · Mar 3, 2016

MrT said:
I have started to come up with a new political theory that I would like to put out there for debate and to hopefully get some guidance on whether I might be onto something or how I could make the argument more compelling. This theory germinated from numerous statements made by Republican candidates and their voters who have repeatedly stated and demonstrated their hatred for the establishment. For the sake of this argument, I think we can agree that "establishment" should be deemed synonymous with "political experience." After all, the political polls support this link given the fact that Republican voters are repeatedly stating during the exit polls that they would prefer an individual from outside the political realm.

If you think about the current political system that is used in the United States, seniority is one of the most important elements to the Senate and the Congress because these individuals are given preferential treatment for their desired committee positions. These appointments, in turn, make it easier for candidates to get re-elected because they are able to tout their positions and the legislation that their seniority allowed them to successfully pass for their respective constituents.

The implications of a significant voting block that hates political experience are rather far reaching. As you might expect, the implications for individual candidates is rather undesirable given the fact that holding onto power becomes tougher (instead of easier) with each successful election. And yet, the implications for a political party are even more daunting if that hatred for political experience is not evenly spread between the two political parties (and it is currently does not). If you hate political experience, then a logical extension of that philosophy is that you will hate having your own political party in the majority. The only way that a political party maintains a majority status in our current political system is to have a significant mix of senior politicians along with a minority mix of fresh individuals (who would subsequently become experienced as the older individuals retire). The desire to go without political experience also means that you are constantly seeking turnover amongst your political candidates. As such, you are inevitably going to draw upon fewer and fewer qualified candidates to run against the opposing party.

Now I recognize that if you put these two questions - "Do you want political experience from your candidate?" And "Do you prefer that your political party be in the majority?" - to the voters that dislike political experience, then you are very likely to receive a "No" as a response to the later question. However, distaste for political experience in your candidate will lead to a much higher likelihood that your political party will not be able to obtain or remain in the majority.

What do you think?

P.S. Perhaps the individuals that dislike political experience are limiting that preference to their presidential candidate and not to the Senate or House, but I have yet to see that argument being made.

You started this off on a wrong premise. the "establishment" has nothing to do with experience, but of the mindset, actions of the ruling class and it's aims and goals which for years have been divorced from the will of the people who elected them.

You see establishment politicians on both sides cater to large businesses, start wars of choices, give sweetheart deals and bailouts, commit crimes without being held accountable, all at the expense of the American people.

That's the establishment people are sick of.

Fenton · Mar 3, 2016

jimbo said:
I don't think Cruz is as much establishment as most of the rest. I also think he's principled more than most. My problem is I don't like his principles.

They're Conservative principles.

ReverendHellh0und · Mar 3, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Isn't Cruz on record as saying something to the effect that he is a Christian before he is anything else? There was a thread about that here at DP.

He is a Christian before he is a constitutionalist or a conservative. Very bad for politics IMO.

So you would never vote for a Muslim then either.

jimbo · Mar 3, 2016

Fenton said:
They're Conservative principles.

No, they're religious principles.

Fenton · Mar 3, 2016

jimbo said:
Cruz is not a shill for corporations. Cruz openly shills for the evangelists. I can't or won't get past that. It's a shame as I agree with a lot of his positions, but state and church must be kept separate. Cruz disagrees.

One example of Cruz wanting to turn this Nation into a theocracy.

jimbo · Mar 3, 2016

Fenton said:
One example of Cruz wanting to turn this Nation into a theocracy.

That's been covered in several threads. But a quick recap:

Cruz stated that no one who does not start his day on his knees is fit to be President.

Cruz has also stated he will always put the bible ahead of the Constitution.

That's good enough for me.

Fenton · Mar 3, 2016

jimbo said:
No, they're religious principles.

He has Religious principles but so what ? So you're saying a Christian should never be allowed to be President again ?

To hate the Establishment is to Hate having a Majority

MrT

Ntharotep

Well-known member

MrT

FieldTheorist

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Fenton

MrT

MrT

JumpinJack

FieldTheorist

FieldTheorist

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian

Fenton

Thoreau72

fmw

jimbo

jimbo

Fenton

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

Fenton

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

jimbo

Fenton

jimbo

Fenton