March 2020 Update -- Political Thoughts

Russia's Constitutional Change:

 -- The (probably) bad part:
    So, as far as I can tell, the nationalists have managed to get a bunch of things in there, including certain limits on people running for public office and defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This second part has justification in that other Eastern European countries also have this in their constitutions, but even "the US does this" is not really a valid excuse to do bad things. (Something which applies truthfully both to the anti-gay propaganda law and the handling of the protests. These do actually both occur in the US.)
    I don't know if citizens are going to be able to vote for only parts of the changes or if it will be a yes or no vote. I also don't know if people will have the savvy to realize that they need to oppose certain things while accepting others.

 -- The (probably) good part:
    There is a lot meant to decentralize power. Based on how they do this and what the politicians are like, it may be good or bad. There are also a bunch of things intended to make ordinary people's lives better. During this time, they are also apparently reviewing laws, and supposedly are looking at fixing some things, including the difficulty to receive residency as well as the anti-gay propaganda law.

 -- The part people have heard (misinformation) about:
    What will probably happen is that the amendment to reset presidential terms will pass, Putin will run again, and he will win.
    However, this is less of a power grab as it is an inability to give up responsibility. The amendment was proposed by others; Putin solely refused to block it (because "democracy"). Basically, as far as I can tell, Putin wants to retire, but has the sense that it is not allowed. He constructed the new constitution to put an absolute cap on presidential terms so that he would not be required to run again, and set up this "security council," which is an advisory body with no power besides persuasion, so that he would have a place where he was still part of the process, but not the main guy. It is not an attempt of retaining power as much as it is a partial retirement. If he were anyone besides a head of state, this concept would be normal.
    When I went home for the holiday break, I remember my father talking about how he was being scheduled to have a business trip over a science fiction convention. He complained about it and wondered what to do. Others told him to say no. But of course that was not going to happen. This sort of mixed feelings, sense of responsibility thing is something I also understand and experience. This is what is happening here.


US elections:

There are people voting for Biden over Sanders because they think he is a safer choice in the general election. I think these people are wrong. I think people choose Trump because they prefer a candidate outside of the Democrat vs Republican narrative rather than preferring someone who is more racist and sexist.

There are certain similarities between both major parties which cause a certain segment of the population to consider them to basically be the same party. While this is not a majority viewpoint, it may be underlying the understanding of many of those who refuse to side with either the Democrats or Republicans.

Some of these similarities are:
 -- American Imperialism: which is related to all the foreign wars, "humanitarian" and military aid, and "American exceptionalism."
Opposition to this is opposed across the political spectrum by modern American journalists and politicians, using very emotional language, but while most poorer Americans don't have a historical of philosophical understanding of this conception, they tend to be against this.
The philosophy promoted in this imperialism is:
 -- Neo-Liberalism: This philosophy is more typically associated with the Republicans and Ronald Regan, but it is also strongly associated with Bill Clinton as well. While it isn't called out by name by the general American public (as they are trained to support it), many of the aspects of it, like free trade deals and corporate welfare, are hated by poorer Americans across the political spectrum.
In the US, what people say they are actually against is:
 -- Corruption: More accurately this would be called "money in politics" or the "alliance between big business and government." The complication is that while Democratic leading people believe this is a Republican thing, Republican leading people believe this is a Democrat thing, and they are both actually correct.

Clinton vs Trump -- I keep hearing that people voted against the rational, experienced Clinton for the crazy Trump because of sexism. However, I think the narrative is flawed for many reasons. There are a couple of very strong reasons (for Americans!) to have wanted Trump over Clinton:

 -- Clinton is a pro-imperialist choice. She was responsible for encouraging the "Russia-gate" conspiracy theory which has since been debunked, and has been busy calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Her husband pushed NATO to the Russian border.
    In fact, it was the peace activist position which helped make the case for Obama over Clinton. Americans are tired of the stupid wars.
 -- Donald Trump is an isolationist who had (correctly) pointed out that nothing Putin has done is significantly worse than any American spy or politician. People called him out on this because it questions American exceptionalism, the "religious" doctrine of the US. He also spoke against NATO, although for monetary reasons, not because of imperialism.

While these people are not visible on the political stage, many people, including within the Democratic and Republican base, are anti-imperialist if not pro-peace. [And anti-imperialism is not anti-Americanism, but rather the belief that we don't have the right to be intervening in the affairs of other countries in some form.]

-- Clinton is an establishment candidate who has supported neo-liberalism worldwide (this American ideology which puts profit over people) throughout her career.
-- Trump is a non-politician, who was not Russia-phobic and had promised to get rid of corrupt politicians.

Yes, Trump has at least tried to fulfill the horrible policies he promised, pushing his Muslim ban and border wall, while breaking his promise to "drain the swamp," as in get rid of establishment politicians (considered code for anti-corruption) and failing to follow through on people's hopes that he would normalize relations with Russia (and later North Korea). But it is worth remembering that some people supported him, not for the racism, but for the anti-imperialist or anti-corruption positions.

Many other people just didn't vote because of these things -- they were anti-imperialist or anti-corruption, knew Clinton stood for these things, and didn't trust Trump. So we vote Jill Stein or refuse to vote. Trump could then win because people were not willing to vote for Clinton in order to vote against Trump.

Actually, from what I have been told, the position of the Russian government was similar. They certainly want to break Russia-phobia and normalize relations with the US, but they thought Trump was too unpredictable to hope for as a president.

I am not saying that racism and sexism are not factors, I am just saying that people can't ignore the fact that people hate the wars and corruption in politics as being factors in the elections.