So, we often hear people on the far left say that politics is "rigged". I wrote about this in 2016, and explained how rigging doesn't mean that the ballot boxes are rigged, but that the narratives favoring and opposing certain candidates is rigged. You don't rig stuff in an explicit way that causes (most) people to question the legitimacy of the whole process, you do it in subtle ways that make people think that the election was fair. But it was them who was influenced, not the voter.
We are already seeing this for the 2020 primaries. While the field is MUCH improved over 2016, I can't express how happy at the diverse set of candidates we have this time relative to last time, the media is already playing favorites for who to choose. The most progressive candidates are being hammered with negative press, from Bernie having some sex scandals on his campaign he knew nothing about, to people harping on him for simply being too old and white, to Tulsi Gabbard being labeled the candidate Russia allegedly wants to win (because being an anti interventionist automatically means you're pro Russia right?). When it comes to the most progressive candidates, every flaw is hammered upon. All of their strengths are ignored. All of their weaknesses are emphasized. You will hear about this scandal, that scandal, this thing they did in their past, that thing they did in their past. But you won't see them treated as a possible winner.
CNN recently ranked the candidates by who they thought would win and the Young Turks did a good job ripping them to shreds for it. Sanders is second in the polls, but was treated as 6th place, while Kamala Harris like 4th or 5th and she was treated as the 'frontrunner." They then gave her her own town hall, and donated to her campaign. Now suddenly she jumped up to 18% and 2nd place in the polling behind Biden.
This brings me to my next point. The media, in deciding Kamala Harris was the frontrunner, basically created a self fulfilling propehecy. Your average person isn't paying close attention to 2020 politics yet. But the establishment is, and they picked their favorite. So they give her her own town hall, parade her around on national tv, have her say Bernie-eqsue things without the record or the resolve to back it up, and the people, not knowing any better, eat it up. So now tons of people like Harris, she scores higher than Bernie, and she might win the nomination at the rate things are going.This is manufacturing consent. if they paraded Bernie around, he would be the frontrunner. But they don't like Bernie, because he's genuine and represents a real threat to the power of the elites. So they attack the most progressive candidates and push someone who sounds good but isn't as good looking at their records.
This is how elections are rigged. It isn't about ballot box stuffing. It's about manipulating public perception in a one sided way to get them to a pre arranged conclusion, and then act on it. Elections are rigged by the owners of the propaganda machines picking winners and losers that fit their interests and convincing the unknowing public that they are the best candidate. They're not really the best, objectively speaking. They just appear to be because that's how the media shapes perception around them. Be wary of this going into this election cycle, and get your news from not just multiple sources, but multiple kinds of sources, so that you can get a wide variety of views from different people. Also, don't just rely on corporate media, listen to anti establishment podcasts and youtube channels too. Sometimes these guys are better than the corporate guys, depending on the source in question. Make up your own mind. Don't just accept something because CNN or MSNBC or even I say it. Be a skeptic, analyze the evidence, make up your own mind. Don't let yourself be controlled. It's the only way you'll get to the real truth.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Kamala Harris scares me
So, first real 2020 election post. Some of you, or really, most of you at this point, have probably heard of Kamala Harris. She's a democrat from California running for president on the democratic ticket, and has an EXTREMELY progressive platform. She supports (supposedly) medicare for all, she has a "lift act" which is basically a tax credit that's like a watered down version of a UBI. She seems like a perfect candidate in some ways. She's young, she's charismatic, she has left wing positions, she basically sounds like a Bernie Sanders type.So what's the problem?
The problem is, she hasn't always been like this. She has a very questionable record as prosecutor filled with many questionable actions including defending convictions on innocent people and arresting people for truancy. Less than an hour after defending medicare for all in CNN's town hall, she walked it back and said she was open to more moderate plans, which really gets to the crux the issue. She's saying she's a progressive, but then she walks it back and seems more moderate behind the scenes. Speaking of CNN, why is CNN giving her a town hall when they're known to attack Sanders for supporting the same things? Why are they still treating Sanders as a nonstarter for 2020 despite him being second in the polls? Why is Time Warner, CNN's parent company, donating to her? I mean again, they were totally for Clinton in 2016 and express a blatant pro corporate pro centrist bias. Why is Harris so agreeable when Sanders isn't? Heck even Wall street seems okay with Harris but not Sanders. Harris is a centrist to them, but people like Warren and Sanders are too far left. If Harris is for the same things more or less, why does this dichotomy exist? It seems like while Harris sounds very progressive, she ISN'T very progressive. It sounds like as the democrats start to embrace medicare for all, they're starting to walk back what Medicare for all means and will likely abandon it for Obamacare 2.0.
This is scary. I should be ELATED the democrats are moving hard left. And part of me is. But keep this in mind, the only reason this is happening is because of the popularity of people like Sanders, and Warren, and AOC, and all the voters and Bernie or busters who wouldn't take Clinton's crap in 2016. We should be ecstatic that the democrats are quickly shifting hard left where even "moderate" candidates are adopting virtually the entirety of Bernie's platform. But at the same time, something seems off. The fix still seems to be in against Sanders, and they're pushing candidates who have few previously progressive platforms who are suddenly coming out and moving far left, and most of the elite class is seemingly okay with it, but they still hate Sanders. I smell a rat. I'm guessing there's a bait and switch going on where the democrats will promise to adopt Bernie's platform, but THEIR candidates are still in charge, and will adopt Bernie's platform only to walk it back in office.
This puts us in a tough spot, which brings me to the next point:
Bernie or bust 2020?
The problem with candidates like this is that while they are likely fake as heck, protest voting against them could backfire. In 2016, it seems apparent protest voting worked. We stopped Clinton from winning, and showed there's a demand for progressive policies previously ignored by the democratic party. The democrats were so brazen with their refusal to endorse progressive policies that it's quite clear it created a significant backlash forcing democrats to the left.
The problem is now they ARE left, or at least pretend to be. The party is quickly moving left, despite media outcries a few months ago about how centrism wins elections. They clearly are trying to accommodate our concerns, and failing to vote for them COULD cause them to push to the center again, especially as people like Howard Schultz are threatening to leave the party, causing the democrats to lose that way.
That said, I've identified four tiers of democrats running for 2020, and have different stances on them.
Tier 1: Bernie Sanders
Yes, Bernie gets his own tier. Im sorry, but NO candidate seems to match Bernie in platform, messaging, ideology, and consistency. He is, in my opinion, already my clear 2020 choice.
Tier 2: Flawed progressives
These are people who I deem extremely progressive, and likely mean it but might be flawed. These include people like Elizabeth Warren who is very hard on wall street, offers a lot of progressive ideas, but sometimes won't stick her neck out and endorse certain policies Sanders does. They seem honest, but they are at the same time a clear downgrade from Bernie, with obvious compromises in ideology or policy that Bernie does not have. They are not my first choice in the primary but I will definitely back them for the general.
Tier 3: Fauxgressives
These are the ones to worry about. Kamala Harris fits perfectly in this category. These candidates have progressive records, but might not be consistently progressive and seem to be "pivoting" left to win Bernie voters, without actually holding the same convictions. The problem with these candidates is while they seem very far left, they seem to have connections to elite groups and show a possible willingness, either implicitly based on past positions, or explicitly, to walk themselves back to the center. I can't rule out voting for them in the general, but I also can't rule out a third party vote depending on circumstances. It really depends on the candidate, their circumstances, and how they handle criticism. I'm not sure what I think yet of many of these candidates. I definitely won't support them in the primary though.
Tier 4: Centrists
These are the Joe Biden style candidates who are outright not progressive. They have centrist positions and do not see eye to eye with progressives. HRC was in this camp in 2016 and I do not plan on supporting these guys in either the primary or the general election. If you don't even try, you definitely won't get my vote.
Conclusion
That said I would encourage people to approach 2020 with optimistic caution. There is much to be excited about going into 2020. Most candidates are moving way to the left and endorsing Bernie's platform. This is a cause for celebration, because this is exactly what Bernie or busting in 2016 was intended to accomplish. However, one must be cautious as many candidates in 2020, like Kamala Harris, do not necessarily seem sincere or consistent in their endorsement of their policies. I really really REALLY want to like Harris and be excited for her candidacy here, based on her on paper policies. But when I see this kind of backpedaling and this stuff happening more behind the scenes, I'm not quite as comfortable with her and wonder if she's bought and paid for. I would encourage everyone to look deeply and thoroughly into the candidates' records, their statements, and their past and present policy positions IN ADDITION to their platforms. It seems like this is going to be an exciting primary in terms of on paper platforms and positions, but that said, only unique policy positions, are really going to make people stand out. The biggest thing that will likely differentiate the candidates isn't going to be policy or ideology, at least not on paper, but their character, history, and record. Choose wisely.
The problem is, she hasn't always been like this. She has a very questionable record as prosecutor filled with many questionable actions including defending convictions on innocent people and arresting people for truancy. Less than an hour after defending medicare for all in CNN's town hall, she walked it back and said she was open to more moderate plans, which really gets to the crux the issue. She's saying she's a progressive, but then she walks it back and seems more moderate behind the scenes. Speaking of CNN, why is CNN giving her a town hall when they're known to attack Sanders for supporting the same things? Why are they still treating Sanders as a nonstarter for 2020 despite him being second in the polls? Why is Time Warner, CNN's parent company, donating to her? I mean again, they were totally for Clinton in 2016 and express a blatant pro corporate pro centrist bias. Why is Harris so agreeable when Sanders isn't? Heck even Wall street seems okay with Harris but not Sanders. Harris is a centrist to them, but people like Warren and Sanders are too far left. If Harris is for the same things more or less, why does this dichotomy exist? It seems like while Harris sounds very progressive, she ISN'T very progressive. It sounds like as the democrats start to embrace medicare for all, they're starting to walk back what Medicare for all means and will likely abandon it for Obamacare 2.0.
This is scary. I should be ELATED the democrats are moving hard left. And part of me is. But keep this in mind, the only reason this is happening is because of the popularity of people like Sanders, and Warren, and AOC, and all the voters and Bernie or busters who wouldn't take Clinton's crap in 2016. We should be ecstatic that the democrats are quickly shifting hard left where even "moderate" candidates are adopting virtually the entirety of Bernie's platform. But at the same time, something seems off. The fix still seems to be in against Sanders, and they're pushing candidates who have few previously progressive platforms who are suddenly coming out and moving far left, and most of the elite class is seemingly okay with it, but they still hate Sanders. I smell a rat. I'm guessing there's a bait and switch going on where the democrats will promise to adopt Bernie's platform, but THEIR candidates are still in charge, and will adopt Bernie's platform only to walk it back in office.
This puts us in a tough spot, which brings me to the next point:
Bernie or bust 2020?
The problem with candidates like this is that while they are likely fake as heck, protest voting against them could backfire. In 2016, it seems apparent protest voting worked. We stopped Clinton from winning, and showed there's a demand for progressive policies previously ignored by the democratic party. The democrats were so brazen with their refusal to endorse progressive policies that it's quite clear it created a significant backlash forcing democrats to the left.
The problem is now they ARE left, or at least pretend to be. The party is quickly moving left, despite media outcries a few months ago about how centrism wins elections. They clearly are trying to accommodate our concerns, and failing to vote for them COULD cause them to push to the center again, especially as people like Howard Schultz are threatening to leave the party, causing the democrats to lose that way.
That said, I've identified four tiers of democrats running for 2020, and have different stances on them.
Tier 1: Bernie Sanders
Yes, Bernie gets his own tier. Im sorry, but NO candidate seems to match Bernie in platform, messaging, ideology, and consistency. He is, in my opinion, already my clear 2020 choice.
Tier 2: Flawed progressives
These are people who I deem extremely progressive, and likely mean it but might be flawed. These include people like Elizabeth Warren who is very hard on wall street, offers a lot of progressive ideas, but sometimes won't stick her neck out and endorse certain policies Sanders does. They seem honest, but they are at the same time a clear downgrade from Bernie, with obvious compromises in ideology or policy that Bernie does not have. They are not my first choice in the primary but I will definitely back them for the general.
Tier 3: Fauxgressives
These are the ones to worry about. Kamala Harris fits perfectly in this category. These candidates have progressive records, but might not be consistently progressive and seem to be "pivoting" left to win Bernie voters, without actually holding the same convictions. The problem with these candidates is while they seem very far left, they seem to have connections to elite groups and show a possible willingness, either implicitly based on past positions, or explicitly, to walk themselves back to the center. I can't rule out voting for them in the general, but I also can't rule out a third party vote depending on circumstances. It really depends on the candidate, their circumstances, and how they handle criticism. I'm not sure what I think yet of many of these candidates. I definitely won't support them in the primary though.
Tier 4: Centrists
These are the Joe Biden style candidates who are outright not progressive. They have centrist positions and do not see eye to eye with progressives. HRC was in this camp in 2016 and I do not plan on supporting these guys in either the primary or the general election. If you don't even try, you definitely won't get my vote.
Conclusion
That said I would encourage people to approach 2020 with optimistic caution. There is much to be excited about going into 2020. Most candidates are moving way to the left and endorsing Bernie's platform. This is a cause for celebration, because this is exactly what Bernie or busting in 2016 was intended to accomplish. However, one must be cautious as many candidates in 2020, like Kamala Harris, do not necessarily seem sincere or consistent in their endorsement of their policies. I really really REALLY want to like Harris and be excited for her candidacy here, based on her on paper policies. But when I see this kind of backpedaling and this stuff happening more behind the scenes, I'm not quite as comfortable with her and wonder if she's bought and paid for. I would encourage everyone to look deeply and thoroughly into the candidates' records, their statements, and their past and present policy positions IN ADDITION to their platforms. It seems like this is going to be an exciting primary in terms of on paper platforms and positions, but that said, only unique policy positions, are really going to make people stand out. The biggest thing that will likely differentiate the candidates isn't going to be policy or ideology, at least not on paper, but their character, history, and record. Choose wisely.
Update 2019: How my views have shifted
So yes, I'm still alive, and may or may not be posting more now that we're entering 2020 election season and I'm a bit more interested in what's going on in with the future of the country, and feel like we can actually get into substantive issues again that advance progressive causes. The last 2 years have been a mess, and a have been a massive cringefest for me in general. Not just on the republican side, but the democratic side. Things are finally starting to improve, with Nancy Pelosi actually standing up to Donald Trump over the wall, and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez changing the culture of the democratic party, and the 2020 primary candidates appearing to be closer to Bernie Sanders so far then Hillary Clinton, but beyond that, things have been a mess, and I would say that while my views have not shifted MUCH since 2016-2017, there are some subtle differences.
Social issues: not much changed, but more skeptical of the social justice movement
I hate delving into these kinds of issues, but I feel like I'm forced to, because it's all most people have been willing to talk about the last 2 years. My core convictions haven't changed on this issue, but my opinion of some aspects of the social justice movement have soured a bit. By social justice movement, I dont mean all moves toward social justice, but specifically, the social justice warriors I mentioned previously. Now, don't get me wrong. Im STILL for social justice, still want equality of races, genders, but honestly, the people, man. You cannot express opinions on these subjects that dissent from their standpoint without being accused of being a racist, sexist, or bigot. Privilege shaming is used a lot, and they use empathy in order to manipulate people. You're not just expected to have socially progressive positions, you're expected to loudly and obnoxiously share your socially progressive positions all the time, and failure to do so or make those your number one priority get you shamed. They will call you "selfish", because it's like "how dare I decide my economic well being and not wanting people to be in poverty is more important than racial and feminist issues?" Not that those issues aren't important, but let's be honest, people in politics are attracted to different causes, and some people have pet causes they put over others. And that's okay. Not everyone is going to discuss universal healthcare or basic income as their top priorities. Likewise, not everyone is gonna prioritize eliminating racism and feminism. Not everyone is gonna focus on green policies that end global warming. People have different concerns, and what matters in the end is that we're all on the same side. That we can come together, with our unique causes, and cobble together a comprehensive progressive platform that addresses all of these issues, with all of us contributing to it.
But therein lies the problem. This isn't a reciprocal relationship, and hasn't been since 2015 or so. The social justice warrior crowd has been perfectly happy to say, you know what, screw universal healthcare, screw economic progressivism, you HAVE to support the democrats or else. They expect me to be fully on board with them, but they're not fully on board with me. Mainly because they've been trying to appeal to the Howard Schultz types who are now freaking out the party is moving left and threatening to leave themselves. They're perfectly happy to get on board with social justice as long as they can screw over lefties and keep their taxes low and their business priorities front and center. But they do so at the expense of progressive economic issues. My real opponent here isn't the social justice types. I'm perfectly willing to work with them and agree with them in principle. There is no real conflict in views, just a conflict in tone and attitude. My problem, is with the centrists allied with them who have had a choke hold on the democratic party for far too long. As long as those two groups are working together, don't expect me to be on the same side. Politics is about coalition building. I'm perfectly willing to work with these people on mutually beneficial goals. Heck I outlined my ideas on that a few years ago.
Anyway, back to the social justice warriors. The problem with these guys, beyond their apparent affinity with siding with centrist democrats, is the fact that they are a hive mind. it's almost like a cult of caring. They expect everyone to turn off their rational brains and just be in solidarity with various causes with no dissent. I find it creepy and manipulative. And they are being manipulated by the neoliberals in my opinion via the democratic party and two party system. It's fine to have empathy. You kind of need it to be able to understand how your ideas affect others. It's another thing to be ruled by it to the point you miss the big picture and discourage dissenting opinions.These guys are getting to be too much of a hive mind that witch hunts anyone who does any perceived sleight against them. And that's a problem.
Again, totally love social justice, and I will once again reiterate to anyone who is even thinking of pulling the racism/sexism/privileged card that you can be for social justice without being an SJW, and that I'm for social justice, but not social justice warriors. One is a set of ideas, the other is a group of loud, obnoxious people. Please get that straight to understand my position there.
The thing is, I highly value my independence and freedom of thought. I left religion and conservatism 7 years ago and set myself on a course of developing opinions based on reason, evidence, and various academic theories. I'm not perfect, but I try. What I will not do is shut down my rational thinking centers to conform to a group behaving as a hive mind, that is potentially being manipulated by a group of rich people who use their politics to divide and conquer the democratic party.
Economics: slightly more socialist, otherwise nothing has changed
I have shifted a bit on economics in the last 2 years. If you recall, around then I was investigating the concept of democratic socialism. Not the same kind of socialism that most people are afraid of by the way, a far more moderate variety that tends to revolve around reform rather than revolution, decentralization rather than centralization, democracy rather than tyranny, and libertarianism rather than authoritarianism. That said I have worked some of that in my views the last two years. On top of supporting just social democratic policy that regulates and compensates for capitalism's flaws, I now support worker cooperatives within a market economy. Yes, I did say I still support markets, you can put your pitchforks down. I support worker owned businesses within a market system. You can call this a version of democratic socialism or market socialism.
I feel like this is a necessary step in expanding my ideology. Say in the future we automate all of the jobs, and we compensate with this for basic income. Okay, where do we get the money? From the people who own the means of production, the business owners. Okay, as we know that requires MASSIVE taxation. How do we accomplish that? By taxing businesses at exorbitant rates. But wait, if we do that, won't the rich just hide their money and go overseas? Dang it, they got us there. How do we solve this? We solve this by broadening the ownership of businesses. If workers own the businesses, you're not gonna have a handful of rich people moving the wealth overseas. Because they will also own the wealth. When their jobs are automated, they won't be let go and told to find another one or starve, they will own the business and share in its profits. We can still have UBI, universal healthcare, etc. This is still NECESSARY in my opinion, but honestly, the only way we can truly get to a post work world is one where ownership of businesses are shared by the people who work at them. Note this is different from the STATE owning businesses which happens in the communist dystopia everyone fears.
So how do we accomplish this? Well, Germany has something called codetermination where the board of directors are partially elected by workers. Their version still allowed for private control even among the largest businesses, but if we made a version that is more aggressive, we could accomplish majority worker control for large businesses while still allowing small scale startups and entrepreneurship to create new wealth and incentivize people to create new businesses.
I think this fills a necessary hole in my ideology that was previously unaddressed, and it seems like a fitting and necessary evolution from my views 2 years ago.
Foreign policy: much more skeptical of interventionism
So, in becoming more socialist, I've also come to the point where I think US foreign policy isn't just bad for the US, it's bad for the world. I read a book recently called "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It's a book about the history of the US from a socialist perspective. And let's be honest, when I read this, I have to wonder, are we the baddies? We get involved in foreign wars not really for good reasons, but to expand our own interests. We act in an imperialistic way not caring about people on a humanitarian level like we claim to, but we get involved to expand our access to natural resources.
This isn't to say said book is always right. It is heavily biased and leaves out more noble motives for our behavior, and tends to see us in the worst possible light possible. But it does make me think and makes me far more critical of our interventionism across the world. I am all for us using our military to defend ourselves and our allies from potential, but I am coming down far harder on the concept of regime change and interventionism than I previously did.
Another area in which I have shifted on foreign policy is my opinion of patriotism. Much like with my grievances against parts of the social justice movement, it's come to my attention that often times appeals to patriotism are used to suppress discussion and rational thought. Howard Zinn's book discussed how back during World War I, people were arrested and jailed for daring speak out against the draft. I find this to be scary. I also find the concept of Mccarthyism scary in which people with certain views are deemed unamerican and witch hunted. Speaking of McCarthyism, the democrats seem to be doing a lot of it these days. To them, anyone who doesn't toe their party line, whether on the left, or on the right, is with Russia. Trump is with Russia, Jill Stein is with Russia, "Bernie bros" are with Russia, if you're not with them, you're with Russia.Yeah no. To once again preserve my independence of thought, I'm gonna flat out say those appeals don't work on me. You can be critical of the democrats, or even the country, without being aligned with a foreign power. You should not be pressured to change legitimately held positions, because of a threat by a foreign power. This is tribalism intended to oppose freedom of thought and should be vigorously opposed.
Honestly, my views of patriotism are closer to Al Franken's:
I don't buy into mindless symbolism and "America is always right" rhetoric. I support freedom of thought, rational discussion, and being free to criticize the country or organizations with it without being accused of being some "useful idiot" to Russia. Rather, I support identifying issues with our country as is, and fixing them, to make us better. This is true patriotism. What the democrats want seems to be closer to mindless jingoism.
Overall: Still the same person more or less, just slightly evolved
My views have been relatively stable since 2014 or so. I have mostly evolved since then not in my core convictions by in responding to major events and letting my internal moral compass evolve and build on my previously established views. I have become, arguably, slightly more left wing. I take political compass now and am closer to -7, -7 rather than -6, -6 like I was in 2016. But ultimately, my views haven't changed much, it's more that the world around me has changed and I've acquired more information and I've been forced to adapt to it. So going forward, expect more of the same more or less.
Social issues: not much changed, but more skeptical of the social justice movement
I hate delving into these kinds of issues, but I feel like I'm forced to, because it's all most people have been willing to talk about the last 2 years. My core convictions haven't changed on this issue, but my opinion of some aspects of the social justice movement have soured a bit. By social justice movement, I dont mean all moves toward social justice, but specifically, the social justice warriors I mentioned previously. Now, don't get me wrong. Im STILL for social justice, still want equality of races, genders, but honestly, the people, man. You cannot express opinions on these subjects that dissent from their standpoint without being accused of being a racist, sexist, or bigot. Privilege shaming is used a lot, and they use empathy in order to manipulate people. You're not just expected to have socially progressive positions, you're expected to loudly and obnoxiously share your socially progressive positions all the time, and failure to do so or make those your number one priority get you shamed. They will call you "selfish", because it's like "how dare I decide my economic well being and not wanting people to be in poverty is more important than racial and feminist issues?" Not that those issues aren't important, but let's be honest, people in politics are attracted to different causes, and some people have pet causes they put over others. And that's okay. Not everyone is going to discuss universal healthcare or basic income as their top priorities. Likewise, not everyone is gonna prioritize eliminating racism and feminism. Not everyone is gonna focus on green policies that end global warming. People have different concerns, and what matters in the end is that we're all on the same side. That we can come together, with our unique causes, and cobble together a comprehensive progressive platform that addresses all of these issues, with all of us contributing to it.
But therein lies the problem. This isn't a reciprocal relationship, and hasn't been since 2015 or so. The social justice warrior crowd has been perfectly happy to say, you know what, screw universal healthcare, screw economic progressivism, you HAVE to support the democrats or else. They expect me to be fully on board with them, but they're not fully on board with me. Mainly because they've been trying to appeal to the Howard Schultz types who are now freaking out the party is moving left and threatening to leave themselves. They're perfectly happy to get on board with social justice as long as they can screw over lefties and keep their taxes low and their business priorities front and center. But they do so at the expense of progressive economic issues. My real opponent here isn't the social justice types. I'm perfectly willing to work with them and agree with them in principle. There is no real conflict in views, just a conflict in tone and attitude. My problem, is with the centrists allied with them who have had a choke hold on the democratic party for far too long. As long as those two groups are working together, don't expect me to be on the same side. Politics is about coalition building. I'm perfectly willing to work with these people on mutually beneficial goals. Heck I outlined my ideas on that a few years ago.
Anyway, back to the social justice warriors. The problem with these guys, beyond their apparent affinity with siding with centrist democrats, is the fact that they are a hive mind. it's almost like a cult of caring. They expect everyone to turn off their rational brains and just be in solidarity with various causes with no dissent. I find it creepy and manipulative. And they are being manipulated by the neoliberals in my opinion via the democratic party and two party system. It's fine to have empathy. You kind of need it to be able to understand how your ideas affect others. It's another thing to be ruled by it to the point you miss the big picture and discourage dissenting opinions.These guys are getting to be too much of a hive mind that witch hunts anyone who does any perceived sleight against them. And that's a problem.
Again, totally love social justice, and I will once again reiterate to anyone who is even thinking of pulling the racism/sexism/privileged card that you can be for social justice without being an SJW, and that I'm for social justice, but not social justice warriors. One is a set of ideas, the other is a group of loud, obnoxious people. Please get that straight to understand my position there.
The thing is, I highly value my independence and freedom of thought. I left religion and conservatism 7 years ago and set myself on a course of developing opinions based on reason, evidence, and various academic theories. I'm not perfect, but I try. What I will not do is shut down my rational thinking centers to conform to a group behaving as a hive mind, that is potentially being manipulated by a group of rich people who use their politics to divide and conquer the democratic party.
Economics: slightly more socialist, otherwise nothing has changed
I have shifted a bit on economics in the last 2 years. If you recall, around then I was investigating the concept of democratic socialism. Not the same kind of socialism that most people are afraid of by the way, a far more moderate variety that tends to revolve around reform rather than revolution, decentralization rather than centralization, democracy rather than tyranny, and libertarianism rather than authoritarianism. That said I have worked some of that in my views the last two years. On top of supporting just social democratic policy that regulates and compensates for capitalism's flaws, I now support worker cooperatives within a market economy. Yes, I did say I still support markets, you can put your pitchforks down. I support worker owned businesses within a market system. You can call this a version of democratic socialism or market socialism.
I feel like this is a necessary step in expanding my ideology. Say in the future we automate all of the jobs, and we compensate with this for basic income. Okay, where do we get the money? From the people who own the means of production, the business owners. Okay, as we know that requires MASSIVE taxation. How do we accomplish that? By taxing businesses at exorbitant rates. But wait, if we do that, won't the rich just hide their money and go overseas? Dang it, they got us there. How do we solve this? We solve this by broadening the ownership of businesses. If workers own the businesses, you're not gonna have a handful of rich people moving the wealth overseas. Because they will also own the wealth. When their jobs are automated, they won't be let go and told to find another one or starve, they will own the business and share in its profits. We can still have UBI, universal healthcare, etc. This is still NECESSARY in my opinion, but honestly, the only way we can truly get to a post work world is one where ownership of businesses are shared by the people who work at them. Note this is different from the STATE owning businesses which happens in the communist dystopia everyone fears.
So how do we accomplish this? Well, Germany has something called codetermination where the board of directors are partially elected by workers. Their version still allowed for private control even among the largest businesses, but if we made a version that is more aggressive, we could accomplish majority worker control for large businesses while still allowing small scale startups and entrepreneurship to create new wealth and incentivize people to create new businesses.
I think this fills a necessary hole in my ideology that was previously unaddressed, and it seems like a fitting and necessary evolution from my views 2 years ago.
Foreign policy: much more skeptical of interventionism
So, in becoming more socialist, I've also come to the point where I think US foreign policy isn't just bad for the US, it's bad for the world. I read a book recently called "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. It's a book about the history of the US from a socialist perspective. And let's be honest, when I read this, I have to wonder, are we the baddies? We get involved in foreign wars not really for good reasons, but to expand our own interests. We act in an imperialistic way not caring about people on a humanitarian level like we claim to, but we get involved to expand our access to natural resources.
This isn't to say said book is always right. It is heavily biased and leaves out more noble motives for our behavior, and tends to see us in the worst possible light possible. But it does make me think and makes me far more critical of our interventionism across the world. I am all for us using our military to defend ourselves and our allies from potential, but I am coming down far harder on the concept of regime change and interventionism than I previously did.
Another area in which I have shifted on foreign policy is my opinion of patriotism. Much like with my grievances against parts of the social justice movement, it's come to my attention that often times appeals to patriotism are used to suppress discussion and rational thought. Howard Zinn's book discussed how back during World War I, people were arrested and jailed for daring speak out against the draft. I find this to be scary. I also find the concept of Mccarthyism scary in which people with certain views are deemed unamerican and witch hunted. Speaking of McCarthyism, the democrats seem to be doing a lot of it these days. To them, anyone who doesn't toe their party line, whether on the left, or on the right, is with Russia. Trump is with Russia, Jill Stein is with Russia, "Bernie bros" are with Russia, if you're not with them, you're with Russia.Yeah no. To once again preserve my independence of thought, I'm gonna flat out say those appeals don't work on me. You can be critical of the democrats, or even the country, without being aligned with a foreign power. You should not be pressured to change legitimately held positions, because of a threat by a foreign power. This is tribalism intended to oppose freedom of thought and should be vigorously opposed.
Honestly, my views of patriotism are closer to Al Franken's:
We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That’s why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well.
I don't buy into mindless symbolism and "America is always right" rhetoric. I support freedom of thought, rational discussion, and being free to criticize the country or organizations with it without being accused of being some "useful idiot" to Russia. Rather, I support identifying issues with our country as is, and fixing them, to make us better. This is true patriotism. What the democrats want seems to be closer to mindless jingoism.
Overall: Still the same person more or less, just slightly evolved
My views have been relatively stable since 2014 or so. I have mostly evolved since then not in my core convictions by in responding to major events and letting my internal moral compass evolve and build on my previously established views. I have become, arguably, slightly more left wing. I take political compass now and am closer to -7, -7 rather than -6, -6 like I was in 2016. But ultimately, my views haven't changed much, it's more that the world around me has changed and I've acquired more information and I've been forced to adapt to it. So going forward, expect more of the same more or less.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
2020 democratic candidates, an early look
So...even though we haven't gotten to the mid terms yet, president candidates are always on my mind, and we're starting to see a field of potential candidates, good and bad, who may run in 2020. Today I'm gonna discuss this field and what I think of some names being thrown around.
Bernie Sanders - Obviously, this is my #1 choice. He's old, he's gonna be 79, but that isn't gonna stop me from voting for him. However, he's going to need a STRONG running mate to be a good ticket, because obviously, he has a high risk of dying in office and will leave office at the age of 83 or 87. He has the ideas, he is popular, and I think he can win. There are some remaining Clinton holdouts and centrists who hate his guts, but still, I don't think they'll swing the election away from him.
Elizabeth Warren - It's unclear whether she will run, I mean she was highly desired by many in 2016, and much of Sanders core of support came from the demographic that supported her, but she's a solid #2 choice for me. Some progressives will criticize her for not speaking out against the democrats enough, holding her tongue on Keystone XL, etc., but honestly, I think she's left enough to represent a significant shift in American politics to the left, while potentially winning over some of the alienated Clintonites. She's kind of a compromise candidate that's still favorable to the progressive wing of the party. If she runs I just hope she doesn't turn into another Obama, talking a big game while running to the center in practice. Still, she is someone I would vote for.
Andrew Yang - Yang is an interesting candidate to me. He's an entrepreneur, which is normally a bit of a turnoff to me, and he's inexperienced, but he supports universal basic income, which, if you guys recall, is a huge policy that I am supportive of, if not it being the most sought after policy of mine. This in itself is enough to let me give him a look. However, he wants to fund his UBI with a VAT, which is regressive and hurts the people he's trying to help, and his plan doesn't mesh well with social security, causing a coverage gap for some over 65. Honestly, I would like this guy to revamp his plans and gain some political experience. I think he would be best used as a potential VP for Bernie Sanders. This would groom him and position him for a 2028 run, putting him in a much stronger position. For now, I'll consider him a protest vote if the neoliberal wing of the party wins and I'm not happy with their platform, similar to how I voted for Jill Stein, but I'd honestly like someone with more experience as a primary option.
Joe Biden - He's probably one of the favorites of the neoliberal wing of the party. He's a strong new democrat with a long political career. While he would likely be a decent president, he just isn't what I want. If he wins, the GOP will just gain strength again and the democrats will fall apart again. He's too old timey for me, if that makes sense. He still thinks the world is what it was when he was growing up and doesn't understand how things have changed. He also has a habit of shooting his mouth off and making gaffes which alienate people. And, this is troublesome to me, but he opposed basic income on the grounds of "dignity of work". I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that dignity of work crap, work is a necessary evil to make things we need, it shouldn't represent what life is supposed to be. As such I'm not really big in Biden as a candidate and may consider a green vote again if he is the nominee.
Kamala Harris - She's a favorite of the neoliberal wing. She's a minority woman and they won't want you to forget it (you know how the neoliberal wing is big on symbolic victories). On policy she's mixed. She has some decent ideas, is socially liberal, even supports medicare for all, but honestly, she is a character of much contention among the left. It seems like despite being progressive on paper she has little follow through, and as such may try to woo progressives with promises she does not intend on keeping. I MIGHT support her if she makes a strong enough case for herself, but I'm kind of iffy at this time. Many people compare her to Obama, very inspirational and sounds good, but is kind of a loser in practice.
Cory Booker - More neoliberal than Kamala Harris, with none of the progressive pretense. Seems to be a big representative of the pharmaceutical industry, which is big in his home state of new jersey, which makes him not really a prime candidate for "medicare for all." I don't like the guy. Running him is a good way to get me to protest vote again.
Tammy Duckworth - Tammy Duckworth is a woman with a story. She fought in Iraq, she lost her leg, and she sacrificed for her country. She refers to draft dodger Trump as "cadet bone spurs" and this kind of thing will go over very well for much of the public. She does some good things on policy like wanting to audit the Pentagon and supporting stricter gun control, but she's kind of an unknown on economics, and as you guys know, that's kind of my number one thing here. That said I see her as a bit of an unknown. The neoliberal establishment is pushing her but I'm a bit of a skeptic as to her being a good candidate here.
There are probably others I did not mention, but these are the names I currently see showing up in discussions online. Some of these candidates I could get behind. Bernie Sanders is obviously the best but his advanced age is a weakness at this point. Warren is also solid but tends to sometimes fail progressive "purity tests." I would still vote for her though. Andrew Yang is interesting but he kinda needs some experience with policy before I feel comfortable with him. I'd support him but kind of in the way I supported Stein...voting purely on ideas and ideology rather than actual pragmatic concerns. Joe Biden is a strong candidate, but he's a bit of a centrist and I would not be inclined to vote for her. Harris talks a big game, but has little follow through making her an untrustworthy alternative for progressives. Cory Booker is a straight up neoliberal I would not support. Finally, Tammy Duckworth is an interesting person but seems to say little on economics and this would not be a preferred choice. Stacking these guys up against Clinton, I would say most of them are an improvement. I'd be kind of leery of the more centrist/neoliberal of the group like Booker and Biden, and would likely consider another third party vote if they ran, but I see some names I could support. Of course, a lot could change in a few years. Especially if the dems pull dirty tricks again. For reference at this point in 2014 I would've actually been open to Clinton, even if Sanders and Warren were already my #1 and 2 choices. That changed primarily because of Clinton's campaign and the democratic ground game. It all depends how things go.
Bernie Sanders - Obviously, this is my #1 choice. He's old, he's gonna be 79, but that isn't gonna stop me from voting for him. However, he's going to need a STRONG running mate to be a good ticket, because obviously, he has a high risk of dying in office and will leave office at the age of 83 or 87. He has the ideas, he is popular, and I think he can win. There are some remaining Clinton holdouts and centrists who hate his guts, but still, I don't think they'll swing the election away from him.
Elizabeth Warren - It's unclear whether she will run, I mean she was highly desired by many in 2016, and much of Sanders core of support came from the demographic that supported her, but she's a solid #2 choice for me. Some progressives will criticize her for not speaking out against the democrats enough, holding her tongue on Keystone XL, etc., but honestly, I think she's left enough to represent a significant shift in American politics to the left, while potentially winning over some of the alienated Clintonites. She's kind of a compromise candidate that's still favorable to the progressive wing of the party. If she runs I just hope she doesn't turn into another Obama, talking a big game while running to the center in practice. Still, she is someone I would vote for.
Andrew Yang - Yang is an interesting candidate to me. He's an entrepreneur, which is normally a bit of a turnoff to me, and he's inexperienced, but he supports universal basic income, which, if you guys recall, is a huge policy that I am supportive of, if not it being the most sought after policy of mine. This in itself is enough to let me give him a look. However, he wants to fund his UBI with a VAT, which is regressive and hurts the people he's trying to help, and his plan doesn't mesh well with social security, causing a coverage gap for some over 65. Honestly, I would like this guy to revamp his plans and gain some political experience. I think he would be best used as a potential VP for Bernie Sanders. This would groom him and position him for a 2028 run, putting him in a much stronger position. For now, I'll consider him a protest vote if the neoliberal wing of the party wins and I'm not happy with their platform, similar to how I voted for Jill Stein, but I'd honestly like someone with more experience as a primary option.
Joe Biden - He's probably one of the favorites of the neoliberal wing of the party. He's a strong new democrat with a long political career. While he would likely be a decent president, he just isn't what I want. If he wins, the GOP will just gain strength again and the democrats will fall apart again. He's too old timey for me, if that makes sense. He still thinks the world is what it was when he was growing up and doesn't understand how things have changed. He also has a habit of shooting his mouth off and making gaffes which alienate people. And, this is troublesome to me, but he opposed basic income on the grounds of "dignity of work". I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that dignity of work crap, work is a necessary evil to make things we need, it shouldn't represent what life is supposed to be. As such I'm not really big in Biden as a candidate and may consider a green vote again if he is the nominee.
Kamala Harris - She's a favorite of the neoliberal wing. She's a minority woman and they won't want you to forget it (you know how the neoliberal wing is big on symbolic victories). On policy she's mixed. She has some decent ideas, is socially liberal, even supports medicare for all, but honestly, she is a character of much contention among the left. It seems like despite being progressive on paper she has little follow through, and as such may try to woo progressives with promises she does not intend on keeping. I MIGHT support her if she makes a strong enough case for herself, but I'm kind of iffy at this time. Many people compare her to Obama, very inspirational and sounds good, but is kind of a loser in practice.
Cory Booker - More neoliberal than Kamala Harris, with none of the progressive pretense. Seems to be a big representative of the pharmaceutical industry, which is big in his home state of new jersey, which makes him not really a prime candidate for "medicare for all." I don't like the guy. Running him is a good way to get me to protest vote again.
Tammy Duckworth - Tammy Duckworth is a woman with a story. She fought in Iraq, she lost her leg, and she sacrificed for her country. She refers to draft dodger Trump as "cadet bone spurs" and this kind of thing will go over very well for much of the public. She does some good things on policy like wanting to audit the Pentagon and supporting stricter gun control, but she's kind of an unknown on economics, and as you guys know, that's kind of my number one thing here. That said I see her as a bit of an unknown. The neoliberal establishment is pushing her but I'm a bit of a skeptic as to her being a good candidate here.
There are probably others I did not mention, but these are the names I currently see showing up in discussions online. Some of these candidates I could get behind. Bernie Sanders is obviously the best but his advanced age is a weakness at this point. Warren is also solid but tends to sometimes fail progressive "purity tests." I would still vote for her though. Andrew Yang is interesting but he kinda needs some experience with policy before I feel comfortable with him. I'd support him but kind of in the way I supported Stein...voting purely on ideas and ideology rather than actual pragmatic concerns. Joe Biden is a strong candidate, but he's a bit of a centrist and I would not be inclined to vote for her. Harris talks a big game, but has little follow through making her an untrustworthy alternative for progressives. Cory Booker is a straight up neoliberal I would not support. Finally, Tammy Duckworth is an interesting person but seems to say little on economics and this would not be a preferred choice. Stacking these guys up against Clinton, I would say most of them are an improvement. I'd be kind of leery of the more centrist/neoliberal of the group like Booker and Biden, and would likely consider another third party vote if they ran, but I see some names I could support. Of course, a lot could change in a few years. Especially if the dems pull dirty tricks again. For reference at this point in 2014 I would've actually been open to Clinton, even if Sanders and Warren were already my #1 and 2 choices. That changed primarily because of Clinton's campaign and the democratic ground game. It all depends how things go.
Looking forward to 2020, electoral college math
So, I felt like discussing something with the electoral college today. Trump might have won in 2016, but this should not be seen as a normal path to victory. It was, in my opinion, a fluke caused by the worst case scenario for democrats. I discussed electoral college math last election extensively and even had frequent updates. I did not see the rust belt turning to Trump, but it's safe to say outside of that unforeseen development, that the electoral college heavily favors democrats. Here's why.
If the democrats held the blue wall, Clinton would have won 296-242. With Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania held by democrats, I only saw one path to victory for Trump, and it would've given him a narrow 270-268 victory. This with the GOP sweeping the board more or less. You could MAYBE throw in Colorado and Virginia in there, which used to vote republican more, but that would still have Trump winning less than he did with the states he won.
In an election cycle the democrats aren't quite as unpopular and unlikable, the dems will kick the crap out of the republicans. Take this map for instance. This is a much more middle of the road map in my opinion. The dems win, but not by a massive margin. Basically Trump's 2016 margin or Obama's 2012 margin. If the democrats really do good, this isn't out of the question.
Considering how the GOP will not be nearly as popular or the democrats nearly as unpopular going into 2020, I could see the democrats winning, assuming they win the rust belt. The rust belt is currently the most integral region to swinging elections. Traditionally democratic territory in recent years but has been turning more purple as the democrats have basically abandoned these people. If the democrats can win them back with a strong working class message, and run a candidate not nearly as disliked as Clinton, the democrats could have won 2016 with ease. And they'll likely win 2020 with ease too.
A huge aspect of Clinton's strategy that fell apart was she was trying too hard to go on the offensive in the south in states like Georgia, Arizona, and Texas, appealing to Latinos and moderates in an attempt to swing those states. But these states aren't purple enough to consider Clinton a serious candidate, and as such, she not only failed to win them over, she lost more traditional battleground states and rust belt states who wanted something different. Triangulation works good for democrats in theory, but in practice, is a double edged sword. You stand to gain 2 demographics instead of 1, but you could also lose both, which is what Clinton did.
The current political map favors democrats overall, it just requires them to run a competent game plan that doesn't gamble away their advantage in hope of a landslide victory. It doesn't matter if you win by 270 electoral votes or 400, you're president all the same (although admittedly 400 does give you a stronger mandate). It's highly likely in my opinion that Trump will lose his bid for a second term, although it's not a foregone conclusion. If the democrats go into next election overconfident again, they could end up with another rude awakening.
If the democrats held the blue wall, Clinton would have won 296-242. With Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania held by democrats, I only saw one path to victory for Trump, and it would've given him a narrow 270-268 victory. This with the GOP sweeping the board more or less. You could MAYBE throw in Colorado and Virginia in there, which used to vote republican more, but that would still have Trump winning less than he did with the states he won.
In an election cycle the democrats aren't quite as unpopular and unlikable, the dems will kick the crap out of the republicans. Take this map for instance. This is a much more middle of the road map in my opinion. The dems win, but not by a massive margin. Basically Trump's 2016 margin or Obama's 2012 margin. If the democrats really do good, this isn't out of the question.
Considering how the GOP will not be nearly as popular or the democrats nearly as unpopular going into 2020, I could see the democrats winning, assuming they win the rust belt. The rust belt is currently the most integral region to swinging elections. Traditionally democratic territory in recent years but has been turning more purple as the democrats have basically abandoned these people. If the democrats can win them back with a strong working class message, and run a candidate not nearly as disliked as Clinton, the democrats could have won 2016 with ease. And they'll likely win 2020 with ease too.
A huge aspect of Clinton's strategy that fell apart was she was trying too hard to go on the offensive in the south in states like Georgia, Arizona, and Texas, appealing to Latinos and moderates in an attempt to swing those states. But these states aren't purple enough to consider Clinton a serious candidate, and as such, she not only failed to win them over, she lost more traditional battleground states and rust belt states who wanted something different. Triangulation works good for democrats in theory, but in practice, is a double edged sword. You stand to gain 2 demographics instead of 1, but you could also lose both, which is what Clinton did.
The current political map favors democrats overall, it just requires them to run a competent game plan that doesn't gamble away their advantage in hope of a landslide victory. It doesn't matter if you win by 270 electoral votes or 400, you're president all the same (although admittedly 400 does give you a stronger mandate). It's highly likely in my opinion that Trump will lose his bid for a second term, although it's not a foregone conclusion. If the democrats go into next election overconfident again, they could end up with another rude awakening.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
The past year or so in review
So...as you know, I havent written in a while. A lot of this is due to lacking motivation and wanting to focus on other things. It's not that I'm still not passionate about politics, but with me passion ebbs and flows, sometimes I'm super motivated and other times...not so much. And the past year or so I haven't been that motivated. And why would I be? We have republicans in charge who don't give a crap about us, and democrats who want to be in charge who don't give a crap about us. The political system is a total crapshow and the entire narrative is so far away from where it needs to be to actually make the quality of life for your average American better. And that's gonna be my general undertone of this article.
Russia and the democrats
The democrats have spent most of this year focusing on Russia and trying to rally the narrative around them as a righteous mccarthyist alternative to a nation full of traitors. The democrats go after Trump with Russia to bring attention away from themselves, and to attack Trump and disaffected lefties like me who just won't buy the mainstream narrative.
I'm gonna be honest, I haven't been paying attention to this season of The Apprentice with all the firings going down from this Russia stuff among other things, and quite frankly, I don't care (to be honest at this rate it looks like Mike Pence is gonna win). Drama bores me, and this reminds me of the kinds of witch hunts the republicans did against Clinton with Benghazi. If there's truth to be told and charges to come out, let them come out, after all we can't tolerate actual traitors, but I think we should avoid the kinds of alarmism the democrats are doing on this subject.
One thing I will point out the clear the air here is when I was active with this blog in 2016, I wrote some articles about Guccifer 2.0 and the wikileaks leaks. Yeah, apparently those were actually released by Russia. I just wanna clear the air and be honest here. Russia apparently released the info and I didn't know it at the time.
Does this mean I bought into Russia propaganda though? No. And here's why. I am a critical thinker, I've been calling BS on the democratic party since before this stuff came out, and when this stuff came out it was evidence of previous claims. All Russia did was confirm what many of us already figured out. And because the information came from Russia, does that mean it's all of the sudden wrong? If you're a democrat, apparently so, but if you're me, a critical thinker with no real solid affiliation to any organization I would sell out my values for, no. That's a whole bunch of poisoning the well right there. Does Russia have motivations for releasing this stuff? Yes, they wanted Trump elected because he's an idiot. Does the DNC have motivations for trying to get everyone to ignore it? Yes, they want to cover up their corruption and whip everyone up in a patriotic fervor and get them to forget all about their misdeeds. There, plain and simple. Everyone has motivations all around and we shouldn't just buy into one narrative and ignore the other because we don't like who says it. You're gonna "buy into someone's propaganda" no matter what you do, all you can do is make your own narrative and interpret information within your own interests. Which is what I'm doing. We should punish and sanction Russia for doing this crap to us. I'm not saying we shouldn't (although a democrat will interpret it that way). But we also shouldn't turn a blind eye to the democrats and their corruption. They still had an unfair primary and when taken to court didn't even defend themselves, they basically said they had a right to rig it. And yeah, I just wanted to clear the air there. The way I see it the democrats still did shady things, regardless of where the information came from.
HRC still doesn't get it
Clinton is still as clueless as ever as to why she lost. She wrote a book last year called "What Happened?" and while there were a few moments of clarity in there (gee, maybe I should've run on a basic income platform, maybe that would've won!....ya think?!), she largely missed the mark and blamed Russia, Bernie Bros, James Comey, etc. While these factors likely did have an impact, it almost has a "and I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids" vibe. Yes those factors mattered, but the big thing is that YOU SUCKED AS A CANDIDATE. Seriously, Clinton was the worst candidate the democrats could've run and she still lacks the self awareness mostly to understand why she lost. Even more recently, she had a statement about how she won the productive people, forward thinking people and basically insulted people who didn't vote for her by implying they're racist and sexist. Yeah, you didn't win the unproductive people because they're pissed off you had nothing to offer them. DUH. And the democrats haven't won racists over since the 60s really. Really, I wish she would just go away. She's clueless.
Trump is an incompetent moron
Given how the democrats act, I don't really regret my Stein vote, but man does Trump push it sometimes. He's largely pushed a right wing agenda, but thankfully, he can't seem to pass anything. ACA is still intact, and his only real legislative accomplishment is some tax cuts he's now crediting an "economic boom" for. I kinda knew this would happen. Trump is weak and lacks leadership. On foreign policy he's a joke and spends more time insulting Kim Jong Un on twitter than doing anything productive, and I hope the idiot doesn't start a war. He doesn't seem to understand Kim Jong Un is putting on an act. And Trump is taking him seriously and that's scary. It's like being the only one not in on a joke and getting offended and you hope the now rampaging idiot doesn't start hitting anyone. Domestically, again, largely a failure, ACA still intact, Mexico not paying for the wall (who didn't see that one coming?), and okay, yay trickle down.
To topple the actual tax cuts thing being good for america, let me say a few things. We have a system in capitalism in which we have booms and busts. 2008 was a huge bust. 2010 and onward the economy has been "booming" or expanding. 8 years later it's relatively prosperous as the stock market is high, we're getting our growth back, and unemployment is down. "Thanks, Obama!" No really, Obama oversaw the crap years and now Trump's trying to take credit for a logical expansion of years of recovery. Even then, I am still of the opinion things aren't great. What good is a good stock market and growth if the gains go to the top and the people at the bottom are in just as precarious of a position as ever? Oh yay you got a 1k tax cut! Big deal, that's chump change compared to what you SHOULD be getting. What good is low unemployment when labor participation is down, you still need 3+ years experience for an "entry level" job and you're stuck working jobs you hate? Trump and the republicans have a way of twisting the optics of the economy to look like things are better than they are. The democrats tried to do this but failed because let's be honest, a lot of people on the left are aware of the shortcomings of the economy as it exists, but the right....the right loves this kind of stuff. They can claim token victories on various issues and make it look like they're doing a lot. Meanwhile the democrats who are literally do nothings look like crap in comparison...this is what happens when you triangulate. You get the results of the republicans, without being able to take credit because you're muddying ideological grounds between democrats and republicans. Sure sometimes you can win enough on both sides to win, but otherwise both the left and the right turn on you. Which is what happened.
But yeah, I just wanted to write on my feel of the Trump presidency. Doesnt know what he's doing, incompetent to pass much, outside of tax cuts, and tax cuts are highly exaggerated in their effect.
Roseanne premiere and democratic hate
Meanwhile, Roseanne had a series reboot last week and the democrats are hating on that. Why? Because her character, like her real life counterpart, supports Trump. Because of this a lot of democrats are losing their minds and refusing to watch. Which is stupid. Roseanne has always been a show about the white working class in the rust belt. You know, the people the democrats NEED to pay more attention to. She's always pushed progressive values on her show, tackling controversial topics like race relations, abortion, gay marriage, and stuff related to worker rights and the crap people near the bottom have to go through. How abusive and obnoxious her various bosses were over time and how degrading wage employment is. Heck her show even has SOCIALIST sympathies as during the lottery season she fantasized of buying out her old place of employment and turning it over to the workers. Yeah, that happened. Real life roseanne isnt much different. As recently as 2012 she ran for the green party on a socialist platform and eventually ran on another party when she lost to Jill Stein.
Now, feminist, progressive, socialist roseanne supports Trump. What the actual ****? The show doesnt have tons of an overt political focus, but she mentioned on the show "he talked about jobs and shaking things up." You know, something Clinton didn't. And just look at the themes of the new show. Darlene is moving back home after losing her job, her kid is gender curious, DJ's kid is black, and they're paying twice as much for half the meds. This show really does a good job I think of painting Trump supporters less of the "deplorable" stereotype people like Clinton are trying to push, but of really progressive people who actually are living in a craphole of an economy. See my above themes in the Trump section. Notice how the democrats failed to address these problems. Yeah, okay, unemployment is 4%, so why are people still struggling? We passed the ACA, why is healthcare so unaffordable? The democrats OBVIOUSLY need a different direction, and could easily win over these people if they weren't afraid to embrace capitalism, but they won't. They're too busy writing off working class voters to appeal to rich moderate republicans in cities. No, literally, this is Chuck Schumer on the democratic party's election strategy in 2016:
Conclusion
Yeah as you guys can tell, Im deeply cynical with the current state of things. The republicans are idiots, of course I knew they would be. The democrats are clueless and have sold out the people and would rather go on a mccarthyist crusade and vote shame than actually run a platform people can vote for, and nothing is getting done. I struggle to even consider myself a democrat these days. I definitely have more of an affinity toward the greens and the like and wished they ran more competent people than Jill Stein (someone more like Nader maybe?). Only reason I'm registered as a democrat is because I still want to maybe try to influence primaries again. But if the democrats don't shape up, Im probably gonna stuck with third parties from here on out.
Russia and the democrats
The democrats have spent most of this year focusing on Russia and trying to rally the narrative around them as a righteous mccarthyist alternative to a nation full of traitors. The democrats go after Trump with Russia to bring attention away from themselves, and to attack Trump and disaffected lefties like me who just won't buy the mainstream narrative.
I'm gonna be honest, I haven't been paying attention to this season of The Apprentice with all the firings going down from this Russia stuff among other things, and quite frankly, I don't care (to be honest at this rate it looks like Mike Pence is gonna win). Drama bores me, and this reminds me of the kinds of witch hunts the republicans did against Clinton with Benghazi. If there's truth to be told and charges to come out, let them come out, after all we can't tolerate actual traitors, but I think we should avoid the kinds of alarmism the democrats are doing on this subject.
One thing I will point out the clear the air here is when I was active with this blog in 2016, I wrote some articles about Guccifer 2.0 and the wikileaks leaks. Yeah, apparently those were actually released by Russia. I just wanna clear the air and be honest here. Russia apparently released the info and I didn't know it at the time.
Does this mean I bought into Russia propaganda though? No. And here's why. I am a critical thinker, I've been calling BS on the democratic party since before this stuff came out, and when this stuff came out it was evidence of previous claims. All Russia did was confirm what many of us already figured out. And because the information came from Russia, does that mean it's all of the sudden wrong? If you're a democrat, apparently so, but if you're me, a critical thinker with no real solid affiliation to any organization I would sell out my values for, no. That's a whole bunch of poisoning the well right there. Does Russia have motivations for releasing this stuff? Yes, they wanted Trump elected because he's an idiot. Does the DNC have motivations for trying to get everyone to ignore it? Yes, they want to cover up their corruption and whip everyone up in a patriotic fervor and get them to forget all about their misdeeds. There, plain and simple. Everyone has motivations all around and we shouldn't just buy into one narrative and ignore the other because we don't like who says it. You're gonna "buy into someone's propaganda" no matter what you do, all you can do is make your own narrative and interpret information within your own interests. Which is what I'm doing. We should punish and sanction Russia for doing this crap to us. I'm not saying we shouldn't (although a democrat will interpret it that way). But we also shouldn't turn a blind eye to the democrats and their corruption. They still had an unfair primary and when taken to court didn't even defend themselves, they basically said they had a right to rig it. And yeah, I just wanted to clear the air there. The way I see it the democrats still did shady things, regardless of where the information came from.
HRC still doesn't get it
Clinton is still as clueless as ever as to why she lost. She wrote a book last year called "What Happened?" and while there were a few moments of clarity in there (gee, maybe I should've run on a basic income platform, maybe that would've won!....ya think?!), she largely missed the mark and blamed Russia, Bernie Bros, James Comey, etc. While these factors likely did have an impact, it almost has a "and I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids" vibe. Yes those factors mattered, but the big thing is that YOU SUCKED AS A CANDIDATE. Seriously, Clinton was the worst candidate the democrats could've run and she still lacks the self awareness mostly to understand why she lost. Even more recently, she had a statement about how she won the productive people, forward thinking people and basically insulted people who didn't vote for her by implying they're racist and sexist. Yeah, you didn't win the unproductive people because they're pissed off you had nothing to offer them. DUH. And the democrats haven't won racists over since the 60s really. Really, I wish she would just go away. She's clueless.
Trump is an incompetent moron
Given how the democrats act, I don't really regret my Stein vote, but man does Trump push it sometimes. He's largely pushed a right wing agenda, but thankfully, he can't seem to pass anything. ACA is still intact, and his only real legislative accomplishment is some tax cuts he's now crediting an "economic boom" for. I kinda knew this would happen. Trump is weak and lacks leadership. On foreign policy he's a joke and spends more time insulting Kim Jong Un on twitter than doing anything productive, and I hope the idiot doesn't start a war. He doesn't seem to understand Kim Jong Un is putting on an act. And Trump is taking him seriously and that's scary. It's like being the only one not in on a joke and getting offended and you hope the now rampaging idiot doesn't start hitting anyone. Domestically, again, largely a failure, ACA still intact, Mexico not paying for the wall (who didn't see that one coming?), and okay, yay trickle down.
To topple the actual tax cuts thing being good for america, let me say a few things. We have a system in capitalism in which we have booms and busts. 2008 was a huge bust. 2010 and onward the economy has been "booming" or expanding. 8 years later it's relatively prosperous as the stock market is high, we're getting our growth back, and unemployment is down. "Thanks, Obama!" No really, Obama oversaw the crap years and now Trump's trying to take credit for a logical expansion of years of recovery. Even then, I am still of the opinion things aren't great. What good is a good stock market and growth if the gains go to the top and the people at the bottom are in just as precarious of a position as ever? Oh yay you got a 1k tax cut! Big deal, that's chump change compared to what you SHOULD be getting. What good is low unemployment when labor participation is down, you still need 3+ years experience for an "entry level" job and you're stuck working jobs you hate? Trump and the republicans have a way of twisting the optics of the economy to look like things are better than they are. The democrats tried to do this but failed because let's be honest, a lot of people on the left are aware of the shortcomings of the economy as it exists, but the right....the right loves this kind of stuff. They can claim token victories on various issues and make it look like they're doing a lot. Meanwhile the democrats who are literally do nothings look like crap in comparison...this is what happens when you triangulate. You get the results of the republicans, without being able to take credit because you're muddying ideological grounds between democrats and republicans. Sure sometimes you can win enough on both sides to win, but otherwise both the left and the right turn on you. Which is what happened.
But yeah, I just wanted to write on my feel of the Trump presidency. Doesnt know what he's doing, incompetent to pass much, outside of tax cuts, and tax cuts are highly exaggerated in their effect.
Roseanne premiere and democratic hate
Meanwhile, Roseanne had a series reboot last week and the democrats are hating on that. Why? Because her character, like her real life counterpart, supports Trump. Because of this a lot of democrats are losing their minds and refusing to watch. Which is stupid. Roseanne has always been a show about the white working class in the rust belt. You know, the people the democrats NEED to pay more attention to. She's always pushed progressive values on her show, tackling controversial topics like race relations, abortion, gay marriage, and stuff related to worker rights and the crap people near the bottom have to go through. How abusive and obnoxious her various bosses were over time and how degrading wage employment is. Heck her show even has SOCIALIST sympathies as during the lottery season she fantasized of buying out her old place of employment and turning it over to the workers. Yeah, that happened. Real life roseanne isnt much different. As recently as 2012 she ran for the green party on a socialist platform and eventually ran on another party when she lost to Jill Stein.
Now, feminist, progressive, socialist roseanne supports Trump. What the actual ****? The show doesnt have tons of an overt political focus, but she mentioned on the show "he talked about jobs and shaking things up." You know, something Clinton didn't. And just look at the themes of the new show. Darlene is moving back home after losing her job, her kid is gender curious, DJ's kid is black, and they're paying twice as much for half the meds. This show really does a good job I think of painting Trump supporters less of the "deplorable" stereotype people like Clinton are trying to push, but of really progressive people who actually are living in a craphole of an economy. See my above themes in the Trump section. Notice how the democrats failed to address these problems. Yeah, okay, unemployment is 4%, so why are people still struggling? We passed the ACA, why is healthcare so unaffordable? The democrats OBVIOUSLY need a different direction, and could easily win over these people if they weren't afraid to embrace capitalism, but they won't. They're too busy writing off working class voters to appeal to rich moderate republicans in cities. No, literally, this is Chuck Schumer on the democratic party's election strategy in 2016:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”Yeah, how did that turn out for you?
Conclusion
Yeah as you guys can tell, Im deeply cynical with the current state of things. The republicans are idiots, of course I knew they would be. The democrats are clueless and have sold out the people and would rather go on a mccarthyist crusade and vote shame than actually run a platform people can vote for, and nothing is getting done. I struggle to even consider myself a democrat these days. I definitely have more of an affinity toward the greens and the like and wished they ran more competent people than Jill Stein (someone more like Nader maybe?). Only reason I'm registered as a democrat is because I still want to maybe try to influence primaries again. But if the democrats don't shape up, Im probably gonna stuck with third parties from here on out.
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Dear democrats, we're angry for a reason!
So...a lot of democrats still don't get it. Every time I see a discussion about the problems with the democratic party, I see two camps emerge. There's the camp that the party is a bunch of wishy washy centrists who don't support real solutions and tried to strongarm us into settling for a lesser of two evils...and then there's the camp that thinks that the first camp is a bunch of whiny ingrates who put their "purity tests" ahead of country and how we would've won if only we fell in line. As you guys know, I'm firmly in the first camp, and do not believe that the democrats really have a good economic platform. I'm sorry, but Obamacare and other wishy washy solutions aren't good enough. Our economic system is fundamentally broken and needs to be fixed, and the dems have run so far to the right since Reagan that they're now occupying a similar ideological slot as the pre Reagan republican party.
Many of us want significant change, real change. We don't think the Obama years were great. A lot of centrists are now telling me how awesome the Obama years were....you mean those years where unemployment was sky high and came down because of a 4 point drop in labor force participation? Those years where you can graduate college and have trouble finding a job at McDonalds? Those years? Obama did some decent things, but let's not romanticize the guy or act like he did the best that anyone can do. He was a competent leader, but competence is a BASELINE for governance, not a feature. The dems seem to think merely having someone competent is good enough because the republicans are so far off the rails that they can't elect anyone who isn't either an ideologue with terrible policies or an idiot. That's what we're being told about Clinton now too, that at least if we didn't have Clinton we would have competent leadership, yeah, but again, competence is a baseline. It should be a minimum requirement for the job, not a freaking feature. How much does our political system sucks merely being competent becomes the key reason we should support someone?
As for purity tests...we "Bernie Bros" did not become this alienated and pissed off with the democrats overnight. Unlike what people are saying, we actually aren't throwing a tantrum because we couldn't get everything we wanted. I mean, even Bernie is a compromise for me, he isn't for basic income and crap. But you know what? He's a step in the right direction and I'll support him for that. Clinton? Again, the key problem is it seems like the dems tried to ensure no one else but Clinton could be the nominee, and then they tried to do damage control to force the hold outs to vote for her. As I've echoed since this blog started, I felt like we were being bullied and strong armed. And under such circumstances, the only move we have left IS to refuse to support her. Her election depends on us playing along with being bullied? Fine, we'll throw the election on her to teach the dems not to pull this crap on us again. And it worked. Trump is in office. I don't like Trump at all, but I don't regret him being there as it was a necessary evil. The point is, the dems pissed us off so bad, that we left the dems, stayed home or voted for Stein....and now we got an orange oompa loompa. Not thrilled with that, but given what the dems tried to do, it's an acceptable outcome to me.
Now, the onus is on the dems to understand why we got that pissed off and rectify the problem. We didn't do this in a vacuum. We're not being childish. We just resent being bullied and strong armed into supporting a crappy candidate. I didn't vote for Trump. I went third party. I signaled to the democrats that I don't like Trump either...if I did, I would support thim. Instead, I supported their closest ideological alternative that is more in line with my politics, basically telling them they need to change.
If the dems want to win elections, they need to stop bullying their voters. They need to stop taking us for granted, talking down to us, condescending to us, and telling us we better get with the program or we get something worse. We called you on that, and now we got the oompa loompa. Now do we wanna work on fixing our problems and getting back to winning and having good progressive policies or what? No more centrist crap, no more lesser of two evils. Don't run an explicit lesser of two evils campaign. Evil is still evil. At least try to appeal to us. We don't have to get everything we want right away, but we need to be assured that you will TRY. There is a huge difference between single payer and obamacare. True free college and hillary's original plan with income limits and work requirements. Basic income and welfare. One solution is universal and fixes systemic issues we face once and for all. The other is a band aid. And I'm sick of mediocre band aids. I respect candidates who try and fail more than ones who don't try at all. I'd rather see Bernie try to pass single payer and fail than Clinton just do nothing and kill the debate for good.
That said, dems...take a good, hard look at yourselves. We didn't get so pissed off at you we effectively left the party and supported a third party or stayed home because we were being spoiled brats. We did it because you effectively cornered us with ultimatums and threats and we called you on it. And now we're all living with the consequences. If you want to avoid a repeat, learn to appeal to your voter base rather than alienating them. We don't owe you a vote. You need to earn it. Kay. Thanks. Bye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)