
Ask HN: Whitespace in US politics for socially liberal and fiscal conservative? - bobosha
For example, someone who largely agrees with the left on police reform, universal healthcare etc. But, then be tough on illegal immigration, reduced immigration levels, and be business friendly.<p>Is there a whitespace for someone to seize the argument from both Sanders and Trump voters.
======
verdverm
Yes, it's called being an independent and it's frustrating that people believe
you can only be a part of one camp and have to believe everything they
espouse. My opinions are more varied and there are ideas I (dis)like from both
sides.

I'm recently pondering that a zero party system might be a good idea (better
than a N party system). A two party system creates dichotomy and divisiveness
ensues. More parties create more camps or clans. No parties would mean
individuals are evaluated as individuals and don't have to hold party lines.

------
PaulHoule
It is one of those positions that seems to be there (like the Libertarian
position) but when you test it at the voting booth you can find no evidence
for it.

To some extent Trump was able to find a coalition that the "political system"
denied, but it was that particular coalition and he was able to find it
because he was the one republican candidate in 2016 who didn't go "kissing the
ring" to a large number of republican groups that required that candidates
accept a long list of bundled issues that was especially engineered to
suppress Trump's coalition and had been doing that since 2000 or so.

The trouble is that the positions talked about by the D's and R's and even the
independents have a weak connection with reality at best and when you look
closely things fall apart.

For instance consider "universal healthcare"; you might think that is
"business friendly" for most businesses and that is true. The trouble is that
20% of business (health insurance, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacy benefit
managers, your doctor, the hospital your doctor works at, the medical staffing
agency that pays your doctor to work at that hospital) has a life-or-death
mandate to maintain the status quo. They can feed back a small percentage of
their bloated profits to buy off politicians, influence the media, etc.

Anyone who is writing up the sad story of homo sap when we are extinct might
find this

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem)

to be the asteroid impact that wiped us out.

The "capital W White vs capital B Black" model in which 90% of the population
oppresses 10% has it completely backwards -- that doesn't work as a business.
If 90% percent of people took everything from 10%, they would improve their
standard of living by just a bit more than 10%. If 10% of the population took
just 10% from the other 90% they could double their standard of living and
have enough over to pay for the propaganandization or repression of the 90%
and maybe even convince the 90% to celebrate them.

Try the "business friendly" action of establishing universal health care and
you will find that those who profit from the current health care system will
make the "not business friendly" label stick. You might be able to do a very
long term campaign to move the "overton window" over the course of 30 years,
but the health care industry has the advantage of sustainability -- they can
consistently divert money to this cause over the course of decades and never
fall victim to the despair that they'll never win.

As for immigration, that's another toughie.

Just about everywhere except for Israel (which just wants Jewish bodies to
outnumber Palestinian bodies) there are two facts: (1) most people think
immigration is sucking life out of the economy, (2) immigrants make it much
easier to square the circle of the 'social problem' around retirement,
disability, and indigenous poverty (e.g. poor people born in that country)

For instance, the ratio of young people to old people determines how easy it
is for people to retire. It doesn't matter if this is through a government
program or the stock market or living in your children's house. Transfers of
money and goods across international lines accounts for something, but we all
consume a great deal of services that require a local workforce.

Ironically though, the beneficiaries of that labor often feel like their
country has been invaded, sometimes it is at a very visceral level. People in
apartment blocks in Eastern Europe often can't get over the different smells
produced by the cooking of incoming groups.

That people feel that way in America boggles my mind. An Italian immigrant
relative of mine is the poster example of successful immigration but he loves
Trump, Fox News, and just can't connect evil "chain migration" to him moving
into the U.S. with his brother and sister and mother and...

In all the 48 continental US states the agricultural workforce contains many
illegal immigrants. I hesitate to use the word "essential", but if illegal
immigrants were deported today farmers would be seriously stressed about "How
do I get the crops in this fall?"

The wandering right-wing mind might imagine you could bus the bums who live in
front of the Moscone center to pick strawberries in the central valley. Those
people are mentally ill, they can't do it, particularly when compared to a
skilled and experienced 'American-but-not-U.S.' workforce. In upstate NY
taking care of someone's dairy cows seems like a dead end job to locals and a
hassle compared to Burger King where you can call in sick when you don't want
to work. (My mental picture of what happens if you miss a milking isn't so
clear and I'm glad it stays that way!) A Mexican might see it as a way to get
experience and save money to start his own farm so he'll take the job
seriously and tend to see things the same way as the farmer.

