Election Update 9/20/24

 So, just a really brief election update. I'll return to my normal format next week. 

Basically, the big shift is that the rust belt is getting a bit bluer and the sun belt a bit redder. Otherwise, not a lot has changed. We're seeing mostly small fluctuations, although a massive dump of polls yesterday really pushed the entire race more in Harris' direction. Still, at a 60% chance for Harris, the race is still a de facto toss up for me. Who knows if this movement will even hold, given the trajectory.

Yeah. Lots of small fluctuations for weeks. Things are moving in a pro Harris direction NOW but who knows what things will look like next week or the week after. The trend could continue or 50-50 is the new normal. I suspect the latter.

As for the senate, yeah, not much has changed in net, mostly small shifts in the margin.

GOP still holds an 86% chance of winning the senate here. 49-51R.

And yeah, that's all I'll post this time. Don't have a ton of time to post right now and do maps and fancy formatting, so, it is what it is. Again, I'll hopefully return to my more normal format next week. 

So lets talk about recent attacks on greens and third parties I'm seeing on the internet

 What is campaign season if not for democrats crapping on greens and Jill Stein? it's like a time honored tradition. I actually hate it. I believe the democrats arent entitled to votes ideologically, and third parties gaining popularity is an indication that the two party system is doing something wrong. Shaming voters isn't the answer. Even in 2024. It does nothing to actually win those voters over. All it does is lead to a culture of toxicity within the dems, and polarizing those voters even more than they would be otherwise. I was more polarized and convinced of my position first and foremost by democrats trying to shame me out of it. That social crap dont work on me and is indicative of bad faith manipulation and cult like behavior. Doesnt work on a free thinker. But it does seem to work on others, and dem spaces get absolutely insufferable with the third party bashing. So here I'm going to discuss some of the common talking points I'm seeing this time around.

"The green party isn't serious"

Ok, who defines what is and isn't serious? This is just an argument bashing people about how they got no support and struggle against institutional barriers. I mean, they do do that, you know that right? it takes tens of thousands of signatures to get on the ballot and tons of effort just to get moving. And our system is set up by republicans and democrats to maintain their power and suppress competition. 

"Why don't you focus on down ballot races?"

This is just a non sequitur to me. I mean, the reason third party candidates focus on the presidency is they need to to gain attention. No one cares about the down ballot stuff. Most people are driven out by the presidency and then vote down ballot. This is why presidential races and congressional races are often tied, and one of the reasons the dems forced Biden out. He was killing their down ballot chances. 

Either way, this statement reeks of elitism. Like "ugh, why are you focusing on such a high profile race, focus on these little races no one cares about like the peons you are." Ugh, kindly F off. 

Also, the greens, at least in PA, do focus on down ballot races too. They just never make it on the ballot given the high requirements. If you think getting on the presidential ballot is hard, imagine some nobody getting on a down ballot race no one particularly cares about. 

"The greens are in league with Russia and Republicans"

So, I'm not going to deny that the greens are sometimes weaponized by republicans and even Russia to hurt the dems and achieve their political goals. And I'm not even gonna deny that the greens sometimes seem to willingly accept help from these parties. If they want to gain any support, sometimes they might feel the need to make a deal with the devil. Not justifying it, just explaining it. I do think, especially in terms of russia, the greens are too willing to accept help from them in order to gain support, and this taints them.

Still, to focus more abstractly and in terms of ideals, should we always attack a third party just because an opposing faction to our ideological goals supports them? I would say no. We should define ourselves primarily in what we're for, not against, defining ourselves as being not the bad guys but a lesser evil is the whole problem in the first place. 

And while, in this era of Donald Trump, yes, we do need to be against the literal fascist, and we should be against russia (and i will say it, a huge reason i dislike the greens is their foreign policy would be disastrous to the US), ultimately, this election is special. THe stakes are too high for normal rules to apply, and I do think that doing a strategic lesser evil vote is intelligent at this time. Still, I wouldnt make a habit of it. 

"But they can't win"

If youre voting third party, it's not about winning but pressuring the system to appeal to you and your concerns. When I did it, i did it to bring attention to UBI, universal healthcare, and protesting the treatment and hostility i got from dems in terms of my ideology and the above goals. When people do it in 2024, it's about palestine mostly.

If third parties are taking so much of your voter base it threatens your ability to win the election, then that's on you to appeal to them. You should be able to keep third parties to under 1% of the population. At which point further gains with them is likely a lot cause. If you lose by under a 1% margin, like in 2000 and 2016, while yes, third parties did play a role, the elephant in the room is they also struggled against the republicans as well. ANd keep in mind, republicans have their own third parties taking from them, like libertarians, and RFK Jr, and the constitution party, etc. So if you can't win because of a sub 1% of the population, that sounds like a you problem. Appeal to them or move on. Stop this weird obsession with harassing their voters on the internet. Democrats aren't owed votes. Politicians exist to serve constituents, constituents dont exist to serve politicians. If your strategy doesnt work it doesnt work. I admit, criticizing voters isnt always invalid, but the weird obsession dems have with third party voters is just too deranged for me. If the GOP wins in 2024, the dems are gonna have more going against them than the free palestine kiddies, the big problem is all the independents who are like "but things were cheaper in 2019." 

Conclusion

Look, I'm voting for Harris this time. And some of it is lesser evil thinking. But part of it is the fact that yes, the greens are kind of a joke and even I cant take them seriously. Still, dems doth protest too much, and it's annoying. The greens and Jill Stein, and Cornel West, have just as much of a right to run as anyone else, and i resent people trying to suppress candidates, push them out of the race, and shame and harass their voters. I dont even LIKE stein voters this election cycle. I mean some are okay, but most of them are the deranged "free palestine" kiddies who I cant stand. But, let's face it, I fully recognize those guys as a lost cause. If Harris aint bringing them back, and they're down to like 0.6% of the population, whatever, let's just move on with or without them. We have an election to win, and theres probably 10x the number of independent voters' up for grabs, which is why dems dont seem interested in appealing to these people in the first place. THey just arent that numerous to them and there's little to no political gain to doing so. Either way, I wish they'd just own that and shut up and let them do their own things. 

It baffles me how close some people are to getting it, only to completely go off in another direction...

 So, another brief reaction to the Anderson book on private government, but yeah, I dont get this lady sometimes. She seems so intelligent. She's done so much research into the history of states. She even discussed the ideal of markets working and people being independent actors in them. But then...she's anti UBI. I ain't basing that off the book, but that one lecture I covered back where she called it some sort of libertarian tech bro fantasy or something.

I mean, she went through all of the other alternatives to UBI in private government weighing the pros and the cons, it almost sounded like my analysis in a way (it was at least parallel to it). She discussed unions, regulations, workplace democracy. But...she's not pro UBI.

I really think her big oversight here is that she doesn't make the connection that the problem IS forced labor. The core reason markets and their liberalism fail is because you got these people who are effectively forced by propertylessness to participate in market relations. THe voluntariness that libertarians and classical liberals assume falls apart because it exists only on paper. If we want to ensure that people are insulated from the negative effects of "private government" people need to be given the freedom to say no, not just to any job, but all jobs. Capitalism IS just a choice between masters UNTIL liberty actually becomes an actual option. Then, every job will have to be weighed against...no job. No subjugation. No subservience. No obedience. No wage slavery. And businesses will have to adjust their business model accordingly. They will have to either raise wages, automate the jobs, outsource, hire immigrants, or go out of business. And I'm fine with any of them, as long as the sausage is made and the system is sustainable.

If willingness to work for meet our basic needs becomes a problem, we can just cap the UBI at the highest sustainable amount and work toward more liberation in the future. I'm not saying it will be perfect, that nothing can go wrong, but anything that does can be compensated for. We can balance our physical needs for production with liberty, taking liberty as far as it goes, but not taking my ideas into unsustainable territory. We can rely on the other flawed methods like regulation, unions, workplace democracy, etc., as complementary to UBI, acknowedging that once again, theory may not always meet reality and some redundancy is necessary. We can make it work. I feel like the practical considerations might be the reason people dont even consider that option, they just consider work as a fact of life, but I don't. I actively think work is a great evil in life and it should be minimized, not maximized as our current society seeks to do. And I fully recognize we could've scaled down our efforts to work over the decades, but instead we've pursued maximum growth instead, believing that growth, and work, are inherent goods. I dont necessarily agree with such narratives. But still, I do recognize at some point work IS still necessary and I'm willing to compromise my ideas with reality. I feel like that's something most DON'T do. Everything is head in the clouds theory and sometimes that theory doesnt match reality. Reality can be complex, but anyone looking to develop a theory should also consider "what can go wrong?" And I do attempt to do that and also counter any possibility that comes to my attention. 

But yeah. At the same time, Anderson's criticisms, based on her previous views on UBI before, seem more...ideological. She actually believes in the dignity of work nonsense. She actually is one of those traditional pro labor luddite types who fear giving up employment because they see it as giving up power and handing it over to billionaires and a state that won't help them. I believe the state can work for the people, but the people have to force it to. The reason billionaires control the system is we've gotten to a point where most people are stupid, uneducated, and ideologically buying into a lot of bad ideas and keep fighting among those. It's frustrating though. This person IS super educated but still ends up going in a totally different ideological direction. It baffles and frustrates me. 

On authority

 So, I'm reading Elizabeth Anderson's "Private government" (yeah lots of reading this trip) and to be honest, this is probably going to spark a lot of convo from me. I know I'm on vacation, but I still can't avoiding WANTING to post when I have something to say. And not wanting to lose my train of thought, I figured I'd write this.

So...authority. From a secular worldview, is it justified. The book talks a lot about the history of governments and authority, and the idea of public authority and private authority, and I wanted to give my views as it might be useful later for another project I've been working on.

Much of authoritarianism is justified in Christianity. God is the ultimate dictator, and Anderson talks a lot about how Christians had a "chain of things" to justify people having authority over others. God has authority over monarchs, monarchs have authority over subjects, nobles have authority over serfs, masters over slaves, husbands over wives and ultimately...employers over the employee. And, as we know there's significant protestant work ethic style thinking in which people need to be given direction from authority to give them purpose to their lives and cause them for falling into sin. As a humanist, and a western political philosophy enjoyer, I FUNDAMENTALLY reject these ideas of authority.

 From my perspective, we are an advanced species of intelligent ape, and there's no valid justification for authority. As I see it, there are two models of governance and authority. There's the idea that government arose as strong men organized loyal subjects to conquer and subjugate their fellow humans and subject them to inhumane hierarchies and autocracies that dominate every sphere of their life. This form of authority is, to me, morally illegitimate, although it may be very legitimate from a "might makes right" standpoint. I believe that ultimately, just authority comes from mechanisms like the social contract and the idea of consent of the governed, as well as democratic support from the people themselves. This is the more morally justified model of authority. In the former model, authority is imposed on people from the outside against their well, and in the second, authority is based on the popular will of the people. In the first, the government oppresses the people, in the latter, the government serves the people. 

History seems to show that the history of states mostly follows the first model, with the second model being a legal fiction that came about during the enlightenment and later. We reformed our states to reflect the ideals of the latter, and in such greatly improved our quality of life, but at the same time there are some models where we still reflect the logic of the former in some ways.

As Anderson's book would point out, with the name of it being "private government", our work places still largely reflect the "old world" logic. Anderson talked in her first chapter about how the market used to be this left wing idea, but back then, it was the 1800s. And we were talking America. We know Anderson's work ethic book talked about the history and brutality of capitalism in Europe, but early on, in America, it was a bit different. It used to be that the market was seen as a way for people to earn their own way, acquire their own land, and be self sufficient. The logic that government socialism was bad came from the "gift economy" of Europe and how nobles were beholden to monarchs who gave them stuff in exchange for loyalty. Work used to be about self sufficiency, as one could just acquire a plot of land and be independent. A lot of our conservative american ideals like the american dream and our exceptionalism came from the early 1800s and the founding of the country. But eventually, post civil war, we industrialized, much like Europe, and capitalist relations became oppressive, much like Europe. 

Nowadays, the American dream is mostly a thing of the past (IMO), something that people cling to, but had been long lost. We're not in the early 1800s any more. We're not an agrarian society, we're an advanced industrial to post industrial society, much like Europe. Most people work for an employer, much like Europe, and people are forced to be subject to mini dictatorships known as "work places." We consider this "voluntary", which apparently justifies them, but when one's access to the basics of life are tied to labor, how can we truly consider this the case? We can't. 

Socialists talk a lot about wanting to democratize the work place. Im apathetic on this. I still have more traditional liberal ideals on the market. I believe the core problem is people being forced to work in the first place. I see work as inherently unpleasant, and an necessary evil. I see the modern workplace as a severe infringement on our freedoms, with private government being almost as oppressive as government government. Anderson portrays the work place as almost like a communist government. We wouldnt tolerate a communist government infringing our freedoms in such a way, but in our dystopian capitalist market logic with forced labor, we see this as a okay, because people "voluntarily" agreed to it. Even though you dont functionally have a choice.

So how do we fix this? Well, the best approach is with the government government. Of course, right "libertarians" will say what private entities agree to is of no business of the government's, but given the transactions arent particularly voluntary, regulation, taxation and spending on universal social programs, etc. actually can be morally justified. After all, the entire logic behind the social contract IMO is that we set aside a little bit of our natural liberty to enjoy the rest in greater security. We give up the right to murder to avoid being murdered. We give up the right to steal so we can enjoy greater security in property rights. By the same logic, we can give up some of our absolute liberty to accept bad business deals, to ensure that only ethical deals exist, or to ensure that the deals are actually voluntary. As Anderson has touched on, and I am also a believer of, there's more than one kind of liberty anyway. Most accept only negative liberty, ie, the right to be left alone, but anderson talks of positive liberty and republican liberty. I emphasize various brands of positive liberty myself, believing both in van parijs' "real freedom" as well as widerquists "freedom as power to say no", not just to any job but no jobs.

The "propertarians" (as widerquist) would call them act as if taxation is theft, but in reality, so is property, as Anderson points out, simply enforcing property rights requires a massive sacrifice of the community in respecting one's property rights. It only makes sense the community as a whole gets paid back for this right, and the inconvenience and burdens placed on them. I think the best way to do this is to ensure that every individual is entitled to enough property to ensure no one is forced into wage slavery. And it should be paid for with taxation. Some people might not like that, but tough crap, I dont like being forced to work for others just to obtain a wage in order to survive and meet my basic needs. Wage labor in the form that exists is literally a form of slavery, just one in which we went our lives out on an hourly basis instead of being owned outright. There's nothing wrong with wage labor, as long as it's voluntary, just as there's nothing wrong with consensual sex, as long as it isn't rape. 

If we want to reclaim the true american dream, the one of the early 1800s, we need to implement a UBI, universal healthcare, and other universal services as we see fit. This is justified simply in the people demanding it, and demanding our society reflect this new philosophy and way of thinking. If our society is just, and our society reflects the second model of governance and authority, the government is our servant. It is morally and legally required to do what we ask of it. And if this means a curtailing of property rights, so be it, these rights arent natural ones from god, but human ones from people anyway. People created them, people can take them away. What is unjust is forcing us to live according to these undemocratic edicts based on divine command theory or some other anti democratic logic and imposing a system on people that functionally enslaves them. As I always say with human centered capitalism, either our society exists to serve us, or we exist to serve it. A society that exists to serve us is one that is legitimate, in my ideal on authority. One where we are forced to serve it, is one that is unjust, and one that can justly be dismantled by the people, if they so choose. Much of our modern logic for the justification of the states is based on the model of democracy and social contract, but for some reason property rights and the consequences that come from them are still treated as this inalienable divinely inspired right that cant be changed, even if they impose negative conseuqneces that condemn the majority of humanity to de facto slavery and oppression for most of their lives. I say we change it. There's no reason we can't. These ideas only hold as much power as we collectively give them, and as much as our social structures impose them on us. 

Obviously, I'm not, in any of this, calling for the abolishment of property itself, as some leftists do. All societies need a system of determining who gets what. There's nothing wrong with a system of private property, within reason. We just shouldnt treat it as something handed down from god and treat it as sacred to the point that it enslaves us. These social structures exist to serve us. We should make them serve us. And that's my view on that. And on authority in general. 

EDIT: As for how we can avoid UBI falling into the of a "gift economy", the key is to make it universal and unconditional. UBI, and its correspondiing universal services like healthcare, and education, need to be treated as universal rights every citizen and possibly legal resident is entitled to. The fewer restrictions, the better. The government will only hold power over people if it sets conditions on those things to extract obedience on people. If people are entitled to these things as citizens and they cannot be taken away, then the people will not have their freedom abridged. Quite frankly, conditional welfare and employment are greater threats to freedom than UBI and other corresponding ideas are. 

If republicans are oh so concerned about heated political rhetoric, they should be the ones to tone it down

 So, the republicans are going with this line that the reason Trump keeps being targetted by would be assassins is because of democratic rhetoric claiming he's a threat to democracy. As someone who deals in this rhetoric, my response: "have you considered not being a threat to democracy?" I dont use the rhetoric lightly. I avoided painting trump in existential terms in 2016 and 2020, despite many fellow lefties and democrats doing so. I rolled my eyes at such rhetoric, but this time, Trump is scary. He literally incited a mob to overturn the results of the 2020 election. HE engaged in heated rhetoric. he's also talked about suspending the constitution, being a dictator for a day, locking up political opponents, and so many other things that arent worth mentioning or counting. THe fact is, trump has lobbed so many rhetorical bombs since 2015 or so that it's impossible to count them all in one simple blog post. Heck, last week he started talking about haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats and now neo nazis and KKK members are making threats against haitian immigrants, even though the narrative has been thoroughly debunked as nonsense. But hey, we're supposed to tone it down by pointing this behavior out? Screw you, Trump. I don't agree with the would be assassins, I've condemned them several times over the past few months, including a post today, but come on, the reason there's so much heightened rhetoric about you is because you're saying blatantly incendiary and dangerous stuff. And JD Vance, despite pushing the same narrative, himself has made criticisms about Trump being a threat to democracy. He might be distancing himself from those comments, and even claiming to being willing to go along with Trump's coup if he were in Pence's shoes, but that's the pathetic thing about vance. He sold out HIS principles for power. And he is now part of the same problem, and just as dangerous as Trump is in my eyes.

And to focus on the other side of the equation, did any of the shooters attempted or otherwise embrace the specific anti dem rhetoric that was spoken of? Crooks was a right wing republican. He wasnt that politically motivated, he had the same mentality as your typical school shooter. And I say that as someone with a criminology degree btw. I at least feel qualified enough for a cursory analysis on that. As for this new guy, Routh, details are still coming out about him. He looks like he was pro trump in 2016 and became anti trump in recent years. He voted in the dem primaries this year, but also endorsed a lot of republican candidates running against trump. He also seemed to be a whack case with tons of firearm charges in the past. If either of these shooters tell me anything, it's that maybe we should consider stricter gun control in this country if we want to stop gun violence. Of course, the GOP ain't ready for that conversation. And I'm kind of pro second amendment in principle anyway. I wouldnt mind SOME stricter gun control, but I would be leery of an assault rifle or high capacity mag ban. It seems obvious that neither shooter really should've had access to firearms though. Especially this Routh guy. 

But yeah. As such, can we even say its the heightened rhetoric that is the problem here? It doesnt seem to be the common denominator here. Neither shooter was a die hard democrat, and while the second one was very obviously anti trump, he seemed independent if anything. Anyway, my abvove comments still stand. My honest view is if Trump or his buddies want people to tone down their rhetoric regardless of him, maybe he should stop doing things that justify such rhetoric in the first place? It aint that hard. I ain't for exaggerating or catastrophizing candidates as existentially evil unless the situation calls for it. I mean, I remember the GOP doing this to every democrat in my lifetime and it backfired pretty hard, and I dont normally appreciate dems acting in the same way either. I'm only treating Trump in such a way on this blog because...yeah...he really IS that dangerous. Reporting on things he's said and done hardly seems worthy of criticism. If you dont like people saying bad things about you, dont do bad things, it's that simple. I consider myself a fair and reasonable person on such matters. And yeah, that's how I see it. 

Ok, seriously, can we not shoot orange man? (or anyone else for that matter)

 Another day, another assassination attempt. But yeah, I get that the guy is a threat to democracy, but can we NOT try to kill him? Doing so isn't in alignment with the norms of democracy and rule of law in the first place. These things exist for good reason, and we saw that reason a bit the last time he was shot at, with his followers rearing to go with civil war 2. The point of civil society is to discourage vigilante violence. Without it, people will just start killing each other. We let the state arbitrate differences because the alternative is people will...do this. ANd we don't want where this goes. Do we want trumpers taking shots at our candidates? Don't do it against theirs. Again, deescalate this crap right now.

Second of all, trump is, to my knowledge, the weakest candidates the republicans can run. If trump dies, whoever he is replaced with could poll higher. So...we're just screwing over our own chances. Im kind of in the camp that "god let trump win so he could lose to a black woman" camp we had the last time this discussion happened.

Third, on the topic of "god", yeah, maybe it's good this guy lives. he might be essential to us getting the best possible time line, even if short sighted thinking indicates otherwise. It could be the only way the dems win is if trump is on the republican ticket. It could be if trump wins the US devolves into civil war, or something in the timeline happens that leads to some sort of major global conflict, or even just, the worst case scenario in climate change. I dont believe god intervenes in politics often, but I actually have come to believe god may protect certain individuals (even evil ones) in order to get the timeline where we DONT destroy ourselves. It's not that god would endorse their politics per se, they might just serve as a villain to ensure that we move the other way, but yeah. You dont have to believe this one, but given how all the trumpers keep going on about how he's "protected by god", yeah, I do have an alternative opinion on that. 

Either way, dont try to shoot trump. Not only does it lead to bad consequences for you, it could lead to disastrous consequences for the country. Vote against him peacefully. We are a country based on the peaceful transfer of power and disrupting that is actually bad. It's bad when he did it in 2021, it's bad if we do it now. 

Can we stop acting like it's soooo haaaarrrrdddd for a woman/person of color to be elected?

 So, I've heard people asking if Harris's biggest liability is her race or gender. And uh...no. The black/indian mixed race woman is actually polling several points higher than the 81 year old white male. If race and gender is a liability, it's far less so than age. So why are people making a big deal about this? Easy, because these politics are based on grievance and they have to perpetuate the grievance or appearance of it to remain relevant. If the problems of racism and sexism were solved, then the movements would disappear and become irrelevant. So to some extent they end up just moving the goal posts every time to remain relevant. We started with legitimate grievances that were straightforward, but as women and people of color gained power and influence, they start dealing with more and more esoteric issues that literally require a sociology degree to understand. Im not saying that these issues are illegitimate, but we're to the point of dealing with diminishing returns for the political capital we expend, and to some extent the people who advocate for these views simply believe that the system is stacked against them to the point of playing the persecution card at any opportunity. ANd if anything is a liability, it's that. People don't like that stuff, and that's a key reason Clinton lost. It's not that a woman couldnt win, it's that a woman who constantly complains about sexism can't win because people dont wanna hear it. Double down by going after white males in your coalition who dont care about racial/sexual issues and dont be surprised when you lose. Thankfully Harris is doing much better than that. Shes not leaning into the stuff, only terminally online resist libs are, but yeah those resist libs are still annoying. No one likes this stuff. It's not that people dont like women of color (well, anyone who doesnt is a die hard trump voter anyway), it's that people dont like it laid on thick and hear people complaining about it all of the time.

So what IS harris's biggest liability? I would say it's her being Bidens VP. Remember the old white male no one liked? Yeah. She's in his shadow. He's extremely unpopular, and a lot of people don't think Harris is gonna be any better. They ask what her policies are and dont seem impressed by what they hear. because it's 95% what Biden was for. And people have to ask "if you wanna do all of this stuff, why arent you doing it already? Youre VP" and while there are answers related to obstruction elsewhere in the political system, people dont wanna hear that. Just as the privilege stuff goes over their head, so does a complex discussion on separation of powers. So...yeah. I would argue 2024 is gonna be in part a referendum on joe biden, just as 2020 was a referendum on trump and 2016 a referendum on obama/clinton. If people are unhappy with the party in power, they'll vote for the other party. Harris isn't her own candidate. She's a continuation of the biden administration. But when no one wants a second biden term, which was why he was tanking in the polls massively, well, you can see why things are as they are. Trump has a formidable coalition, biden was deeply unpopular and shedding significant parts of his own coalition. Harris brought some of them back but malaise and dissatisfaction remains and voters are reluctant to embrace Harris for a variety of reasons, and yeah.

This is a year that by rights, the dems should lose. The fact that we have ANY shot at all at this point is a miracle. Remember, Biden's PEAK polling all year was around a 33% shot. Harris closed the gap to make it 50-50. Harris is in the best position we've been all cycle to win. If we lose, it's not because she's a woman or black/indian and if only we ran some straight white christian male we would poll better. Because the ancient straight white christian male we had polled WORSE. And a lot of that was age, but still. The democrats are just in a bad position in 2024. The woman of color is the best shot we've had. Remember that. if Harris loses, it's not because of racism and sexism among independent voters (keep in mind most of those crapbags are trumpers), it's because the dems were just set up for failure by the biden administration creating malaise. Keep in mind my energy theory. The party that is more fired up generally wins. Dems have had morale problems all year, the trumpers are fired up. Harris actually raised our enthusiasm, and while i will say we're past the honey moon period as evidenced by a slight slump in the past couple of weeks foor harris, she's still in this and this is probably our ceiling. Keep in mind, a repeat 2020 or 2022 performance is our best case scenario this year. We arent topping that in the current environment. Harris is doing the best the democrats are gonna do, and if we had a white male on the ticket, we'd be doing no better. 

Reacting briefly to Crimethinc's "Work"

 So I summed it up yesterday but I finished it. It's cringey. But explains the mindsets weirdo leftists often have. They argue capitalism is like a literal foreign occupation oppressing us. They have some points, I'm fairly critical of capitalism myself, but as one can tell reading the previous article, I think the arguments for and against capitalism both have points, and I tend to end up on the pro capitalist side, while also recognizing capitalism as its practiced is oppressive and enslaves us. This guy (or girl) thinks that we'd be better off back in the jungles and that society is unnecessary or a mistake. It's kind of an insane stance to take. I mean, I've read widerquist, I know that modern society is kind of oppressive, but let's face it, the prehistory of civilization wasnt a cake walk either. I'd say the net benefits of society are worth it, even if it doesnt make everyone happy or fulfill the lockean proviso (make EVERYONE better off than in a state of nature, which, when one thinks about it, is an insane stance to take, if even one person is failed by modern society, then the proviso isn't fulfilled). And as I said, I think that the problem with capitalism isnt really a problem with capitalism, but a problem of all civilization. So to me, capitalism is just the least of all evils, and the real question is what kind of capitalism we want to practice. 

Of course, this person is obsessed with being the resistance. Everything is bad, everything is evil, there can be no redeeming qualities of capitalism or another narrative that frames it in a good light or tries to justify it (I'm more even handed in my criticisms). And yeah, toward the end of the book, the person starts getting subversive and seems to start arguing for...stealing from one's work place to pay for college. I mean, this is the problem with leftists. They literally come to the table believing the system is evil and progress cant be made from reform, so they just wanna break everything and sabotage the system and be criminals instead. It's the same logic of the free palestine weirdos. Dont try to engage with electoralism or anything. Let's just scream over people and occupy buildings because we'll never get anywhere by voting or protesting peacefully. I mean, they're psychos. Extremist psychos. This is why i could never be a leftist. I do believe in liberal democracy and civil society and reform. Even if I hate capitalism in its current form and have some left leaning beliefs doesnt mean that i want to just tear down the entire system and return to monke. Leftists are insane sometimes. 

To end on a positive note, I guess the criticisms of capitalism and everyone's roles in it make you think (the student loan thing particularly hit home for me, as someone who was pressured in my youth to go to college to get a good job and avoid being on the crap side of the system), but yeah...you cant take stuff like this too seriously. The person takes their views to the most extreme stance possible and ends up advocating for doing illegal crap to resist the system. It's kind of insane. I'd prefer a more moderate and reformist approach. 

Parsing out my love hate relationship with the left

 So, I had a weird dream where I got banned from one of my favorite subs for an actual argument I had not long ago in which I bashed some elements of the left. It didn't happen, but if it were a lot of other left wing subs, it very well could have as those guys WOULD do crap like that, and it got me wanting to write a companion article to my previous one discussing how I feel in relation to the left.

To sum things up, the left is instrumental in criticizing, opposing, and reforming capitalism, but often times their methods either go too far, not far enough, or are applied in such an ideological way that I don't agree with that I become lukewarm on them. I guess the big issue with the left is that while we can all agree that we oppose capitalism in some form, and have solutions to it in some form, we can't always agree on what those exact solutions look like.

Much of modern hard left leftist philosophy comes directly from Marx. Marx was an interesting writer in his time and had many substantive critiques of capitalism, but in a lot of ways his ideology is divisive for a reason. As people have tried to overturn Marxism and achieve solutions with it, they end up just creating new systems that are just as bad or even worse in other ways. They have all of these criticisms of the system, but their solutions suck. Philosophically, their ideology isnt amazing ever. Most leftists are constrained to marx and his thinking that work isnt the problem, capitalism and its corresponding alienation and exploitation is. Capitalists alienate people from their work and marxists have this "if only people could work under a different set of principles, it would be fine and peachy" mentality. For me, it's different. I think work is inherently dehumanizing, that there is no good work, and that as long as work is forced, it's never dignified. Leftism almost never attempts to solve the forced labor problem, and tries to force a different set of principles on people. Work can only be dignified IMO if it is taken from a position of pure voluntariness. If people can actually choose to say no, and still choose to work, and they genuinely WANT to work, that's fine. But there is no dignity in forced labor, and as I demonstrated with the flaws of liberal "bourgeois" democracy merely needing to appease 51% of the population (and sometimes not even that), democracy under socialist principles is no better. The solution to capitalism isn't economic democracy. It's freedom for every individual to work or not to work under whatever terms they find acceptable, and to be given the ACTUAL freedom, in line with widerquist's "ECSO" (effective control of self ownership) freedom principles. 

With all of that said, I'd rather avoid reinventing the wheel in a worse fashion than already exists and insisting on forcing people to work under democratic principles. So many leftists have this mentality that if only work could operate under certain principles it would be fine.

So let's focus on reform.

The problem with reformists is that, we also cant agree on what reforms are needed, and what the size and scale necessary are. And much like the leftists, they tend to adopt ideologies that love and romanticize work, if only that work is done under certain principles.

Unions are the oldest form of resistance to capitalism, and ultimately have come to define their power by their ability to organize with other workers to achieve gains within the system. As such, many of them vitriolically oppose my own ideology, based on wanting to automate and abolish work, claiming that this would undermine their power. In a sense, they develop this mentality that much like the luddites, automating work is a bad thing, and they call my own ideology and solutions "libertarian tech bro" nonsense. They think I'm aligned with the likes of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, when the only thing we have in common is both of us believe work is about the product, not the process, and only the end result matters. if we can achieve the same results WITHOUT human labor, then I see that as a good thing, and i think we should embrace a UBI as an alternative means of subsistence. What labor unions end up doing is romanticizing work and being for the so called "dignity of work" where everyone should take pride in puttiing in a solid 8 hours of work under conditions they fought for. While union work is often less unpleasant than work in raw capitalism, it's still work, it still sucks, and i dream of a world without labor. Bite me. 

Many other forms of liberalism are built on state power and using the power of the state to help people. But, many liberals are limited and don't really support liberating workers from work in general. They're satisfied to defend their past legacies and imperfect and aging regulatory and welfare systems, pushing a false dichotomy between nothing at all, and flawed garbage. Regulations are old, outdated, and difficult to enforce. They are reactive, meaning they have to react to infractions after the fact, meaning the damage is already done, and may not be consistently enforced. If one makes a rule against firing people for certain reasons or without cause for example, employers might make up their own rules to justify firings, or make the employee so miserable they're forced to quit. If one makes up a rule requiring all employers to provide healthcare to all full time employees, more jobs will insist on making all workers part time, requiring them to work multiple jobs to survive. So instead of working one 40 hour a week job, they'll work 50 hours at 2 25 hour a week jobs, yay... Some regulations might be old and outdated, like our $7.25 minimum wage fom 2009, or our 40 hour work week laws from 1938. And many fail to account for the tyrannies of modern work places like inconsistent schedules and being forced to spend time outside of work on work interacting with work related computer systems and answering phone calls and emails. 

And even if we accomplish all of that, shouldnt we be focused more on work itself? Is the 21st century, why force people to work at all. We could structure society like a F2P game and be perfectly well off. But no, most liberals still believe in forcing people to work, just in terms that are more just than would exist under raw unregulated capitalism.

The welfare system operates under the same logic. We could (and should) have large unconditional safety nets. But most safety nets typically force people to work to get help. Social insurance programs are contribution based so only give according to peoples' past work. Welfare programs only help the so called "deserving" poor, claiming "it's a safety net, not a hammock" and that they only exist to catch people and throw them back into the work force. Most of these ideas are grounded in the elizbethian poor laws of early capitalism, which were based on trying to parse out the contradictions between two christian ideas: the idea that we should be charitable, but that everyone's lot in life is work. The result are cruel institutions that mght help people in limited ways, but if anything just inflict misery in their own ways.

Universal safety nets aimed at giving people their basic needs would be far better in the 21st century. As I said, we need systems that dont force people to work. Work having dignity comes from it not being forced. And work isnt really an inherent good, the product of work is. Work itself is a long, painful, arduous process, and we would be better off getting rid of it and abolishing it. But most don't wanna do that, and have developed stockholm syndrome for it.

Still, I want to point out that i do respect the efforts of the left and believe many of these ideas are better than nothing. But I see them as flawed, and not the end all be all of...well...life. 

Capitalism is a cruel mistress, but as I pointed out in the previous article, its very necessary. I believe in making capitalism better. How we do that differs, and a common thread through most of these bad ideas is most dont seek to actually make work voluntary, believing it's necessary for everyone to work all of the time. So you got a lot of reforms here, and again, most are better than nothing, but none of them actually really solve the problems IMO. 

Of course, this is where I get in infighting with other leftists, including where I get banned from subs. And while that dream didnt happen, i DID get banned from even r/antiwork from such an ideological disagreement. Those guys claim to be anti work, but since Doreen left, they let their obsession with anti capitalism and leftism become purity tests that are more important than getting rid of work itself. Because they dont believe work itself is the problem, but capitalism is. And because of that, I'm not welcome for being an anti work capitalist, but the weirdo leftists with brainrot who argue against UBI and other solutions im for in favor of job guarantees are allowed. Because to them work isnt the problem, work under capitalism is the problem. Therefore, capitalism is the problem. 

And this is why ideology matters and why I myself can be an insufferable purity testy butthole to other lefties, both liberal and anticapitalist. Because we dont have the same ideology, or the same goals. We might sometimes align in the short term, but we diverge on values to some extent. And I aint apologizing. I am for what Im for, and that's that. 

Parsing out my love hate relationship with capitalism

 So, another book I've been reading has been "Work" by Crimethinc, and I have really mixed thoughts on this one. I havent finished it, but I have read enough to give my general thoughts on the perspective here. They tend to frame capitalism as if it were a foreign occupation designed to put you "in prison" and oppress you at every level of its being. And to some extent, I cant disagree. After researching the history of capitalism for myself, I cant disagree, the system is designed to basically coerce each and every person to work, and at this point indoctrinates each new generation into it to the point many don't realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. I mean, capitalism sucks.

So, one might wonder, why do I support it? Well, because at the end of the day, SOMEONE needs to do the work necessary for society to survive. We arent to the point where a fully automated post scarcity economy exists yet. Economics exists to serve our wants and needs, and we need SOME system of logistics to determine who does what and who gets what. And capitalism WORKS. It produces tons of wealth. It just is unjust in distributing it, and coerces people into its mechanisms in a rather brutal fashion. And let's face it, no system devised before, nor any devised after, has been better. Before capitalism, we had systems of feudalism, or slavery. Heck, statism has a long sad history of oppressing people in general. And that goes all the way back to 5000 years ago. In a sense, the problems of capitalism are problems with states and government. But does this mean that we would be better off without government? No. Life before government was a war against all, with people living in a constant state of struggle andscarcity. I know anti capitalists often are attracted to anarchism and the promise of a world where we go back to having no states, but such life is nasty brutish and short, and inevitably ends with us being conquered by the first people to figure out how to organize people enough to start oppressing and conquering others again.

Not to mention, if we replaced capitalism with something like socialism or communism, we still risk the oppression of states. Heck, thats the reason socialism and communism are said to have failed and not worked. They just end up replacing capitalism with its oppression with state control under communism. 

So, let's not delude ourselves. Yes, capitalism sucks, capitalism is oppressive. But so is every other system ever conceived. And capitalism ends up being the best option in the same way Kamala Harris ends up being the best presidential candidate this time even when taking into consideration the horror show that is the landscape of third party candidates this election cycle. 

If anything, the best societies in the world seem to be the ones who have regulated and tamed capitalism to the point of providing shared prosperity for all. The best era in the US was the new deal era economically, and the social democracies of Europe are the most free and propserous societies that have existed. The solution isn't abolishing capitalism, the reformists are the ones who were able to actually improve life. And while capitalism isnt perfect under liberalism, much like everything else, it's a work in progress. Just as we shifted from the dictatorships and monarchies to liberal democracy, the solutions to capitalism are reforms that walk back the most oppressive elements of capitalism and make them better.

And I admit, liberalism needs to do better. The worst aspect of capitalism these days is forcing people to work. We are a society that is obsessed with work. A society where we walked back the most oppressive aspects of work with having minimum wages and mandated work weeks, but many of those safeguards are inadequate and need to be outdated, we must take effort at work itself, and attempt to begin to transition to a post work society. We can do it. We can implement a UBI to make work more voluntary, while preserving enough work incentive to ensure the sausage gets made. We can reduce our work week to be lower than 40 hours over time, as the economy becomes more productive. We can ensure basic needs while motivating people to work for luxuries. We can make society be whatever people want it to be. If people choose to work or choose not to work and each of them have their needs met but those who work get even higher standards of living, who is anyone to resent each other? The freeloader gets the "free to play" experience while the worker gets the "season pass" experience. 

I mean, thats all I really want. A society where no one is actually forced to do anything, everyones' needs are met, and then everyone stays out of each others' ways. Capitalism is actually the system to accomplish that. It just has to be tweaked to allow for it. I've had it said to me this way in the context of the environment. Right now, the economy is the center of our lives, everything revolves around the economy. What if the economy was just part of our lives and not the whole thing? Thus, we start moving toward human centered capitalism. The economy exists for us, we don't exist for the economy. Capitalism isnt the problem. Our current iteration of capitalism is the problem. A society that subverts us and our lives to it is one that enslaves us. One that exists to serve us and our needs is one that is just. The economy exists for humans, humans dont exist for the economy. The core idea behind human centered capitalism.

As such. Yeah, I mean, I see where Crimethinc is coming from, but sometimes the leftists doth protest too much. They see society as oppressive but have no real solutions to our problems. Everything is about resisting society and refusing to interact with the systems of electoralism available to us, and about committing some weird form of guerilla warfare in the form of "direct action." And these guys act like jack###es who throw tantrums to get their ways and come off as ineffective as a result. It's like the incel trap. They realize the system sucks so they end up behaving in ways and developing toxic attitudes that make their relationship with it worse rather than striving to fix it.

I mean, i criticize the democrats and our two party system a lot, but at the end of the day, leftists are a small minority. Most people actively support the existing system. And many of them benefit from it. Both the arguments for and against capitalism are valid, just as two people can look at a number on the ground and see a 6 or 9 depending on their position. But that said, both are valid. And most have grown to support it to varying degrees. if people didnt, they wouldnt vote for the candidates that support capitalism.

I mean heres the sad reality i realized post covid. As the economy reopened, the majority of the people were complaining that there werent enough workers to give them their middle class creature comforts. Not enough people to give them their sunday breakfasts in IHOP, not enough people to do their nails, etc. They cried "no one wants to work any more" over their desires for LUXURIES going unfulfilled. They freaked out over not being able to work during covid and how they didnt wanna sit in the couch collecting a paycheck. Most people are, for better or for worse, fully indoctrinated into this system. And to be fair, I kinda get it. This system does have its advantages. The stuff is nice. It is fun. But it's SO MUCH WORK. Again, i kinda recognize some people want that premium experience of going to restaurants and fancy vacations and stuff (I say, as I'm sitting in a hotel room on family vacation), but i dont think people should be forced to work for my enjoyment. Needs, sure. If we're in a state of scarcity and the ONLY way to motivate people to make enough so we dont starve to death is "those that don't work, dont eat", i can see the wisdom and justice in that. I just think that in a society as prosperous as ours, people shouldnt have their basic needs held over them to force them to provide for my middle class creature comforts. Like, I'm in Myrtle Beach right now. The entire city didnt exist before WWII, it's COMPLETELY a tourist place. The economy is all service economy. If it didnt exist because no one would voluntarily work here if they werent coerced by the threat of poverty? So be it. It's nice. I like it, but nice pleasurable middle class experiences shouldnt come at the expense of others' economic freedom. I know some of the bartenders of the one place we go work multiple jobs and always seem busy. I think that's insane. But that's life in modern capitalism. I dont think anyone should be forced to work for anyoone's enjoyment. But....a lot of people disagree, and they vote. ANd the fact that their luxury stuff is sometimes more expensive (as well as necessities) is why Trump has been favored for most of this election cycle. And why I've been so defensive of biden and the dems. We are fighting a culture war, and defending biden and the dems is in my strategic interests here. Im voting for the change i wanna see and against the change I dont want. But everyone else does and not everyone thinks the same as me. One downside of democracy is sometimes it's tyranny by majority. And this is one of the reasons economic democracy, ie, "socialism" isnt necessarily the answer either. 

But yeah, the reason capitalism is so oppressive is, in a sense, because the american public wants it to be. We are a work obsessed culture, and we have a lot of selfish middle class people who also benefit from capitalism (it's not just the ultra rich) who refuse to allow it to change because it might get rid of their creature comforts. As long as the system keeps 51% of people happy and keeps any discontent minimized and fractured among vrious different groups all fighting amongst themselves, nothing changes. And honestly, thats the first and foremost reason why nothing changes. Yes, we could argue education and socialization keep people dumb. Yes we can argue the rich are pulling the strings. But someone always is, and keep in mind what I said about states earlier. Capitalism is the worst system ever devised...except for literally everything else. We can complain about it, but what's the solutions? I have my solutions, but again, its reforming the system, and the core reason why nothing changes is not enough people are in demand for my solutions. We can say theyre dumb. Theyre uneducated, but it's just the reality of it. There is no magical working class movement waiting to happy where everyone suddenly just agrees the system is bad and wants to do something else. Most people like things as they are. Change happens slowly. And people are stupid en masse and easily manipulated. 

So...yeah. As such, complaining about capitalism is easy. Changing capitalism is hard. It's hard to devise solutions. It's even harder to sell the population on them. Most seem to like the system as it is, warts and all. While I respect lefties for trying to raise consciousness and thats why one of the reasons i write so much about this stuff too. let's stop acting like we're all oppressed and the system is all evil and blah blah blah. It's a blessing and a curse. it's both good and evil. It benefits some and hurts some too. Sometimes it does both to the same people. Capitalism ultimately has what id consider a mixed legecy. It provides massive wealth while also oppressing people to make it. There's a duality to capitalism. It's good, it's bad. It's both at the same time. I value the anti capitalist side to some extent, but I just think they go too far. And yeah, that's where I stand on the issue. 

Election Update 9/13/24

 So another brief election update.

Race is 50-50, Harris has been backsliding a little in the margins, but nothing that fundamentally changes the nature of the race.

I did some simulations too. 52-45-3 is how they came out (Harris-Trump-Tie).

I also made a second simulation of just the big seven swing states (MI/WI/PA/AZ/NV/GA/NC) and got 57-41-2 with that one. So the race is, if anything, slightly favoring Harris, but it's still very close. 

As far as the senate:

Once again, mostly changes around the edges. GOP has an 86% chance of outright control. Dems a 10% chance. 4% chance of a tie.

Simulations tell a slightly different story. They have an 81% chance of GOP control, 2% chance of democratic control, and a 17% chance of a tie. 

And yeah, that's a super abridged election update. 

Dear Pennsylvanians/swing state voters: get your ###es out there to vote!

 So, sorry for the rude wake up call, but I was just having a discussion with some fellow Pennsylvanians, and my god some people are so stupid and apathetic.

Yes, this really is the most important election of our lifetimes so far. Democracy itself is on the line. Donald Trump talks about being a dictator, overthrowing the constitution. he claimed 2020's results were rigged and tried to overthrow them via inciting an insurrection. It failed because the right people were in the right places at the right time, but if Trump tried again, he could succeed. Which is why even I have to say that yeah, we shouldnt let him win. We gotta lock him out.

And yes, pennsylvania is the most important state. Mathematically, it's the most likely tipping point state in most predictions and it's currently literally at 50-50. This whole election will likely be decided by a handful of votes in a handful of states. Which is why we need every available voter who isnt in the trump cult out there voting for Harris. It's not hyperbole to say that the fate of the country is on the line here. I know we hear every 4 years that this is the most important election of our lifetime, but this is the one time it's actually true. Trump CANNOT win again, or we might lose American democracy in general. And before people think that oh well it cant happen because checks and balances, you havent been paying attention. The Supreme Court recently gave the president broad immunity powers from prosecution. And a republican congress (which is a real statistical possibility) would likely enable him. It's really bad for us to let Trump win again. The GOP must be repudiated and stopped now. Nothing else matters if we lose democracy itself. Im serious. Take it from a third party voter who ignored all the propaganda in 2016 and 2020 on this matter and voted green. 

If you live in the following 7 states, the fate of the country will be decided by you. Yes, PA is arguably the most important as it is the largest of the 7 and is also consistently among the most contested, but all 7 matter and all 7 can tip the election one way or another:

Wisconsin

Michigan

Nevada

Pennsylvania

Georgia

North Carolina

Arizona

We need to win at least 3 of these states (in the best case scenario), possibly 4 (without Pennsylvania) and maybe even 5 if we only win the smallest of the 7 (WI/MI/NV/AZ+one more). 

So make sure you're registered, and make sure you vote. It really does matter. 

Explaining to liberals why Harris isn't landing with undecideds

 So, a lot of liberals seem to be getting frustrated with undecideds not understanding that Harris is the clear choice this election, and how Harris good, trump bad. The video they were responding to is this one, and watching it myself and being from PA, I have things to say about it.

First, it seems like these undecideds DIDNT like Trump. AT ALL. They thought he was unhinged and crazy. And yeah, that tends to happen when you start going on about how illegals are eating peoples' pets. On the flip side the criticisms of Harris seemed a bit more reasonable than libs were making them out to be. Most were focusing on her policies and asking "why didn't she do this stuff while VP?" and pointing out they werent that impressed with her policies and would like to know more about them. These are reasoned criticisms of Harris, and I really feel like I should discuss them here.

First of all, to answer them. Harris didnt do more as VP because she was an employee of Joe Biden. She couldnt enact her own agenda. As for why Biden didn't do more, well, because he was hamstrung by congress. We had narrow house and senate advantages, and in 2021-2023 the senate constantly sabotaged biden because of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. In 2023-2025, we got 51 senate seats, but then we lost the house, meaning we got ~~Ned Flanders~~ Mike Johnson and Joe McCarthy sabotaging everything we do. It It is important to take this into consideration when voting for people. You can have plans but if you cant pass anything because another branch of government is actively sabotaging you, youre not gonna pass anything. And Biden basically suffered from this his entire presidency. Much of Harris's agenda is Biden's agenda, with most of the new stuff being stuff related to inflation and anti price gouging stuff. 

Why blame presidents for not passing things when congress is to blame? If you care about the ideas and policies, support the candidates regardless of their ability to get things passed and focus on voting more such people into office. This is something I wish independents would understand. They dont understand the inner workings of government and when the people who try dont pass things because they cant, they get blamed for trying. Then causes them to not try in the future, causing them to run to the center into what i call the "uncanny valley of suck" and then they lose even MORE support.

So yeah. Let's lay the blame where it belongs. On congress and SCOTUS. Presidents nominate justices, so vote for presidents if you want scotus to change, and vote for candidates you want on a congressional level if you want congress to change. But dont abandon the candidates who wanna do nice things because they dont pass everything you want them to when the bottleneck is elsewhere. It's like complaining you got a RTX 4090 but youre running games at 10 FPS because you're running a core 2 duo from 2007 with 4 GB DDR2 RAM. Yes yes, your smartphone is faster now. We get it, but yeah, the 4090 aint the problem, everything else is. 

With that said, to address liberals as to why people dont just automatically go for Harris and democratic candidates. And to be blunt, as a pennsylvanian, i get it. Since 2008, we've had an environment where people want change. "Hope, change, yes we can". Thats what Obama ran on, and then whe he got into office, he ran to the center on everything, his policies were in the uncanny valley of suck, people were demotivated, so they stopped supporting the democrats. It became obvious to me by 2014 or so the core problem with the dems is that they suck at motivating people. Because people dont see much reason to vote for democrats. because they feel like nothing is gonna change if they do. And most of the time, they're right.

This is why Hillary lost here in 2016. Clinton was a status quo candidate, and an alienating one at that. People didnt want her, because they didnt believe their lives would change in a positive way if we voted for her. This is why Bernie wouldve done better. he had policies that energized people. And because the dems didnt embrace him, they embraced trump instead. Because at least he thought theyd bring the jobs back.

And Trump, he didnt do anything either, but unemployment was lower (until COVID), and goods and services were relatively cheap, and people are looking back at 2019 like it was the good old days. Prices are insane these days. I'm on vacation, a big thing i like to eat on vacation is krispy kreme doughnuts. I dont get them home. A few years ago, they were $8.99 a dozen. Now they're $17 a dozen. It's insane. Now do that to everything in the economy. Now dont raise their living standards, no wonder people are pissed. It's the economy, stupid, as Bill Clinton would say.

A lot of people blame Biden on the economy. I understand policy so i understand it's not his fault, it just happened due to factors beyond his control, but the american people dont understand that. And Biden looks weak and ineffective at addressing the issue. Biden wanted to be relatively progressive, but he couldnt pass much, he seemed kinda worthless, and people lost confidence in him. We like to act like everything wrong with Biden is him being 81 and struggling to coherently express thought, but that was just the topping on the cake. People are unhappy with where the country is. And they want CHANGE. 

So, we got rid of the old guy. Ok, so no more "age issues", but Harris is associated with Biden and his admistration. And if anything, dems are making sure she basically just acts as a continuation of Biden. But do people want that? NO! And when people feel malaise, they wanna go for "something new." They dont have a good idea of what this "something" should be. But they're tempted to vote for the other guy who isn't associated with the current administration. Harris offers some new policies around the edges, and people have to wonder, gee, is this gonna make my life better? How is this gonna help me? Why isn't she doing this already if she's in office now? 

Like, a lot of Americans, are exhausted with the status quo. We've been exhausted since, arguably, the great recession. A large segment of americans arent happy with how things have gone, we see nothing but inaction from democrats. Runarounds. If anything dems often spend more time lecturing and condescending to us and telling us to vote for them and we're stupid if we don't, and a lot of voters dont like that. 

So...a lot of them want the crazy dictator guy. He's the "other option." And if this election is a referendum on joe biden and the democrats, then that is very dangerous for us and the country as a whole. This is why were having so much trouble winning. And this is why independent voters are waffling. They dont like trump, but they dont necessarily like what they see from Harris either. So they're just like "what do I do?" 

For anyone who "knows" and "understands", yeah, Harris is the no brainer candidate. BUT...let's face it, even im not totally happy with Harris. And part of it IS she's just a biden continuation. I dont want Biden round 2. I want Kamala Harris at her BEST. I want her to be her own person, to distance herself from Biden. Go in her own direction, and define herself as her own person. Bring back that public option. Bring back the LIFT act. Be bold. Be yourself. I mean, if i want Harris to be anything, I want her to step out from under the shadow of the Biden administration and the DNC and make this about herself. people dont want more Joe Biden. They want something new and different. And if harris cant give people that, people are gonna waffle and maybe go for Trump. They will risk the dictator wannabe over the better candidate because their desire for change overrides any other factors.

As a PA voter, I get it. I hear that these people are saying, I see where they're coming from, and I understand that at the end of the day, the democrats need to change. What the dems dont understand is how to meet voters where they are and connect with them. They got this inside the beltway mentality where they're living in 1992 and obsessed with fixating on their internal presures and politics and things like legacy, brand, and appealing to moderate voters that dont actually seem to want what they think they want. 

And yeah, that's my take on it. 

A continuation of yesterday's discussion on Harris

 So, yeah. After reading Harris's book, I'm convinced Harris is more progressive than she's letting on in her heart, she's just being constrained by the democratic party and being in the shadow of Joe Biden. The democratic party is like a monarchy, where people are expected to conform to the system, they're not expected to be their own person, and Harris is kind of being an employee of the democrats and Joe Biden. As such, she's not being really allowed to pursue her own agenda outside of very narrow bounds, and she's kinda going along with them.

But...here's the reality of Harris. Even on my top issues, she at least SOMEWHAT gets it. Not saying she's a "true believer." Not saying she isnt throwing her own healthcare plan under the bus, but uh....imagine if the progressive left pressured Harris to pass a UBI style program or universal healthcare. Would she do it? I believe she would sign a bill that appeared in front of her.

In a sense, Harris is like LBJ. Kennedy's VP, but as he governed and was pressured by the progressive left on issues related to poverty and civil rights, he became the most progressive president of the new deal era, up there with FDR himself.

I said in 2016, if I knew Clinton was toying with UBI that year, I wouldve likely voted for her. It wouldve made a difference. Well, here we have the candidate who understands poverty, has praised stockton's mayor for innovating with UBI, and has proposed her own kind of plan in the LIFT act previously, is it a good idea to refuse to vote for them and split hairs just because they dropped it to be elected? Or what about medicare for all? She has signed on to bernie's single payer in the past, and has designed her own public option, not all that different from my endorsed backup plan of medicare extra for all. In other words, she clearly gets it. Once again, hiding her power level to get elected.

She also had a section in her book where she believed in being bold and not wasting political capital. It's use it or lose it, so USE IT! And again, if the public spoke out, and said clearly "hey we want these things", she would support them.

The problem right now is, as I said, this is bad year for democrats. Harris is already percieved as "too liberal" based on her prior stances. Shes at 50-50 as of yesterday (the debate might change that but no new polls yet). She's running right because clearly, Im outnumbered here. People dont want nice things in 2024. It's a relatively right wing year, progressive ideas arent gonna sell well. But if allowed? Harris would definitely be open to these things. 

I think that voting for someone who actually does "get it" even if they arent explicitly showing it for political reasons is important. Will they act on them? Maybe not. I mean, look at John Fetterman and his hard right wing turn. Look at Biden being a hardcore centrist and running somewhat left. People can govern in ways different from their actual convictions. But you wanna know how you force changes? By pushing for what you care about. It's up to US, as citizens, to pressure our politicians to do the right things. If we're outnumbered, then, we're not gonna get what we want. We need to show WE WANT THIS. 

So I'm gonna advocate the 2020 "vote for them but hold their feet to the fire" strategy. Support Harris, and pressure her left in office. I think she will listen. Much like AOC, she's kinda appearing more moderate for electability reasons. The people have to show they want these ideas. Now, if people show it and they still dont do it, yeah, hold them accountable, force them out. Dont enable a "clinton", (ie, an entitled person who sees fit to ignore what a significant number of voters want and expect them to show up anyway), but also don't purity test to such an extent that no one can win you over. Pressure them, let them pass good things, and then reward them with a vote. 

That debate was a dumpster fire

 So..yeah. Let's not mince words. Harris won decisively. She was quick on her feet, prepared, and very quick to go after Trump. Trump looked tired, he was unprepared, he just treated it like a stump speech, and he was acting like a 5 year old. It was pathetic. I thought biden won the first debate, but that was a bit of a pyhrric victory, he won but at what cost? He didnt come off well and debates are won by charisma. Harris had the charisma and the energy, AND the substance. Trump was just a rambling incoherent mess. 

Rating wise: 

Trump:

Charisma- 0

Substance- 0

Total- 0/10

Harris:

Charisma- 5

Substance- 4

Total- 9/10

Yes, it literally was that one sided. Harris dominated him. It wasn't even close. 

Reacting briefly to Harris's book

 So, as I settle in for the debate, I do want to announce that I read her book from her 2020 campaign while on break and finished it today. 

Honestly? I think she's hiding her power level. She shows a pretty decent command of the issues, and while her work fixation is cringey to me, she's shown openness to medicare for all and even basic income. While I dont think she's realized the full potential of such programs, especially UBI, she actually is open to it. She's also on the money with housing and I see where she got her housing ideas from. Why no LIFT act or medicare for all? Well, I blame Biden and the democratic party. 

Harris is a "team player". She's not gonna rock the boat, or upset things probably, and she's supposed to be a continuation of the Biden administration, which hamstrings her agenda, and she's running as a democrat, which also hamstrings her agenda significantly, as all pressure within the party is "you have to run right to get elected." So she's abandoning ideas that make her seem super far left, even if they're right, and is kind of triangulating in order to win.

And sadly, considering the race is 50-50 and a lot of independents think she's "too far left" for some reason, she's having to hide her power level so to speak to ensure that she wins. Ugh, if it needs to be done, so be it, but I don't like that, AT ALL. Anyway, I can't blame Harris, she's constrained by institutions and other parties. Much like AOC, much like Bernie Sanders. I wont say she's as left as them, but she's probably more progressive than she's letting on and if the public pressured her on healthcare and even UBI...she'd likely happily acquiesce. 

So yeah, I'd give her a vote just for that. We might be pleasantly surprised.

Admittedly, I do find her to be frustratingly moderate at times. Like, sometimes she seems so close to getting it, like on poverty and UBI and then she just kind of still says stupid crap like "most americans don't want it easy" or "most americans like to work" and i just DESPISE those virtue signals. Hell yeah, we should make life easier. Hell yeah, we should get rid of work, the problem is we're so brainwshed with these sentiments, and these sentiments persist so strongly, that people are effectively pressured to go along with them. People who don't accept them are considered just weird, or "entitled" (yeah I still hate that word), or lazy, or something is "wrong" with them. They may face social sanctions, losing jobs because "well if you dont wanna work, let's just cut off your access to basic needs, after all, it's voluntary." They may face social sanctions like loss of relationships with others. Our society literally does operate like a cult and those who don't accept the teachings and beliefs are castigated. Why do you think I'm writing this stuff anonymously? If people knew who I am I'd never get a job and be forced to the margins of society with my attitude.

But yeah other than that, I find Harris to be....one of the best options the democrats would allow. We're getting some milquetoast brand of politics foisted on us whether we like it or not. Harris is the best person of the options allowed though. I say vote for her and hope she "powers up" after the election. She could pleasantly surprise us.

Clarifying some of my positions on left wing issues

 So I got in an argument a few days ago with some real hardline pro labor leftist and it basically devolved into wild strawmen from the guy. Now, these strawmen aren't that uncommon from this camp given my ideology, I've heard them before, and also heard them used against Yang in the past, so I want to discuss some of them.

Q: What do I think of unions?

Mixed but mostly positive, actually. In the debate in question, I recognized they would never give us what I want, a world without work, because unions tend to ideologically define themselves by their labor, and see a world in which jobs are automated as bad because they would give away their leverage and relevance. So in a sense, they're luddites, they seek to preserve work, and tend to buy into a lot of the nonsense dignity of work type sentiments I've been taking potshots at recently. As such, I consider myself fair weather allies with them.

Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of stuff I like, but they will always be somewhat limited and I don't see them as the end all be all of fixing capitalism or achieving my ideological goals. They're work reformists, not abolitionists. Hence why I sometimes take potshots at people.

Q: What do I think of socialism?

Even more fair weathered. I ain't opposed to market socialism, but nor do I think it's the end all be all of everything. Economic democracy is nice, but I dont just want work with democratic leadership, I want to NOT BE FORCED TO WORK! Also, most forms of socialism are too dangerous to be tried, and any time they have been tried, it ended badly, do I'd prefer not to. I'd prefer to reform capitalism, and consider myself a human centered capitalist.

Q: Why do you consider yourself a capitalist? Capitalism is the problem

Unlike leftists, I have a nuanced view. Capitalism, specifically markets, have done a lot of good. The problem comes from forced labor and how the markets are stacked against workers. There are ways to fix that including unions and socialism, but I still see them as band aids. I don't see the problem with capitalism itself. My own analysis is slightly different from Marx and the like. The problem is forced labor leading to rigged markets.

And yes, property ownership is somewhat of a problem. I dont think owning the means of production is really the end all be all of everything, but people having no way to provide for themselves due to a rigid property rights system forcing people to work is a problem. And my own ideas are about redistributing wealth and income in such a way to ensure everyone has their needs met and can enter the market as a free agent.

Q: So do you oppose other means of fixing the labor market other than UBI?

No, I support all of the above. I just recognize without UBI and other universal safety nets guaranteeing freedom as the power to say no, that you're dealing with band aids.

Q: Why do you sometimes denigrate workers?

Well, I'll put it this way. I don't like to denigrate and crap on workers. There's nothing wrong with being a worker. Most people are forced to work. What I hate are the weirdo do gooders who think work is so great they everyone needs to be forced to work for their own good. I hate people who take pride in their own enslavement and insist i need to be made a slave too. I hate people who attack me for not wanting to waste my life working.

What brought this on wasn't just previous comments I made recently, but also the argument that triggered this post itself. The user in question was saying snarky crap like "I'm sorry you didn't enjoy your time in McDonalds" and "the problem with not working is you have too much time to think", to which i responded that the dude was basically in a cult and that the problem with workers is they don't have time to think enough.

And I stand by that. Most people who work have their mindsets, identities, and worldviews defined by their work. Work takes up so much time it dulls the human mind, taking away the ability to think about other things and see a world without work. It's literally indoctrination. It's like being raised in a religion and not understanding anything outside of it. 

Now, I won't attack workers just for being workers. But if you throw down with me and spout brainwashed garbage at me trying to either lecture me about how I dont get it because I don't work, or insist that I need to be made to work, I'm gonna throw down with you. You get what you give. 

And I personally have a major problem with this stockholm syndrome type crap a lot of work loving leftists have. No, my mind isnt corrupted by capitalism and if only we had another system we would understand work can be great, work under capitalism is what work is, a dehumanizing process for the sake of making goods and services for others to consume. I understand what work is better than any leftist. And I just have a different perspective in which I want to not be forced to participate in it.

Conclusion: I just have ideological differences with "the left"

Worldview defines everything. I was thinking of making a separate post about this, but Kyle Kulinski had a clip yesterday about how we should take into account trajectory in looking at peoples' eccentric views that seem to represent a shift away from the left.

But for me, everything is worldview. Worldviews are the ideas that are behind the ideas. They are the set of philosophical assumptions that define how we view the world. If you want to understand how a person thinks, you need to understand their worldview on a metaphysical level.

For a lot of leftists, worldviews like marxism or postmodernism (social justice politics) are paramount. For me, they're just a spice I sometimes add to my perspective to improve it, without letting them define my perspective. And that's the thing. I'm not a leftist. My ideology is based on secular humanism, which is more liberal/progressive in orientation, and I tend to have a very well developed worldview that allows me to see the world in certain ways. And I just dont agree with leftists. This doesn't make me bad, it just means I come from a slightly different philosophical tradition that is sometimes parallel to a lot of left wing ideas, but at the same time, is also quite different from them. I'm cut from a different cloth. You can disagree with it, but I am what I am and stand by my conclusions. Dont assume you can lecture me or talk down to me because I'm not as leftist as thou. I don't want to be as leftist as thou. Because leftism is a spice that sometimes adds flavor to a worldview, but it shouldn't be one's entire worldview, and I cant help but feel like most leftists are limited in their thinking. They havent had the luxury of building up their entire perspective from scratch and let others do their thinking for them. And then they take pride in the fact saying I think too much. I stand by my views by saying they think too little. 

I understand leftism on a basic level. Leftists dont understand me. They just start attacking me for having nuanced perspectives that sometimes betray their core ideological beliefs, and think I'm all bad because of that. It's their prerogative to think so, but I just see the world differently, and it's not a bad thing. If anything, it's a good thing, and wish everyone would undergo the same kind of existential crisis and rebuilding of one's entire worldview so they can be masters of their own perspective, rather than just basing their views off of someone else's. It's liberating. Embrace nihilism, see where you go from there. And that's how you leave Plato's Cave. 

Is Harris in decline?

 So, I'm seeing a lot of doomering recently, even from people like Nate Silver, claiming Harris is in decline. Eh...I have mixed thoughts. As of yesterday, the race went back to 50-50, while Harris was up to like 51-58% recently. It's like she peaked and things are back to 50-50. But, let's be honest, I consider anything within 40-60% to effectively be a tie. Even if one candidate is an underdog, they could easily win. Consider Trump 2016, for example. Consider some of the 2022 senate candidates like Fetterman. It can happen. I will say we seemed to reach the new normal, where Harris's upward trend peaked, and we're now fluctuating back and forth. I struggle to say she's full on in decline though, even if her trend line is going down a little. it could be statistical noise, and it's only shifting the polling averages by a few tenths of a percent overall. I'd like to see a larger shift before I act like some major trend is happening.

For reference, here's the trend line:

I mean, yeah, it's a reversal of the trend, but it's not really a massive shift. Ever since we reached 50-50, it's been bouncing up and down. I expect that to keep happening. Maybe the debate will change things tonight. I know I'm on break, but I do plan on watching that. Not sure I'll report on it here, but yeah, I will at least watch it. 

As I see it though, the race is dead locked. It's the most competitive election I've ever followed, and it's too close to call right now. 

Election update 9/7/24

 So, doing very brief election updates while on break. Theres a debate next week and this is a good point to establish the baseline. This won't be a full update because I dont wanna spend a metric crapton of time on this, but I will cover the basics. 

So yeah we are regressing slightly. Polls are shifting a little bit back to Trump. We're down to a 51% chance for Harris and a 49% chance for Trump. Georgia is now the deciding state since Nevada is now in the blue column. Pennsylvania is at 50-50. So yeah, functionally, the race is a dead heat. If I had to guess it either way I'd guess it for Harris but there's virtually no level of certainty there.

Btw on texas, RCP is still counting a Trump +13 poll from January on harris and that's not going to be relevant. Im trying to avoid modifying their averages, but this is massively throwing off the averages, and it's old data that's probably not good any more, especially because I'm seeing multiple polls in the 4-5 range (keep in mind i was defaulting to multi candidate data before this poll came in since that's how little i trust an old poll from January. Remember how Biden was down 4 vs Harris now and Harris then was worse than that?). 

While I wouldn't expect Texas or Florida to seriously flip, they are now as much in play as Virginia, New Hampshire, and Minnesota in the blue column. Good to keep an eye on them.

Senate data:

Some states are shifting to be slightly more competitive, especially Florida and Texas for republicans, and Ohio and Pennsylvania for democrats, but it's still 49-51R. Republicans still have an 86% chance, democrats a 10% chance, and a 4% chance of a tie. 

And yeah. That's my very short election update. Not doing maps. I must get back to relaxing. 

Discussing the Cheney endorsement and where I'm at with Harris and the democratic party

 So, I know I'm on vacation, but I do have some things to say quick.

First, Dick Cheney is endorsing Harris. I cant say im surprised. Principled conservatives voting for a moderate democrat in order to avoid supporting orange man isnt uncommon these days, nor is it irrational. it seems even if I didnt abandon conservatism back in the early 2010s, I'd end up here anyway.

However, having abandoned conservatism back in 2012, I don't really like this shift. I understand it's necessary given the electoral realities of this election (race is currently roughly 50-50 and we're lucky for it to even be that given where we were), but honestly, this is a nightmare for me. This is what i was trying to avoid. The democrats have been seeking to expand the democratic coalition with moderate republicans since 2016, and it's happening. Clinton's grand strategy is coming true in 2024, and i HATE it. I understand its a necessary evil at this point to stop fascism, but this is hell for me. Back in 2016, I wanted to wreck the GOP with left wing populism and expand the obama coalition. But the Trump-Clinton continuum screwed everything up where now a lot of white working class voters are now MAGA and the dems are winning over moderate republicans from 20 years ago just to fricking break even. This sucks. I hate this. I fear for the future of the democratic party and the country even if Harris wins. Because the political realignment in 2016 might be so far gone that Clinton got the last laugh after all. And it means that the progressive economic left is screwed for another generation. 

At the same time, I've been reading Harris's book on vacation. And...to be honest, I kind of think she's somewhat based. She aint as progressive as I'd like at times, but I think she has a very progressive background and I see how it is impacting her 2024 platform, especially her housing policy. She does seem to have some systemic understanding of the issues and has the potential to, if allowed, be a quite progressive president. Hell, even if she isnt as left as i want her to be, im pretty sure I could pitch UBI to her in theory and she'd at least be open to it, as it would solve a lot of systemic issues that contribute to poverty, crime, social dysfunction, etc. She understands the problems that plague the ghettos of this country and how generational poverty and systemic barriers lead to people becoming desperate and committing crimes. I LIVE in a ghetto basically. My views are ALSO shaped by the serious dysfunction of these areas and ive come to the conclusion that ONLY policies like a UBI can actually FIX them. 

The real problem is....can Harris actually be progressive with this modern democratic party? With Harris being constrained, both by being an extension of the Biden administration, and the democrats' centrist impulses in appealing to moderate conservative suburbanites in the sun belt becoming not just a choice but a necessity to win, can Harris actually be progressive?

I dont know. And this is why im all over the place with harris on this blog. Sometimes I think she's the next best thing to bernie or yang, and I believe she has that potential, if allowed to be. But political pressures associated with the democratic party, it electoral strategy, and being effectively forced to provide continuity from the previous guy's administration seem to be constraining Harris hard and pushing her hard to the center. 

Harris is progressive, but the democratic party largely isnt and largely has a culture and internal political ideology hostile to progressives. And sadly, Harris is more of a team player than a fighter at times it seems. And thats why the centrists pushed her over Bernie in 2020. Harris is maybe 70% as progressive as Bernie on paper, but she's also far more controllable by the party itself, and can be pulled to the center despite her progressive impulses. 

In terms of electability this makes her a bit of a shrodinger's candidate, where you have to ask, is she left? is she center? And the answer is "yes."

But on Janaury 20th, 2025, that state of superposition she's currently in for the election season where she has something to offer both is going to end, and she's going to have to govern. And she's gonna have to make a choice of what to stand for. Is she gonna actually go for broke with progressive policies and bring us into a new age of progressive politics? Or is she gonna shy away and run to the center and be another Clinton, Obama, or Biden? Sadly, if I had to guess, it's the latter, but it's kinda sad. Her book actually makes he sound very progressive and makes me WANT to vote for her. But then I watch her cringey centrist campaigning and all of these republicans endorsing her and I just hate everything about it. 

And yeah, that's where I'm at.