Hey, I hear you, but the age cutoff could also be on holding office.
As someone just hitting the 60 yr old mark, and looking at my parents who are still pretty sharp in their late 80s, -- so definitely talking about myself and my capacity here,
No-one over 70 has any business in a high ranking government office. The mental flexibility isn't there.
Which means no one over 66 should be allowed to run office (yes, I know this puts senators in office until 72, and kicks out representatives at 68, but it also gives a single number which is easier to understand).
It's also a question of accountability. A 40 year old politician will expect/have to live with their choices for another 40 years.
It’s not just mental ability it’s a set of perverse incentives: the old robbing the future of the young, instead of planting trees whose shade the old will never personally enjoy.
That's a response to an opinion I don't hold, but I could have been more clear. The claim I'm making is about the fitness to hold office. Specifically: septo/octogenarians belong at the ballot box, but not on the ballot. If you'd like to dissuade me of something, that's the meat of it.
"Among voters under 26 years old, the only race-by-gender group to have majority support for Harris are women of color."
"Our best estimate is that immigrant voters swung from a Biden+27 voting bloc in 2020 to a Trump+1 group in 2024. This is not a small group either - naturalized citizens make up around 10% of the electorate."
You're overlooking that the geriatric people are carrying on the traditional liberal/conservative debate on both sides of the aisle. My observation living in an area that has a mix of 70+ WASPs and younger black and hispanic people is that the WASPs are the ones who are by far the most incensed by Trump. They don't just dislike his policies. They hate the way he talks.
> My observation living in an area that has a mix of 70+ WASPs and younger black and hispanic people is that the WASPs are the ones who are by far the most incensed by Trump. They don't just dislike his policies. They hate the way he talks.
A lot of minorities in America like the tough on crime talk because they're often the ones most affected by it.
> You're overlooking that the geriatric people are carrying on the traditional liberal/conservative debate on both sides of the aisle.
Workers skew young, capital skews old. When politics is money literally the only thing the left / right actually agree on is fucking over young people.
That's what it takes to collectively focus on inflating real-estate / stocks that the youth is locked out of, while ignoring the labor market, and the cost of education, and periodically blowing up the economy on behalf of interest groups, with outsourcing or the like previously, next with AI. We've probably been in a job recession for years, and we only just noticed.
I think that's exactly what OP meant? While Trump's policies take the long term gerontocratic/anarcho-capitalist dynamics strangling of our society and crank them to 11, a lot of younger people ended up buying into his "burn it all down" messaging imagining it would result in some principled evenly-applied reform that might get the boot off their own necks. And that level of foolishness seems straight from the naive rashness of youth.
I think it’s better to reevaluate what voters’ interests are instead of throwing up our hands and assuming they just don’t understand what’s good for them.
My wife’s much younger half siblings are in their early 20s. They come from middle or lower middle class backgrounds in a secondary or tertiary city in Oregon. The one who is mixed race is MAGA, and the one who is white shares her pronouns on Zoom so I assume she leans liberal. But I’ve never heard them talk about the economy the way you’re talking about it (“boot in their neck”). Their parents aren’t rich, but they’ve been able to afford to give them some runway to launch, and both have gone into healthcare fields (one into occupational therapy, the other into nursing). Their lives are pretty comfortable and I don’t think they see politics through the perspective of some 1930s West Virginia mine worker like you do.
There is too much to unpack here. Perhaps you'd like to make your point in something other than identity politics anecdotes and personal attacks?
If you don't like my phrasing of "boot on their necks", feel free to substitute your own when constructively responding to the point. The frustrations that have led to Trumpism are certainly palpable and understandable, so don't feign like I'm using hyperbolic language out of nowhere.
But no, in general I am comfortable modeling Trump's second term as a complete self-own on the part of voters - regardless of whether they've realized it yet, or ever will. As a libertarian who partook in both red and blue tribe media and was both sidesing through 2020, I have not come to this conclusion lightly. There has simply been no way I've been able to steelman it.
I’m not attacking you, I’m criticizing your analytical approach. You’re starting from the values that you think should matter to people, then faulting them for not making decisions you think are rational according to those assumed values.
Your dismissal of “identity politics” is a good illustration of that. Identity is a dominant force in politics! Around the world and throughout history, identity trumps almost everything else when it comes to conflict between humans.
I mentioned the demographic factors because those demographics (young white women and young non-white men) had notably different trend lines in the last couple of elections, despite having pretty similar economic circumstances. It’s worth considering whether those kids aren’t irrational and actually just value different ends than what you think they should value.
> through the perspective of some 1930s West Virginia mine worker like you do.
That was the personal attack I was referring to. I was referring to the dynamic of the obvious frustrations seemingly driving much of Trumpism, and yet you're imparting that back onto me. That's called shooting the messenger.
> You’re starting from the values that you think should matter to people, then faulting them for not making decisions you think are rational according to those assumed values.
No, you're assuming here. As I said, I've been trying to steelman Trumpism in terms of any kind of constructive policy for some time and I can no longer find anything that fits.
> Your dismissal of “identity politics” is a good illustration of that
No, that dismissal is based on the red tribe making a good show of dismissing identity politics for the past ~16 years - aka stated preferences. Would you say that my assertion that people should be honest about their preferences is imparting too much of my own opinion about what should matter? The alternative of course, which seems to have good predictive power, is straight up hypocrisy.
> value different ends than what you think they should value
Solving for these values is exactly what I have been doing, as I have been saying. For example in 2016, I was the weirdo telling my blue tribe friends that Trump was likely to win as he was resonating with a lot of frustrations people have that the blue tribe just did not understand. Maybe from that you can see that I am capable of seeing, respecting, and even sympathizing with others' values even if there may be other values I prioritize instead?
Or alternatively you could just come out and state those values! This should be easy right? Rather than beating around the bush?
I would only insist that they be constructive values that aim to be beneficial rather than merely making some spectacle of hurting others. So for example "deport illegal immigrants" doesn't qualify as it's a destructive framing - the constructive framing would be something like "fix the labor market for blue collar citizens". But if this movement truly has some substance making our country better and is not merely just lashing out about our problems, this should be easy.
And of course since we're talking about continued support for Trump, those values should be congruent to the policies he is actually enacting.
You keep attributing straw man points to me, and then dutifully knocking them down.
A recognition that many people feel disenfranchised and preyed upon by our system, which is why they turn to [what I consider] extremist fantasies like communism or Trumpism, does not represent "my analytical perspective".
More germane to our "conversation", I merely threw out "fix the labor market for blue collar citizens" as an example, reflecting a context of arguments that most people make.
So no, I am not "taking cultural relativism as axiomatic" - that's merely your strawman pigeonholing of my position. An example of constructively stating your point about culture could be something like "re-popularize values that made our culture successful".
Of course culture in the abstract has the same vague generality as "values" or "policy", and so I would ask the analogous thing about which specific constructive aspects of culture you see Trump and Trumpism as improving. For example simply "deport people from other cultures" is not constructive as it's framed on the negative dynamic rather than as a constructive outcome to be achieved. I'm not going to give a constructive example this time lest you make another straw man out of my attempting to fill in the blanks of your argument. Rather as it's your argument, you should make it!
Also note that it is necessary to talk in terms of objective cultural values rather than handwaving about a previously dominant culture because, love it or hate it, our society is intrinsically multicultural. And I know that M-word can be triggering for a whole host of negative talking points, hence the need to focus on the positive/constructive.
Hey, I hear you, but the age cutoff could also be on holding office.
As someone just hitting the 60 yr old mark, and looking at my parents who are still pretty sharp in their late 80s, -- so definitely talking about myself and my capacity here,
No-one over 70 has any business in a high ranking government office. The mental flexibility isn't there.
Which means no one over 66 should be allowed to run office (yes, I know this puts senators in office until 72, and kicks out representatives at 68, but it also gives a single number which is easier to understand).
It's also a question of accountability. A 40 year old politician will expect/have to live with their choices for another 40 years.
It’s not just mental ability it’s a set of perverse incentives: the old robbing the future of the young, instead of planting trees whose shade the old will never personally enjoy.
That's a response to an opinion I don't hold, but I could have been more clear. The claim I'm making is about the fitness to hold office. Specifically: septo/octogenarians belong at the ballot box, but not on the ballot. If you'd like to dissuade me of something, that's the meat of it.
What is the justification? Why can someone vote for a future they're not likely have to endure?
We don't allow under 18s to vote, so clearly some age restrictions are legitimate.
Of course, when I go to my local city planning meetings and see the demographics shouting down any new housing my feelings are different.
Which groups are those?
"Among voters under 26 years old, the only race-by-gender group to have majority support for Harris are women of color."
"Our best estimate is that immigrant voters swung from a Biden+27 voting bloc in 2020 to a Trump+1 group in 2024. This is not a small group either - naturalized citizens make up around 10% of the electorate."
(Source Blue Rose Research, a top data analysis firm hired by Democrats: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2.... Pages 7 and 9.)
You're overlooking that the geriatric people are carrying on the traditional liberal/conservative debate on both sides of the aisle. My observation living in an area that has a mix of 70+ WASPs and younger black and hispanic people is that the WASPs are the ones who are by far the most incensed by Trump. They don't just dislike his policies. They hate the way he talks.
> My observation living in an area that has a mix of 70+ WASPs and younger black and hispanic people is that the WASPs are the ones who are by far the most incensed by Trump. They don't just dislike his policies. They hate the way he talks.
A lot of minorities in America like the tough on crime talk because they're often the ones most affected by it.
> You're overlooking that the geriatric people are carrying on the traditional liberal/conservative debate on both sides of the aisle.
Workers skew young, capital skews old. When politics is money literally the only thing the left / right actually agree on is fucking over young people. That's what it takes to collectively focus on inflating real-estate / stocks that the youth is locked out of, while ignoring the labor market, and the cost of education, and periodically blowing up the economy on behalf of interest groups, with outsourcing or the like previously, next with AI. We've probably been in a job recession for years, and we only just noticed.
I think that's exactly what OP meant? While Trump's policies take the long term gerontocratic/anarcho-capitalist dynamics strangling of our society and crank them to 11, a lot of younger people ended up buying into his "burn it all down" messaging imagining it would result in some principled evenly-applied reform that might get the boot off their own necks. And that level of foolishness seems straight from the naive rashness of youth.
I think it’s better to reevaluate what voters’ interests are instead of throwing up our hands and assuming they just don’t understand what’s good for them.
My wife’s much younger half siblings are in their early 20s. They come from middle or lower middle class backgrounds in a secondary or tertiary city in Oregon. The one who is mixed race is MAGA, and the one who is white shares her pronouns on Zoom so I assume she leans liberal. But I’ve never heard them talk about the economy the way you’re talking about it (“boot in their neck”). Their parents aren’t rich, but they’ve been able to afford to give them some runway to launch, and both have gone into healthcare fields (one into occupational therapy, the other into nursing). Their lives are pretty comfortable and I don’t think they see politics through the perspective of some 1930s West Virginia mine worker like you do.
There is too much to unpack here. Perhaps you'd like to make your point in something other than identity politics anecdotes and personal attacks?
If you don't like my phrasing of "boot on their necks", feel free to substitute your own when constructively responding to the point. The frustrations that have led to Trumpism are certainly palpable and understandable, so don't feign like I'm using hyperbolic language out of nowhere.
But no, in general I am comfortable modeling Trump's second term as a complete self-own on the part of voters - regardless of whether they've realized it yet, or ever will. As a libertarian who partook in both red and blue tribe media and was both sidesing through 2020, I have not come to this conclusion lightly. There has simply been no way I've been able to steelman it.
I’m not attacking you, I’m criticizing your analytical approach. You’re starting from the values that you think should matter to people, then faulting them for not making decisions you think are rational according to those assumed values.
Your dismissal of “identity politics” is a good illustration of that. Identity is a dominant force in politics! Around the world and throughout history, identity trumps almost everything else when it comes to conflict between humans.
I mentioned the demographic factors because those demographics (young white women and young non-white men) had notably different trend lines in the last couple of elections, despite having pretty similar economic circumstances. It’s worth considering whether those kids aren’t irrational and actually just value different ends than what you think they should value.
> through the perspective of some 1930s West Virginia mine worker like you do.
That was the personal attack I was referring to. I was referring to the dynamic of the obvious frustrations seemingly driving much of Trumpism, and yet you're imparting that back onto me. That's called shooting the messenger.
> You’re starting from the values that you think should matter to people, then faulting them for not making decisions you think are rational according to those assumed values.
No, you're assuming here. As I said, I've been trying to steelman Trumpism in terms of any kind of constructive policy for some time and I can no longer find anything that fits.
> Your dismissal of “identity politics” is a good illustration of that
No, that dismissal is based on the red tribe making a good show of dismissing identity politics for the past ~16 years - aka stated preferences. Would you say that my assertion that people should be honest about their preferences is imparting too much of my own opinion about what should matter? The alternative of course, which seems to have good predictive power, is straight up hypocrisy.
> value different ends than what you think they should value
Solving for these values is exactly what I have been doing, as I have been saying. For example in 2016, I was the weirdo telling my blue tribe friends that Trump was likely to win as he was resonating with a lot of frustrations people have that the blue tribe just did not understand. Maybe from that you can see that I am capable of seeing, respecting, and even sympathizing with others' values even if there may be other values I prioritize instead?
Or alternatively you could just come out and state those values! This should be easy right? Rather than beating around the bush?
I would only insist that they be constructive values that aim to be beneficial rather than merely making some spectacle of hurting others. So for example "deport illegal immigrants" doesn't qualify as it's a destructive framing - the constructive framing would be something like "fix the labor market for blue collar citizens". But if this movement truly has some substance making our country better and is not merely just lashing out about our problems, this should be easy.
And of course since we're talking about continued support for Trump, those values should be congruent to the policies he is actually enacting.
@rayiner, responding to your [dead] comment -
You keep attributing straw man points to me, and then dutifully knocking them down.
A recognition that many people feel disenfranchised and preyed upon by our system, which is why they turn to [what I consider] extremist fantasies like communism or Trumpism, does not represent "my analytical perspective".
More germane to our "conversation", I merely threw out "fix the labor market for blue collar citizens" as an example, reflecting a context of arguments that most people make.
So no, I am not "taking cultural relativism as axiomatic" - that's merely your strawman pigeonholing of my position. An example of constructively stating your point about culture could be something like "re-popularize values that made our culture successful".
Of course culture in the abstract has the same vague generality as "values" or "policy", and so I would ask the analogous thing about which specific constructive aspects of culture you see Trump and Trumpism as improving. For example simply "deport people from other cultures" is not constructive as it's framed on the negative dynamic rather than as a constructive outcome to be achieved. I'm not going to give a constructive example this time lest you make another straw man out of my attempting to fill in the blanks of your argument. Rather as it's your argument, you should make it!
Also note that it is necessary to talk in terms of objective cultural values rather than handwaving about a previously dominant culture because, love it or hate it, our society is intrinsically multicultural. And I know that M-word can be triggering for a whole host of negative talking points, hence the need to focus on the positive/constructive.
[flagged]
> Go look at the demographics of the last election and then tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote
The group that uses the rhetoric like "which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote". You tell me which one that is.
Go look at recent changes to how young men vote and tell me which groups shouldn't be allowed to vote in the future.