Explaining the meaning of life from a secular point of view

 So...I noticed Andrew Yang has a podcast scheduled for tomorrow with Arthur C. Brooks, a conservative who wants to offer a "practical science based plan to find purpose through transcendence, vocation, and love, drawing on philosophy and faith traditions." And...I cringe. Because when I look into it, he's promoting stuff like "faith" and "family" and "work", and all I see is the conservative worldview. Ya know, the one that I left that assumes that we need these things in order to be functional human beings. It's total BS. Anyway the book isn't out, i haven't read it, I don't plan to, but I do want to address this issue from an actual humanist perspective, given I would also say that human centered capitalism is fundamentally based on such a perspective.

On meaning

The concept of meaning in some objective sense is a human created concept. it's our attempt to find our place in this cold and uncaring universe of ours. On a subjective, personal level, this is fine. People can believe whatever they want, and live it out insofar as they don't harm others. But what I resent is this idea that we NEED meaning and blah blah blah and therefore let's force everyone to work and all. The protestant work ethic is BS, it really is. It's just a narrative that came from the more repressive versions of Christianity that was adopted by rich people to turn us into an army of wage slaves who think the meaning of our lives is to do labor for them. And I fear that this book, and that seems to be what reviews so far indicate from past books that this guy wrote on similar topics, just ends up reflecting. I mean, this guy writes a lot of books and most of them are pretty conservative in their orientation. 

Anyway, from a humanist perspective, THERE IS NO MEANING. The universe is cold and uncaring. It doesn't give us a purpose. There is no cosmic reason for us all to be here, we just are, and you know what? My own take is that you might as well enjoy it and live on your own terms, not terms dictated to you by other people. 

In a lot of ways, my take on the meaningless of life is similar to Camus and absurdism. Try as we might to challenge the idea of the absurd, the absurdity is the reality, and we might as well accept it. but for me, this isn't a bad thing. It's FREEING. It means you dont have to really be doing anything with your life at any given point. Life is a sandbox. Enjoy it. Live it on your terms. Do what you want. I'm not to judge. I don't wanna tell people what to do, what I dont like is others telling me what to do, and thats where the mental illness comes in. 

Why purposeless people are mentally ill

 There's a lot of talk about why people who lack purpose are mentally ill, not well adjusted, and why we need structure in our lives. In my view, it ultimately comes down to this. It's anomie. A mismatch between society's value and reality. We impose a lot of idealistic crap on people about work and purpose and when life doesnt turn out that way for a lot of us, we become disaffected and feel depressed. We see good things happening to others, and we wonder why we cant have that picturesque life. We feel like something is wrong with us, because society tells us something is wrong with us. The protestant work ethic is a cure looking for a disease, and the disease manifests itself in a self fulfilling prophecy. 

The solution to anomie is to get society working according to the values, or to realign the values to the reality of society. For the most part, most of these self help books are about realigning us to conform to society's values. But what if you dont want to conform to those values? What if, much like myself, you kinda view work as a sisyphusian task. A pointless bunch of BS we have to do, that we wish we didnt have to do, but society insists that we have to do it for our own good? Well, then this crap becomes spiritual violence. And when mental illness happens, we say, "see, if only their outlook conformed to the values of our society, they'd be better off." So a lot of people think the solution is trying to make everyone conform to this weird idea of what society is and should be to stave off existential dread. 

This is ironically why we still have to work so hard in the 21st century. Working hours kept going down until the great depression. Then FDR went all hardcore pro work because people feared a future in which we didn't have to work and thus wouldnt have it structure our lives. But for me, I don't fear that future, because Im not conservative brained and accept that BS. I'm this nihilist/absurdist type who sees this stuff as spiritual violence and wants liberation from this.

And that's the thing. If you get out of "the cave" like I have, you dont wanna go back. It all seems so fake. The puppet show that is life for many people doesnt do it for me any more. But all these cave dwellers keep insisting i need purpose in my life blah blah blah. 

That's basically akin to telling me to go back in the cave, forget all I learned, and to stfu and enjoy the puppet show. 

No, I don't wanna do that, I want liberation. 

Again, it's fine if these people want to live their lives that way, but I feel like im too smart to follow them. I know too much, I've seen too much. The illusions and delusions the common people of this reality accept don't do it for me any more, I want something different. But I cant have it different because the whole cave relies on keeping this illusion up...forever. 

And that's why I would say I feel whatever depression and angst over the situation that I do. Because I dont wanna live my life according to THEIR rules and THEIR expectations, but according to my own. But I'm bad for that because I need Jesus or some crap. 

It's all worldview, it all goes back to the cave, blah blah blah.

Human centered capitalism is intended to free humans from this prison

So this is where I get super critical of andrew yang platforming this guy, and shows once again why this guy is so cringe sometimes. love the dude for his 2020 campaign, but I don't think he really understands this stuff on as deep of a level as, say, I do. Again, human centered capitalism as a concept was created in part by me back in the early/mid 2010s. It was a culmination of my leaving "the cave" that is Christianity, dealing with all of these existential questions myself, and finding my own answers. Ya know, something a lot of people seem deathly afraid of. 

The capitalism part is me expanding a humanist philosophy into economics, rejecting the protestant work ethic and replacing it with a secular ethos instead. It can be said that another pillar of the idea I've considered floating is "there is no purpose but that which we create for ourselves." Because my ideas are functionally a rejection of the protestant work ethic, I wanted to replace it with a more nihilistic/absurdist take, but rather than view it negatively in ways that cause us to fall into despair, I see it as liberating. Because, in my worldview, the wealthy and powerful use these ideas of purpose to enslave us. All of this stuff is a massive psy op on us to make us wanna work for a living producing stuff for rich people. It's like bioshock infinite and all that dystopian propaganda you see everywhere trying to convince people to wanna work and not ask for more. Same thing here. Heck, i recognized when I first played bioshock infinite in 2013 that it kind of was analogous to our own society and how so much effort is spent wanting to keep us these docile little wage slaves.

So...for me, UBI and this whole idea of wanting to liberate people from work is just...a natural downstream logical conclusion of my assumptions.

1) There is no purpose but that which we make for ourselves

2) Our society is like a matrix, with rich people using religion to turn us into docile wage slaves

3) People fear secular humanism because it frees us from this matrix, allowing us to realize that their ideas are nonsense, and allowing us to build our ideas on a new set of principles. 

After looking at the practical solutions to our problems, I concluded that policies like UBI, medicare for all (single payer at the time, public option now as i refine paying for these ideas), and free college/student debt forgiveness would help get us there. They would create a blueprint for a society in which over time, as the economy continues to grow, we'd be able to free ourselves from work. It allows those who wanna work to work, recognizing that some wont want to be "unplugged", and recognizing that we cant have a society without labor in the first place, but it also liberates those who dont wanna. Basically, because life is a choose your own adventure sandbox anyway, it allows people to choose, recognizing that pluralistically, we dont all think the same, we want different things, and again, in a society in which we all want different things and arent the same, that we should allow that diversity to manifest in different decisions.

The christians believe god put them here to work? let them work as they want to. I dont believe their nonsense? Let me alone and let me live on UBI. it's quite simple.

The problem is that christian nationalist types often arent the live and let live types. They're the types of people who believe that their ideas came from god himself, that human nature is evil, and that people need to be forced into their way of living "for their own good." And that's where a lot of these do gooder conservative mindsets come from. It's a worldview, issue, it's always a worldview issue. Except, I kinda recognize the world should be pluralistic, and these guys...dont. Because im libertarian, and they're authoritarian. 

Again, it all comes back to worldviews. 

Which is why I get disappointed when someone like yang platforms this guy and has weirdly conservative mindsets on work and purpose at times. I mean, to be fair, yang got most of his ideas from the UBI community but seems to have at best a surface level idea of them, I mean, he's never been the best representative of the movement. I just glaze the guy so much because he's like the only mainstream figure who has tried to advance ANY iteration of these ideas. 

But yeah, can't say I'm a fan of this stuff. 

Conclusion

So, like everything, it all comes back to worldviews. This whole "humans need purpose" nonsense is a bunch of crap that comes from protestant christianity whether directly or indirectly. While it has some observed reality in science, I view it as a self fulfilling prophecy. Of course when you teach people the world is supposed to work a certain way and your life should follow some kind of script and your life deviates from the script, you're gonna be miserable and depressed. But then when the disappointment wears off, it becomes liberating. But then when you realize that society tries to force you to live a certain way against your natual rhythm in life, it becomes miserable again. because you're not allowed to live as you want, because of these authoritarian do gooders shoving their ideas down your throat.

And that's how I see this. I beleive nihilism is the best way to approach purpose. There is no purpose but that which we create for ourselves. This should be liberating, and allow us to live as we want without expectations, but then people are jerks who dont allow you to do this. And most dont think as deeply as I have about this, so they keep falling back into various levels of the cave.  

And that's kind of the problem with society in general. While we're democratic, the elites control the info the masses get and then they govern by tyranny of the majority, with the stupid people outnumbering and outvoting the smart. It's the core reason why everything is messed up. Sadly, the whole purpose thing goes beyond just republicans and into the dems, but the dems kinda just capitulate to conservative values and just offer a weaker version of the same thing.

I try to offer the opposite "pole" here to go back to my discussion on centrism. The republicans offer conservative christianity and all of the metaphysical baggage to go along with it, and I offer secular progressivism in response. All my ideas naturally flow from my core assumptions about the world, and I feel comfortable in defending them. 

For me, my own purpose is, ironically, to spread this knowledge. I dont wanna do pointless work for pointless pay. or wait for Jesus to come back on a winged horse because the war in Iran triggered the apocalypse. I wanna enjoy my life and not waste it doing what other people say for no good reason.  Again, religious people wanna live their lives according to that stuff, that's fine. I just resent them trying to shove their crap down my throat.

And yeah. That's how I view it as a human centered capitalist myself. Remember, for me, humanism is where the human centered aspect comes from. It's secular humanism applied to economics. Which means a rejection of all of that metaphysical crap associated with christianity, which includes the concept of live having some sort of external objective meaning. My views are about liberating people from the conservative and christian way of doing things and letting them live life on their own terms. While that might be scary for some, well, I kinda believe we need a mass society wide existential crisis anyway. And I'd rather challenge existing assumptions than just concede the argument to their perspective.  

Are we heading toward a video game crash?

 So, John Romero, legendary video game developer, basically said that the video game industry is "crashier" now than it was in the 1980s. The 1983 crash was apocalyptic btw. It wrecked 97% of the industry. While right now we don't seem to be hitting those extremes, we seem to be in dark times.

Well...honestly, I don't see where this industry is going. it doesn't seem sustainable. I mean, I discussed "peak gaming" before and how gaming is becoming unsustainable. Between the end of moore's law (or at least it slowing down), ballooning video game costs, video games taking years to make, and being buggier due to their complexity and lack of optimization we've been having issues.

Hardware is a HUGE issue. like, we're talking PS6 next year and a new xbox. Except....consoles arent getting cheaper. if anything, in the age of AI they're getting more expensive. The PS5 is now going up to $650. Xbox went up to $700. The Switch 2 is $450. A basic gaming PC is going up to around $800-1000 now, which used to be midrange. Where is it going to end?

Game developers want everything to be bigger and better. We're putting our hopes in ray tracing. We're pushing boundaries so hard we need AI upscaling to make games playable. We're pouring hundreds of millions and years of development into games that get poor returns. We're laying off staff even when games are successful, which the article mentioned. To some degree, its corporate greed, but it's like the industry is eating itself. 

I look at things from a consumer perspective. As I see it, hardware is getting more expensive. With this RAM crisis i dont even know how the next gen of consoles and PCs is gonna be affordable. We have tech where even smartphones can do gen 7 games with ease (in theory at least), and some are even as powerful as gen 8 consoles. We should be in a gaming golden age with the tech being cheap and ubiquitous. But with the mentality of pushing all boundaries at all costs, idk how we can improve on what we got. Gen 9 consoles never really got cheaper over SIX YEARS. And now they're more expensive. How can we even have a gen 10 if the hardware isnt there for us to buy affordably?

We're spending millions and years to make games that look like movies, only for many of them to be mediocre? Quite frankly, I'd rather play gen 8 games and before for the most part as the more modern games suck anyway. They release expensive, are slow to go down in price, and most arent buying them. 

Gaming has an affordability crisis for consumers and a sustainability crisis for developers. It doesnt have to be this way. Developers can just scale back ambitions a bit and focus on older tech. But because, much like capitalism, there's an inherent ideology toward growth, with the growth in this case being more computing power to push boundaries, the industry struggles to adjust. it's appealing more and more to fewer and fewer people as we're squeezed with higher costs for declining quality.

I myself am kinda just giving up on keeping up and while I have gotten some newer titles, im mostly focused on older games, since they were just better and easier to run. There's no reason we cant make games like in the past, most just dont want to because everything is pushing boundaries. 

All things considered it comes back to peak gaming combined with an affordability crisis. 

But at the same time, its also an oversaturation crisis. As we know, most gamers only play a handful of games these days, but they play them a lot. Even I'm going this. I spend most of my time on BF6 quite frankly. I play other games too, but BF6 is my main one. I spend about as much as most do on gaming, but if anything, i buy cheaper games. As we saw my spending habits are around $200 a year for 9 games, that's $23 a game give or take.  And I just have a ton of stuff to play. Like, sometimes I dont even want new games when I can buy them because Im like "I have enough to play." I've reached my saturation point where sometimes the problem with the amount of games i want to play isnt money, it's time. If I only dedicate a few hours a day to gaming, and I spend more time than most my age, then I'm only gonna be juggling say, 2-4 games at once. Maybe 1-2 MP games and 1-2 SP games or something. Like right now I'm playing BF6, outer wilds, and gears of war. Before that, I was playing outer worlds 2, and doom the dark ages. I might also boot up BO7 although yeah that one kinda sucks. 

But yeah. How many games can I play? And they're all competing for my time. And most are designed to be time sinks these days. I cant even get invested in a lot of games I want to because I just dont feel like I have the energy to do so. Because I got so much other stuff to play. 

And all these games gotta make money to keep themselves relevant. So that's why the industry is cut throat. 

And then you gotta keep in mind the corporate culture. 2020s capitalist culture isnt healthy. It's "late stage capitalism", where everything is financialized and the shareholders have unrealistic expectations of profits and are bleeding people dry. Like BF6 has been in the spotlight lately. It was the most successful game commercially of 2025. But they laid off staff lately, and apparently had such unrealistic expectations for sales and profits that they just laid off the team that made the best product they ever had just about. BF6 is the most profitable battlefield ever. But because these guys' standards were to make several times the money they actually did despite that, it's considered a failure. If that's failure, how can anyone win? And if no one can win, why even play? 

And that's the other side of the "peak gaming" problem. The expectations are so high that they can't be met, but that just means the industry is ultimately gonna eat itself. Some of this is because they got overly bloated studios that are underperforming, but even when they perform, the result is the same. So these companies are just gonna kill themselves long term. 

Again. It doesnt have to be this way. All of this is self inflicted.

If we made games cheaper, they'd reach wider audiences. If we didnt push boundaries, we could play them on existing consoles, even old consoles, even phones these days. And we'd still get like 2000s/2010s quality on phones. It's possible these days. Like, from what I can tell my razer edge handheld is like having an i7 2600k with 6 GB RAM and a GTX 460. I remember when that was a pretty respectable gaming rig like back around 2011ish. And there are higher end ones than that. 

So it's not like we can't make games that are leaner for older hardware and make gaming cheap, ubiquitous, and profitable. Even with the RAM crisis, if we tempered expectations a bit and DIDNT push 16-32 GB RAM with 8 GB VRAM for minimum requirements, we could make tons of high quality games that are fun to play. I mean, again, we got 2010-2015 era hardware in our pockets these days. There's no reason we can produce a world of gaming that's cheap, ubiquitous, and sustainable. 

Honestly, part of me is cheering for the industry to crash. Because honestly, it beats a world where $800+ is the bar for a new console. Where we spend 5-10 years pushing games that should have amazing graphics on paper but look blurry as crap in practice because of forced upscaling and TAA. Where games cost $70-80 and take longer to go on sale because operating costs to produce them are so out there. 

It's so unnecessary. I mean so much of this is totally avoidable and the result of stupid and unsustainable decisions by rich people with stupid and unsustainable expectations.

And btw, if we are getting "next gen" soon, I hope to see the AI industry crash. That's another one. More stupid rich people with ridiculous expectations pushing an industry that isn't sustainable and is disrupting gaming and computing as a whole. How are these companies gonna turn a profit? hell if i know, this AI thing looks like a massive bubble to me. And before people say AI is here to stay and won't go away, I think the 1983 video game crash or the 2001 dot com crash sum up what's gonna happen there. It's not that these things are gonna disappear completely if a crash happens. Just that they'll go back to a more sustainable model. That's what needs to happen. But for AI, and PC hardware, and video games. We need a crash so the market is more aligned with consumer expectations. Right now, it's just not. You got these greedy rich people with unreasonable expectations ruining the industry, and im all for them finding out after F-ing around. Let everything crash, and let the market recover naturally out of that.  

A warning for the anti war left

 So, a lot of content creators I follow were doing some stream for some anti war cause, but listening to some of them, I kind of found them to be a bit insufferable, so I want to offer some friendly advice. One person framed it as "youre anti war, I'm anti war, we're all anti war" which is true, but dont confuse this for support for the leftist anti war position. 

Foreign policy is a weird political spectrum and hard to nail down. I guess in the grand scheme of things, I'll break things down into three camps, and all three of these camps DO have anti war factions, but some of them do have pro war factions. The pro/anti war thing tends to cross conventional ideological boundaries. 

The conservative foreign policy position is often called "realpolitik" in political science circles. It can be described as being for a country's rational self interests. Basically, a defining feature is that it does tend to support selfishness. It also tends to support might makes right. It recognizes that foreign policy is a bit hobbesian and that ultimately that who gets to make the rules is the one with the biggest stick. 

Now, America First as demonstrated by Trump is a form of this. He believes that raw power is all that matters and because the US has the most strength, they can do what they want. But, this isn't the only realpolitik position out there. Neocons have similar views and often want to spread their values by force, while the America first guys are more isolationist and in theory, wanna be left alone. Although under trump he's kinda gone hyper imperialist instead. 

Still, there is an anti war faction that generally opposes war because it isnt in our self interest to wage it. A lot of trump supporters, at least in theory, were opposed to the iraq and afghanistan wars, and should, by rights, be opposed to the Iran war. Now are they? Well, as we know, MAGA is a cult where a lot of them just follow dear leader and seemingly reject principles in the face of said leader violating them. But in theory, like half of these guys should be opposed to this Iran war. 

Liberals. Liberals tend to support multilateralism, rules based international orders and using soft power instead of hard power. They're not anti war in all cases, it kind of depends, and as someone in this camp, I would say it depends on the reasoning. I mostly support defensive wars, like Ukraine vs Russia. Big evil empire country decides to mess with a liberal democracy that wants to be left alone? Yeah we should support the underdog. If a NATO country is attacked a war on one is a war on all. But would I support like Iran? HELL NO. And my reasoning is simple. What justification exists to wage it? Some of it is humanitarian, mind you, war is a horrible thing, but there's also the matter of what's our strategic goals? What do we get out of this? How many people will we lose? Is it worth it? Whats our exit strategy? ya know? Being a liberal who grew up in the Bush era and whose adult life has been spent cleaning up after his wars, I have little stomach for more unless we gotta.

Now, I will say some liberals can support wars for humanitarian reasons. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton wanted to use the US like a world police to invade other countries who were committing crimes against humanity and keep the peace. Ya know, like we should go into somalia, rwanda, yugoslavia, and clean up their messes. This got unpopular real fast. After somalia, most americans were just no to boots on the ground. But then suddenly post 9/11, we were interventionist again. Again, it's because for a lot of people it comes down to self interest.

Which brings me to the left. The left tends to be more anti war out of principle, and can, in some instances, be rather extreme with this. I believe the left is their own camp, and I came across a term that seems to describe them, campist. Like being so anti interventionism that you end up becoming stupid and making arguments for your enemies. I dont like these guys. They're self righteous, lose the plot, and think they're oh so moral and that everyone else isn't.

And that's my warning here, because watching this live stream, I'm just thinking, gee these guys are totally those types. They get so hyped up over say, gaza, or iran, and they see it mostly in bleeding heart humanitarian terms. And they get super self righteous and moral about it...and yeah. I just wanna offer a warning. Yes. Most of the country is anti war right now. I dont think Iran is popular. But...you gotta understand. We have a COALITION of different groups here, ranging from right to left. Some of us are lefties, some of us are libs, and some of us might even be disaffected conservatives. We do all want the same thing, but we gotta be aware of the fact that we dont necessarily want it for different reasons. While some are motivated by the human cost of the war, others dont care, they are anti war for more selfish reasons, and we're gonna have to make nice with these people. Hell, as someone from the more liberal camp, I am one of these guys to an extent. My own anti war stance comes first and foremost from self interest. I look at the reasons why we're engaging in this war, I dont find them justifiable. I look at the logistics of how we're supposed to win this war, what victory looks like, if it's even possible. I wonder about casualty numbers, costs to our budget and tax payers. I look at long term exit strategy and what victory even looks like. And ultimately, Im against it because I saw this all before in the 2000s and we're repeating the mistakes we made with Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Now, does that mean i dont care about the human cost? Well, I do. And what we're doing right now is horrible. We're committing war crimes and basically ruining peoples' lives and killing them for no good reason. BUT....I'm also not gonna be super self righteous about it. Because being the self interested creature that I am with only so many craps to give, I cant really expend the emotional energy consistently being worked up and outraged over something happening on the other side of the world. Sorry, it's just my nature. And these leftie types seem to thrive on perpetual outrage over issues that dont even affect them. So...yeah.

And honestly, if we polled the country, i think more are like me than like them. Most people are only interested in what's in front of them. They cant afford to care about the problems of the other side of the world, even if we're causing them. Hell, some of these people are so morally undeveloped in the right circumstances they'd cheer this war on. I mean, I lived through the 2000s, I saw it happen. We lost interest in the war on terror when it was clear it was going on for longer than we wanted it to, it was costing us money, our troops were dying, and we just wanted to get out and be done with it. It wasnt because people got suddenly super humanitarian over what was happening over in iraq and afghanistan. 

So yeah. Again, wanna offer that warning. Not everyone is a leftist, not everyone thinks like a leftist, not everyone is anti war for leftist reasons. We got a diverse coalition here that doesnt all see eye to eye and ironically, we need to approach this more moderately to keep it. Letting the most extreme leftists talk is just gonna alienate the normies. Just saying. I know people are gonna hate me for saying it, but that's how I see it. We're with you, but we're also with you for our own reasons, which might not align with yours. Fair warning. 

Centrism isn't really an ideology but a lack of one

 So, I was asked today what I think about centrism. I said they would have to define it. Centrism really is just the middle point between two points or poles. In politics, it's just the middle of wherever the overton window is. 

Like liberalism and social democracy used to be centrist. We have capitalism, we had communism. Liberalism was the middle point. 

But then liberalism and social democracy became the left in modern capitalist countries, with leftism being thrown out of the overton window. In a way, during the New Deal era, moderate republicans became the new centrists. You had conservatism, you had liberalism, moderates became like Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon with their moderately conservative beliefs.

But then Reagan reclaimed the right, and in turn, the democrats moved to the center next. Third way democrats like the "New Democrats" became the new centrists. Six party system liberals/democrats really are just centrists if we take "the left" as meaning social democrats and the right meaning Reagan conservatives. Which is, btw, why I have such disdain for them. Because they dont stand for anything. 

But, when we really think about it, for a while these guys are the new left, and the right is moving...right. Now the right is becoming fascists with the left being defined by those previously centrist democrats. And that makes the new center...what? Reagan and Bush era conservatives? We seem to be going that way where the Lincoln project people are the new center. And that seems to be the world that the third way democrats want to live in. They're the left, they're trying to win over suburbanites who were Bush/McCain/Romney voters, and suddenly, I'm so extreme I'm off the overton window. 

I guess my point is that what is considered centrist changes over time. It's just whatever is the middle point between what are considered the two poles or extremes, and those poles or extremes change over time. If I had my way and human centered capitalism or alternatively social democracy/"democratic socialism" became a pole, and the republicans would have to moderate themselves, we'd have a repeat of the New Deal era where the middle is basically like....Rockefeller republicans again. That's the world I wanna live in.

But...because modern democrats believe in nothing but centrism, whatever it may be, we're losing our ideological footing to an ever radicalizing right.

And...I guess I lied, I guess centrism does have some ideology to it. It's the ideology of compromise, of selling out, of giving away the farm. Of telling people with convictions on one of the two moral poles that they have to compromise their views to appease the other side. It's surrender, defeatism. When Hillary Clinton ran on compromise and incrementalism for their own sake, that's centrism. When Chuck Schumer fails to hold the line on any demand democrats have, that's centrism. And I guess...that's why I generally despite centrism. If you're centrist in a relative sense in the sense that you have a belief system between two extremes, I guess I can respect that. I've been a moderate before, and I still am in some ways, according to some overton windows. I'm a middle ground between liberalism and leftism, for example. On social issues, I hold middle ground positions on issues like race, immigration, and guns (although given how that overton window IS shifting right I'm finding myself more just straight up left by the day). On foreign policy, liberalism is a compromise between the neoconservatism and imperialism of the right, and the tankie/campist philosophies of the far left. Some people on economics are neoliberals. I might not see eye to eye with them, but they are kind of in the middle of what is acceptable. 

However, as I've demonstrated above, those positions are only "centrist" in certain political contexts. Should that context change over time, you're no longer centrist, but you're on a "side."

But actual centrism for centrism's sake is just....an ideology of not having an ideology. It's being an "enlightened" centrist, thinking both sides are bad and supporting compromise. If half the country wants to put people in camps and the other is for human rights, they'll be for putting half of us in camps instead. Again, they're sellouts. And quite frankly, I tend to dislike such centrists because they have no political spine. They think they do for not following the herd mentality of other pole, but in reality, if their position is just, whatever these two extremes are, split the difference, that's the ideology of not having an ideology.

Again, part of the reason I despise the democrats so much a lot of the time is because they're these kinds of people. The modern democrats stopped having a spine a while ago. Since the 1990s, it's just, take the new deal position, take the modern conservative position, split the difference half way. I mean, if it's necessary to win elections or get something through congress that's one thing, but it seems obvious that these guys like centrism because they ultimately believe in nothing. They want power for the sake of power, and money for the sake of money. So they accept donor money to maintain power, but do nothing with that power, but maybe kinda sorta slow our inevitable decline into fascism, which in the 2020s is totally happening. But that's what happens when one side is increasingly radical and descending into fascism and the other side stands for nothing. You kinda sorta get them meeting trump half way. This is the democrats under the likes of schumer, where all he has to offer are "strongly worded letters" and hand wringing about procedure as ICE kidnaps people off of the streets and we invade foreign countries with no provocation. Again, it's weak crap. 

I'm sorry, but I have convictions. I have beliefs. And centrists hate that. Centrists hate people with convictions and beliefs. Because people with convictions and beliefs want things, expect things, demand things. They have a solid political position with a solid philosophy, and they wanna live their lives according to it. If that rustles some feathers, so be it, some feathers should be rustled. I certainly don't give AF if I offend MAGA by saying I DONT wanna live in a theocracy, or I want to maintain a secular liberal democracy with strong constitutional rights, or I believe in using the state to tax people to redistribute income or provide safety nets for people. Quite frankly, I fundamentally disagree with the right's belief system, and I created my own in response. I merely live by my own beliefs and operate within the belief system that I created. I dont wanna compromise with them. I'm revolted by what they deem acceptable, and they are revolted by me. Except I dont care what they think. Because their boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes them cheer.

I guess in politics, in reality, the two political poles dont always have equal power. One side has to compromise and appease the other. But as I see it, we did things the way the right has wanted since 1980, it sucks, and their general direction since 2008 has been increasingly horrifying. Anyone with any sanity should look at what they're doing and be like "NOPE." Even if we dont always agree on what the alternative should be, we should all want something that strongly counters it, be it be human centered capitalism, or democratic socialism. Whether it be secular humanism/new atheism, or some brand of "woke." And I guess, within our pole countering theirs, we do need to come to some level of compromise to ensure that we remain electorally viable. But we should be compromising within our own ecosystem, not with the right itself. Democrats wanna sell the farm to the right, and that's why i often despise them so much. Again, it's like they ultimately believe in nothing. 

Democrats need to find their way in this post Reagan and post Trump world. Ideally, we would've been on top of this since 2016, with Sanders style "democratic socialism" being a prototype of that ideology. But we blew it, and now Trump seems to either be redefining the conservative pole, or maybe just exposing the flaws and general trajectory of conservatism to this point. It's hard to tell. Either way, if we want out of this horrible situation we're in, we need democrats with fricking balls, and actual convictions, and to be willing to actually fight for that stuff and not concede power in the name of compromise and keeping the peace. The right has declared war on the left, and we're basically surrendering without much of a fight. 

Centrism sucks. Screw centrism. We need an actual viable alternative to the right and its craziness.  

I wanna be clear, screw anyone who is for the draft

 So I watched a Breaking points segment with Krystal and Saagar, about the Trump administration raising the age of enlistment, and Saagar came out in favor of the draft. And...uh...yeah...no dawg. I don't care what your moral justification is, I don't care if you're otherwise on "my side", screw anyone who is for the draft.

It's bad enough to think Trump and his ilk might be stupid enough to start forcing people into the armed services for this war, but when people do it for leftie/anti war reasons, it's just as bad. Some lefties and anti war folks like the idea because it gives everyone skin in the game and it makes people less likely to be pro war, rather some being pro war and externalizing that onto the economically underprivileged or whatever. Removing the draft in 1973 was moral progress. I can understand, in times of great emergency and need, why some might be pro draft. But...unless we face an existential threat to the country, NO, NO DRAFT, PERIOD. 

Anti war leftists and the like have this idea that if people had to go, they would be more likely to be anti war. But when in history has that EVER worked? Did it work in the civil war? No, if anything, Lincoln sent in the troops to put down riots over it. In WWI, Wilson locked people up over it. In Vietnam, the war dragged on for a solid decade even with people having to go. Even when the people voted against the war in practice, like Nixon being against it in 1968, he still took like 7 years to get out. Hell he wasn't even in office any more when we finally pulled out, Ford was. 

And honestly? I dont think it would change anything. These MAGA people are dumb enough they'd die for this stuff. And anyone with half a brain is already against the war. So this is just some super self righteous sentiment.

But beyond that, I find the draft to be inherently immoral. No one should be forced to die in wars. Wars are state sanctioned violence, and using violence to coerce people to participate is immoral. War is generally immoral unless defensive for the most part IMO, and and coercing participation is doubly immoral IMO, as youre forcing your own people to die for some cause they want nothing to do with and might not even believe in. 

And let's face it while most people see draftees as being 18-25, they can be as high as 44 in the US in theory, so I still have skin in the game here. And as someone who had skin in the game with Iraq and Afghanistan too as I WAS in that 18-25 age range back then in the 2000s, uh....if you were for the draft, F you. Like...there was this democrat named Charlie Rangel who was pro draft back then. often for the same reasons. Blah blah blah underprivileged, blah blah blah everyone should have skin in the game. 

NO! And anyone who tries to force us into the draft gets my ire. I was fundamentally opposed to dems back then because I was told they wanted to draft people because of that guy. So if this is the dem answer to this war, rather than simply opposing the war, no, F them too. 

And let's face it, on the economic coercion argument, who is anti economic coercion here? My entire ideology is about opposing economic coercion. I want everyone to have a UBI, I want them to have a college education. A lack of those things are what entice a lot of people to enlist. And honestly, it always makes me laugh when people who dont normally point out that our economic system is inherently coercive kind of admit the fact in the edge cases that suit them, like prostitution sometimes being tied to sex trafficking, or people enlisting in the military "voluntarily" due to their economically underprivileged position. So dont even try that crap with me. Because I'll go in the opposite direction. Yes, coercion is bad, yes it's a problem, I have my own solutions to it. Let's not coerce people into a war they don't wanna fight. 

Honestly, if Trump can't get the troops for it, maybe we shouldn't fight it. That's my honest opinion. And unless we or our close allies are under direct attack, I'm generally not gonna support war. Period. The Iran war is an unjust war. There's no valid reason for being there. I want nothing to do with it, and if MAGA wants it so bad, let them enlist and die for their clown of a leader. That's my honest opinion. 

Reacting to 107 Days

 So I finished the book, and where should I begin? I guess I'll go in chronological order. The book is basically Harris's account of the campaign. It started back around the same time I started my last post, when Biden had his debate. And uh...yeah, the media reception was a lot worse than my own. Of course, as I said, I value facts along with presentation. Most people want presentation. The hollywood people freaking out screaming about losing our democracy stands out to me. Reminds me how I felt the whole time. 

Anyway, Harris didnt want to really get too involved. VPs are supposed to be loyal, and she didnt wanna do anything that would appear as breaking from the president to advance her career. That's kind of part of the environment. You dont want an overly ambitious VP who uses you as a speedbump to their own rise to fame. So she tried to be loyal, support Biden as she could, but in the long term it held her back.

It seems clear that being in that circle and that "swamp" to use a Trump word corrupted her sense of objectivity, if you want my honest views. She was in Biden world. She thought what Biden did was great. She was more focused on loyalty to Biden, even into her own campaign, compared to actually responding to the will of the people. This theme appeared late into the book as she was reflexively trying to defend Biden, only to be reminded by campaign staff that the public HATED Biden. It just didnt click with her. Like, she was just too lost in the sauce for her own good, and I feel like this was a fatal flaw of her campaign that I can't help but point out. 

As things started, these kinds of errors in judgment kept appearing for me. Like one of the first things she had to do with pick a VP. I can't disagree too much with the logic she ultimately followed. She didnt like Kelly in part because he was soft on labor. Shapiro was too ambitious and had liabilities on Gaza. Walz was loyal, and much like Biden, she wanted loyalty. She didn't choose him because he was progressive, but because he was loyal and didnt even really want the job it seemed. Anyway, why do I criticize her here? because her first choice was actually buttigieg but she didn't feel she could go that route because idpol. She thought a gay guy with a black woman was too much for america to accept. First of all, I wish dems would stop thinking this nonsense. It's not too much. Most people don't really care. And those who do wouldnt vote for her anyway. I mean, there's that 40% of America that's just so beyond the pale and in their own little alternate reality, you can't reach them, and shouldn't try. And honestly, Pete Buttigieg? Ew. He's more moderate than Biden. Nah. Walz was a better pick, although I guess it doesnt matter since the campaign went right anyway. 

The convention got relatively little discussion. Her platform didnt get much discussion either compared to how much importance I put on it. For me her platform was a disappointment, and the convention alienated me, but that was Harris for ya.

One thing that irked me was the whole Gaza thing. She seemed to "not get it" on this too. She was a staunch defender of Israel, although had a similar middle ground position I did. But when approached by protesters she actually got annoyed. She was like "dont people realize it's me or Trump?" Which is...the same entitlement complex that dems often fall into, and often alienates me from supporting them. Like really, if I'm making demands of politicians, that's the last thing I wanna hear. And she leaned into it in her response like they're being irresponsible and want trump to win and the whole "I'm speaking" thing she often does. 

To be fair...I wasnt particularly sympathetic to these guys either. Like, I get it, they're loud, annoying, and I thought the gaza obsession was a gross misuse of political capital. if you're gonna go ride or die on an issue, why some foreign policy thing halfway across the world that doesn't even have much to do with us? But yeah, I just didnt like how she handled it. Because the "its me or trump" thing just gives me PTSD flashbacks from Hillary. And we as know....she lost much like Hillary, and part of it was democrats staying home, and this cause was...a factor. Im not saying it was THE factor, or even the biggest factor, I think economic angst probably sums that up, but it was a factor. 

Yeah...like...she just wasn't the person for the job. To be fair, the DNC wouldnt allow us to have "the person for the job", you know how the DNC is if you follow this blog, but yeah. It was just apparent. Anyway, this is a huge reason I dont want her to run again, and I wish she'd take a page from Hillary and disappear into the woods afterwards. Not permanently, but I dont want her to be the future of democratic politics. She had her chance and was done. But I digress.

To be fair, some of her frustrations are akin to mine. She seemed deeply frustrated that Trump and his campaign could lie and throw so much crap around and people believed it. She was swarmed by protesters on 9/11 who were MAGA and while secret service wouldnt let her engage them, she genuinely wanted to know wtf she wanted and what she was doing wrong. And she was even thinking economically, like, is it your healthcare? Your wages? What? Why do they hate her so much? 

And here I'll do a quick plug. First of all, as I said, a lot of MAGA is a cult. Cant win them over, won't win them over, they're brainwashed. Dont even try. BUT...as someone disaffected, let me give an elevator pitch. 

Yeah...it is healthcare, wages, the whole shebang. The economy sucks. Reaganism has ruined America. I'm soured on job creation. We are working for rich people who dont care about us and who wanna work us as hard as possible while paying us as little as possible. Democrats have historically been the answer to that, advocating for solutions that make our lives better, but in the modern era, they don't. They end up compromising to the center, offering band aid solutions at best, and they don't get it. And Harris also doesnt get it. For as many little tax credits as she had, they weren't big enough to actually fix the problems. We need a UBI. We need medicare for all (or at least a public option a la her 2020 healthcare plan). We need free college with TOTAL student loan forgiveness. We need to realize jobs and work aren't the answer. If you want a more detailed explanation, I'd advise her to read Andrew yang's "The War on Normal People" and to consult with him on the subject. He's about the only one in America who DOES get it. But until we get someone like that, we're gonna go back and forth in this 2 party system swinging between fascist republicans and do nothing democrats, and yes, I consider her a do nothing democrat. yeah, she had solutions but they werent big enough.

And before people like her ask, gee it sounds like you want life to be easy and you dont wanna work. No crap. And that's another reason I dislike harris on a visceral level. She has this attitude like "were not asking for things to be easy, we like hard work." Leave that kind of virtue signalling crap to republicans and that 40% of the country that's too brainwashed to know what's good for them. For the rest of us, yeah, we gotta abandon this obsession with work and life being hard being a good thing. It's not. it sucks. And quite frankly, a huge aspect of social progress is that life SHOULD be made easier for us. Maybe you'll face a lot of resentment from people for saying it. Well, a lot of them are gonna hate you anyway, and you should just resign yourself to that. But I honestly think economic angst is the biggest reason why her campaign didnt go over, and why we keep losing to Trump. Because Harris, as well as the dems before her, keeps coming off as an out of touch dem who doesn't understand anything. Like, all those Biden solutions dont matter if your wages arent keeping up with the cost of living. And idk, I feel like Harris kinda cared but she didnt understand the reality we're facing and we need to think beyond that. 

Anyway, I will say, for much of the middle of her campaign, I do sympathize with her otherwise. Imagine trying to offer something, even if it is anemic, only to be met with some dude who just lies about everything, and goes on about immigrants eating peoples' pets, and half the country STILL wants that guy. It's frustrating as fudge. But that is the modern reality. And the sooner we realize those people should be written off and ignored the sooner we can get to focusing on the people who do matter and winning them over. 

 She spent a lot of time focusing on the hatred she and her supporters got from Trump. Again, those guys are irredeemable, they're buttholes, the best we can do is try to be better. It sucks things are like that, but that's just how they are and again, you cant win those people over, you shouldnt even try. 

Which brings me back to the frustrations. Going into the final stretches in october, I was deeply frustrated with Harris going full centrist, campaigning with Liz cheney, going on interviews not to distance herself from Biden. And this moment infuriated me. I think she was on the view? And she forgot what she was gonna answer to how she would be different than Biden. She answered nothing really, which is bad enough, but she was frustrated with herself for failing to remember her actual answer: that she would put a republican in her cabinet. NOOOO!!!! HELL NOOOO!!!!!! THIS IS THE LAST THING I WANNA HEAR!!!!! And she did eventually give that response IIRC based on my own blog and yeah...I hated it. I HATED IT! Like...this is what dems need to learn. We got 40% of the country. They are deplorables. They're cult members. Screw them. Stop trying to appease them. Stop compromising our values and our ideology to try to win them over. I dont want republicans in the cabinet, if anything, look at trump. Trump doesnt give AF about our half of the country. And while our policies would help theirs, they won't accept them because of their twisted ideology and values. So you know what? Just dont even listen. Govern based on how the half that vote for you want. Stop trying to appease these people. 

One thing that I wanna talk about that I didnt know was that she actually did try to get on Joe Rogan, but Rogan played games with her with the scheduling and scheduled trump for the day she wanted. And then she didnt wanna be in texas on a different day because it would take away from her campaigning and yeah. That's why she didnt appear. It seems pertinent to mention because she was blamed for not going on Rogan. She wanted to, but Rogan wasn't really playing ball with her, and she even basically said that yeah, Rogan wanted Trump, and gave preferential treatment to Trump while being more standoffish with her. JUst thought that should be mentioned since she got hammered for that afterwards. Like she didnt reach out to the dudebros because she didnt go on rogan. Well, she was a very busy woman being campaigning and all and rogan wasnt really intent on making it happen. Ya know, because the dude lost his mind after COVID and it's no secret he's pro Trump.  

Going into the final stretch, she seemed more optimistic, same as me. Her internal polling had her ahead, the Selzer poll was a huge indicator that she was ahead. There was some guy who thought she would win Nevada, which would indicate she would be ahead. So she went into election day thinking she was gonna win.

And then she didn't. Strangely enough despite being a candidate, her knowledge of the math seemed hazier than mine. I knew something was up early on just based on how the safe states were performing. Like...if the entire map is R+5 relative to predictions, well, that's not a good sign. And it seemed like the swing states went in a similar way. But yeah she didn't seem to realize she lost until well after midnight. I was dooming starting at 10-10:30. It stung her. She went to bed, didnt give a speech. I stayed up until it was called around 2 AM. She conceded the next day. And yeah she certified the election on January 6th, unlike Trump, who incited his followers to attack the capitol. 

At the end, she realizes that yeah, we just voted for fascism and she seems on a similar page to me, saying our immediate concern is the mid terms so we can get checks and balances on the government. She realizes project 2025 was a long term plan by conservatives. But hey...this is why I take a more direct, abrasive approach that's confrontational to them. She decided to take the wimpy moderate approach, and it failed like it always does. She didn't win over people on her economic vision, and millions of democrats who voted in 2020 stayed home. She done screwed up.

Again, from the outside looking in, her msitakes were obvious. She was schrodinger's candidate early on, both moderate and progressive, but then the wave function collapsed and we got a moderate biden clone except she had no public option and she wanted more republicans in her cabinet.

At the end of the book she talked about how her thoughts are with gen Z. And how we needed to create the jobs of the future for them. And I'm just thinking, no, no more jobs. No more talk of jobs, and work, and employment. We need mass redistribution. FFS, talk to Andrew yang. He'll explain it better than I can on such short notice and she'll probably take him seriously as he was one of her campaign opponents in 2020.  

And uh...yeah. We all know my views on Harris at this point, why she lost. So yeah, final thoughts? She was NOT the person for the job. To be fair, Im not sure who would have been, given the options realistically available, but yeah....this book soured me on her. She doesn't get it. I dont think she really understands why she lost and what she did wrong. She's part of that establishment dem culture that just...is in their own little beltway world and doesnt understand how normies think. She means well to some degree, and at times I could sympathize with her, like her final remarks about how people regretted their decision in Trump's first week in office were "yeah, people really are that dumb." But yeah...she didn't really connect with the voters she needed. Her policies didnt connect. Her message didnt connect. She just was a poor fit for the job. Another centrist dem who no one fricking wanted but we had to vote for her or we got the other guy. And that isnt a winning message. 

I hope in 2028 we get someone better. SOmeone who actually has a vision. Someone who actually understands politics. Who doesnt cede ground to the right in appeasement, and who proposes an ambitious vision for the country that CHALLENGES the right, not concedes to them prematurely. The problem with biden is he didnt do enough. The problem with harris is she didnt propose enough. People didnt want Biden, they didnt want that brand of politics, so they voted for Trump instead. And that's the core reason she lost. And yeah. That's where I stand on this. 

Okay book, Im glad I read it, but really. I hope she isn't it in 2028. Or Gavin Newsom for that matter. Or Pete Buttigieg. Or the rest of the worthless centrists. Ro Khanna, AOC, Andrew Yang, a few early names that stand out to me. That's who I want.  

Summarizing Harris's campaign and why she lost in my own words

 So...I'm reading Harris's 107 days, and I'm pretty close to the end. However, before I write my response to it, I want to outline my own ideas of her campaign. This is a summary of stuff I've written from Late June through mid November on this blog, you can go back to that time era and read what I wrote, but I do want to separate her campaign into distinct "eras" and my overall evolution of thought. This will serve as a framework to help me react to the book better. Her book is structured where she gives her thoughts on the campaign day by day based on what she's doing, and I want to give a short abridged/summarized version of where my head was at the same time.

Late June-Late July

Joe Biden was never gonna win 2024. That much was clear for me. I was always realistic about his odds, despite there being a ton of copium from establishment democrats. The fact was, the guy peaked around a 30% shot, and often hovered in the 20s. The 226-312 result that we got was my typical prediction for the end results. Public opinion had shifted roughly 6 points from 2020, and yeah, Biden was always fundamentally unpopular. I accepted his campaign for what it was, recognizing that trying to convince democrats was like talking to a wall and they'll just do their typical delusional condescension and claim im not a "team player" if I dare point out the obvious. I recognized Trump was the fascist and knew his second term would be roughly as bad as it has been and I wanted to stop that from being a reality. 

However, then Biden flubbed the debate. And his chances cratered. I didn't think much of his performance. Quite frankly, given I rate on style AND substance with about equal weight, I thought that Trump's lies were worse than Biden's obvious malfunctions. But given the public reacts more to style than substance and the fact that Trump can tell like 50 lies a minute doesn't seem to matter. All that mattered was Biden malfunctioned. Suddenly the floodgates opened and criticizing Biden was fair game. There was a huge push from the top to get him out, Biden remained stubborn, and I remained skeptical of the idea if doing so as I feared it could make things worse. The polling data at the time told me that yes, Biden was bad, but everyone else was worse. Still, because my big concern this election was simply winning and surviving to live to fight another day (because Trump really is a threat to democracy itself), i resigned myself to the numbers. 

As this month dragged on, I updated my model, putting it into a google spreadsheet and digitizing it. I updated it daily with all the new polling data and updated whenever it was worth doing so. Toward the end of the month between June 27 and July 21st, I noticed the pushes to get Biden out were more desperate, and I remained convinced it was a bad idea. If anything it went against my ideological interests as well since those wanting to push him out wanted a more centrist candidate and I obviously didn't. 

Still, eventually, he was forced out. I thought it was a huge mistake at first, but he quickly endorsed Kamala Harris and her polls shot up appreciably in the coming weeks.

Late July-Mid August

Harris injected new life into the campaign. No one REALLY wanted Biden. Rather, we were STUCK with Biden. And Harris brought new enthusiasm into the party. The fact was, no one knew what we were getting. We were just glad it wasn't what we had. I was enthusiastic too, and her campaign was initially very aggressive and willing to fight MAGA. We had memes coming out of it like crazy, enthusiasm went through the roof, but I also kind of remained cautious. I understood this much. Harris was Schrodinger's candidate. She was either going to be insufferably centrist, or the most progressive candidate in a generation. It depends what she did. And I kind of engaged in watchful waiting, trying to observe what decisions she would and wouldn't make. I looked at her VP choice as a barometer. Tim Walz seemed more progressive, but someone like Mark Kelly or Josh Shapiro seemed to indicate a more centrist direction. She went walz. But still. She needed a platform. Was she going to be progressive or not? Who knows?

Mid August-Early September

Schrodinger's box was finally opened just in time for the convention. And we got...centrist. I never had too high hopes for harris, my expectations were already tempered by the fact that the democratic party is inherently a conservative institution, but I graded Harris by her own standards. I wanted to see her govern at her most progressive. In 2020, she ran on the lift act, which was like a mini UBI, and she had a healthcare plan akin to the public option I support. But she didn't run on a public option, instead abandoning the issue, and she ran hard to the center.

The convention REALLY soured me on her. Again, I know she isn't me and isnt gonna align with me, but the centrality of her message on "hard work" and the "opportunity economy" made me cringe. She had this conservative attitude like life shouldnt be easy, we're not asking for it to be easy, we just want it to be somewhat fair. DAE LIKE hard work? Opportunity economy! That whole thing just soured me on her, being the anti work "life should be easier, that's progress" progressive that I am. If I wanted work worship, I'd vote republican. They're the ones obsessed with the glorious job creators. Harris had some good things in her platform, but what she didn't have disappointed me, and her overall economic message soured me on her. By this point, the honeymoon period was over, and I saw what we were stuck with. Biden, but if anything, slightly more conservative. 

It was a disappointment. 

Early-Late September

For much of September, I went on vacation to Myrtle Beach. This led me to post a lot less and to have a lot less time to do so. My mind was on the campaign and I did check in here and there. I updated my model daily in the hotel and would occasionally post an election update. I'd also post philosophical articles on work during this time. The thing is, this book I've been trying to write, I've been working on it for a few years now. It still sucks, but I was using my blog as a springboard, and given how Harris really pissed me off on the work topic, I did flirt with a few different ideas about it.

Two things that stood out to me during this time. First of all, I read Harris's book that she had out on her ideas at the time, and I saw how some of them made it into her platform. She seemed so close to getting it, but just stopped short. And it did soften me on her through this time. Harris is a weird figure. She has a progressive side, but she's moderated by institutions, and again, it really is a matter of what side comes out. And hearing her own case with her own words did soften me somewhat from my anger over the convention.

The other thing that stood out was the debate. It was so laughably one sided for Harris that it was actually funny. Trump went full blown THEY'RE EATING THE CATS, THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS, and even harris on stage was like "what the actual ####?" That was my reaction too. I knew Trump would be bad, but holy crap, he was so bad it wasn't even funny. Honestly. I dont see how anyone can support the guy. I mean, yeah, we can nitpick harris all day, she aint what I want, but Trump just lied about EVERYTHING and seemed completely unhinged and insane. Still Harris's numbers were growing and the campaign reached a dead heat between Harris and Trump. I figured she would keep improving and hopefully, eventually take the lead. Again, for all the cardinal sins that the democrats and harris were doing that would normally piss me off, I just ended up trying to be the better person and accept it, understanding that this is our Weimar Germany moment and we all gotta pull together to avoid suffering the same fate.

 Late September-Early October

 This could be seen as part of the same arc as the previous section in the campaign, but it's a bit different for me. The bulk of september was spent on vacation and at the end I got back. As I settled into my routine, Harris was still going strong from her debate performance. But then she started nose diving soon after. It seemed to coincide with the VP debate on October 1, when I think back. While September was a strong month for Harris, her energy began stalling out going into October. She went from having around a 59% chance, just about the highest you can get while the race still being a tossup, back down to around 50, and then back into the 40s. I didn't know if this was a trend, but after a few weeks of this, I started panicking.

The reason I separate this segment of the campaign from the rest of it both before and after is because the end of this section is when I voted for Harris. I live in PA where everyone can do mail in voting, and I LOVE mail in voting. I dont have to go out, I can just mail it in. I can research candidates more. It's more convenient, but it does go to show that yeah, some of us were already voting during Harris's decline. 

I myself took great pleasure in filling out my ballot. It was more an F U to Trump. Keep in mind, my entire motivation by this point was to keep Trump out of office, because I knew that he literally would be about as bad as he ended up being. The writing was on the wall. For some reason, most didn't seem to care. And entire election has felt like watching a train wreck happen from the get go. I can see the danger but people were just like "well we had him once before, he's not gonna be that bad, right? Besides I cant stand the thought of 4 more years of Biden." I get it, harris kinda sucks, just as biden kinda sucked, but uh...yeah. We really did need to pull together to save democracy here. 

Early October-Late October

Post vote clarity hit me like a motherfricker. And it was very obvious by this point that Harris was in decline. We were entering the final month of the campaign, the most crucial month, the one that we can't screw up, and WE WERE LOSING! On my blog, I was sounding the alarm bells. I pointed out the states, and I became a lot less filtered about my true views on harris, flaws and all. We saw this before. The convention soured me on her, but then seeing her galavanting around with Liz Cheney and saying that she wanted moderate republicans in her cabinet made me cringe. This is NOT what I wanted to vote for, and this was almost enough to make me regret voting for her.

Keep in mind, in 2016 and 2020, I didnt vote for the dem nominees. Because of crap like this. I HATE these people. I really do. I hate the democratic party. They're so consultant brained and obsessed with moderation, and those people CLEARLY got to harris's campaign. She went from taking the fight to trump and getting down in the dirt with him early on to the consultants coming in and cleaning up everything where now she was basically "Biden but more moderate." Which is the last thing I wanna hear. I also think it's the last thing the country wanted to hear, based on polling. 

Really, the dems dont seem to get it. And even now, they're trying to pass off all of the blame on Joe Biden for their loss, but in reality, no, it's because this brand of bland centrism is just fundamentally unpopular. Harris had somewhat of a platform, but here's the thing she doesn't get. It's not big enough, it's not what people want. But still, despite my obvious criticisms, the race was still in tossup territory, it just went from Harris being the frontrunner to Trump. But it remained in that 40-60% range for both candidates. It's just that they flipped who was in the head. All in all, who won would come down to what direction the polling error goes in. I normally like to ready the energy but it was hard this election. Trump had his lovers, but also his haters. So did Harris. For this period, I'd say Trump had more energy through October, but it did seem like toward the end, things seemed to fall off for him too.

Late October-Election Day

 For me, the final turning point of the campaign was that rally in Madison Square Garden. It flopped and made Trump look like a massive racist. And given how one of the key demographics needed for victory was gonna be Latinos in PA, I was very very happy to see it. Between that and a bunch of other small things leading up to election day, I honestly thought the energy was shifting toward Harris at the last minute. 

But then Trump won. It was a painful defeat and one that I watched with horror. In 2016, the first time he won, I had schadenfreude. I felt like the democrats clearly had it coming and I knew that Trump the first time around wasn't gonna be that bad. He wasnt the apparent threat to democracy he evolved into, and honestly, I thought Hillary sucked. My opinion at the time was that if Trump won, people would FAFO and next election we'd just vote him out, and show the public once again why we dont elect republicans.

However, I kinda realized in 2020 that people actually LIKE that orange psychopath and Biden BARELY won. And then he threw a hissy fit during January 6th and tried to overthrow the election. And as the data came out on that, I was like, yeah, this guy can't be elected again, he's too fundamentally dangerous.

So when he won again, I was like oh god no. But the result was what it was. And it was decisive. Despite trying to dig ourselves out of the hole that Biden dug us into, the party couldnt' do it. Again, I dont think the problem was just Biden. I think the problem was the democrats just suck, to be frank. Their brand of politics is fundamentally unpopular, and it doesnt resonate. Democrats dont listen to voters. They tell voters they cant have what they want, argue with them about that fact, and tell them to support them anyway. And in the grand scheme of things, Trump won in part because he had some increased turnout, yes, but I think the bigger problem was a lot of democrats just stayed home and didn't vote. Some of it was cost of living, the Biden problem, Gaza. but ultimately, the GOP base ended up being fired up and the dems ended up not being so. Just like Harris was Schrodinger's candidate, both progressive and moderate at the same time, where the wave function collapse landed on moderate, the campaign was the same way, and it landed on Trump.  

And that's why we lost.

Conclusion

Anyway I just wanted to set up this framework because I'm probably finishing Harris's book in the near future, and I figured that while I process the events from Harris's perspective over her campaign, I wanted to see what I was thinking at the time and where my head was at around the same time she was. In a way, reading this book isnt just reading the book. I also went back and read my own blog posts from the same time period in order to see how I viewed things at the time. With that said, my next post will probably respond to Harris's book directly. Idk if it will be longer or shorter than this.