Who would I vote for in EVERY election?

 So, this is an interesting discussion I felt would make an interesting blog post. It's asking who I would vote for in every election. It would be good to see who I would go for over time given various alignments and options, especially given how I feel like older candidates would have an "old book" problem in various eras. That said I'll look at this in two ways. First, what I would likely do given the information I would've had available at the time, and then who I would have supported via hindsight. This post provides a small amount of background info on each race but I might delve deeper at times.

First party system - 1796-1824

I'm skipping George Washington because he was unanimously supported and those elections didn't have valid alternatives. Obviously I would support him. The first party system started in 1796 and represented a general rift via federalism and anti federalism. One party wanted a stronger federal government, while some wanted a weaker federal government. I would say in the modern era, I would likely be a federalist, but in the past, I could make different decisions given my value system and distrust for power. Still, given, much like the modern era, the anti federalist movement was largely a front for slave owners opposing federal power, I might be more inclined to support federalists.

1796- John Adams

I'd probably vote for federalist John Adams. In 1796 I don't have strong feelings either way and find this election to be petty and full of mudslinging, but I'm a yankee through and through and it seemed like the democratic republicans mostly appealed to southerners who wanted slavery. In historical terms, having had both Adams and Jefferson as president before I actually like Jefferson better, as Adams seemed like a poor fit for the job, but in 1796, I'd want Adams. 

1800 - Thomas Jefferson

I would not be happy with Adams' leadership. The alien and sedition act is enough to turn me off. I would not like the military build up Adams supported. The attacks on Jefferson for not being Christian seem petty and stupid. I would want a change of leadership. In retrospect this would also be the best choice too.

1804- Thomas Jefferson

I would likely be happy with Jefferson's leadership and not see any appeal to Charles Pinckney. Apparently no one did. He won in a landslide.

1808- James Madison

Once again I don't see the point in voting for Charles Pinckley, and apparently no one did. Madison was the successor to Jefferson and like him or dislike him, he seems like the only decent option. Jefferson didn't do a bad job.

1812- DeWitt Clinton

I would have been turned off by James Madison getting us into the war of 1812, where we picked a fight with the largest power of the day unnecessarily and ended up getting attacked for it. Madison didn't do a great job in my opinion.

1816- James Monroe

I mean, I have trouble deciding this specific election. There isn't a lot of information online, and it seems fairly boring. The democratic republicans triangulated on the bank issue, and opposition to Monroe seemed weak. There just wasn't a reason not to vote for Monroe here. King just didn't seem to offer anything.

1820- James Monroe

Well he was unopposed, so...

Like most people I seem indifferent and no one seems interesting at this point. Definitely getting to the tail end of a party alignment here...

1824-John Quincy Adams

Ah, this is where crap hit the fan and we had four candidates running. Definitely tail end of an alignment, where the existing coalitions begin to fracture. Apparently it was because the democratic republican coalition was so dominant since 1800 that it began to split and fracture. It seemed like a lot of changes weren't decided by policy as much, despite several crises going on at the time. 

I really don't know who I would have chosen. Probably either John Quincy Adams or Andrew Jackson. While I hate Jackson as of now, at the time he had a populist appeal that would have appealed to me at the time. However, on the flip side, so did Trump, so I'm not sure. It reminds me a lot of a modern election. John Quincy Adams representing a status quo Clinton/Biden campaign that represents a strong steady hand, whereas Jackson kinda mirrored Trump's appeal. Neither Clay nor Crawford really stand out to me on anything. 

I'm tentatively going with JQA, but this would be an election where I would dislike all of the choices. 

That said, how did I do in this alignment?

Well I voted with the winner 7/8 times, or 87.5% of the time. 

And I voted for the democratic-republican party 5/8 times, or 62.5% of the time, and the federalists 3/8 times or 37.5% of the time. In this era, I would largely be an independent, but one who largely followed public opinion. I'm going to be honest, despite a lot of bitter mudslinging, most elections seemed clear cut in this era. The public voted for one candidate or the other by a landslide, with the democratic republicans becoming dominant. The only election I really went against the public's grain was 1812. There was a rally around the flag effect, people wanted Madison, while my anti war stance would have shifted me toward Clinton. 

Second party system- 1828-1856

This era is, in my opinion, one of the most boring in American politics. You had the Jacksonian democrats replacing the dominant democratic republican coalition, and the whigs replacing the federalists. This era is, as I like to call it, like watching modern republicans fight each other. Jacksonian democrats were populists, with Jackson basically being 1800s Donald Trump. But then, the whigs were like watching traditional conservatives concerned with decorum and rule of law deck it out with this Trump faction. I guess that's kind of what I hate about modern democrats. They're kinda taking up that mantle, and it alienates me, but I digress. Ugh, we need a third party...

1828- Andrew Jackson

Yeah. I'm gonna be honest, reading about 1828 I couldn't see myself liking JQA much. While Jackson's appeal to the election basically reminds me of Trump screaming about the 2020 election being rigged, the other side were just out of touch elitists. Ugh. Like, you could literally make this a hypothetical election of 2024 and take out third parties. And while in THAT case I might fall behind the democrats, I wouldn't be happy about it. In 1828 terms Jackson would still be relatively new, and I like some pizazz to my politics. I likely would've voted Jackson in the same way a lot of people voted for Trump in 2016. 

1832- Henry Clay

I would not be happy with Jackson. Much like a 2016 voter hating Trump, I would hate Jackson's handling of things. Dude did NOT know how to govern. He seemed corrupt, too temperamental for the job, I wouldn't like his policies regarding shooting down the bank, or his massacre of native Americans. Just...screw Jackson. I would not be happy with Henry Clay, but I would like to see a return to normalcy. And it's not like the third party, an "anti mason" party, was any good. So I would probably hold my nose for Clay. Oh god, I sound like a Biden supporter...

1836- Daniel Webster

Ugh, another bad one. I mean while the Jackson administration would be horrible for me, and the whigs would have some good ideas, one of their attacks against the Jacksonian democrats was opposition to slavery. Hell yeah I want some opposition to slavery! But yeah, this era in general is what I fear for our future. Just decades of two terrible out of touch parties that I despise. A whole alignment among extremely incompetent and corrupt populists, and the opposition party being a worthless conservative party. And the third party candidate is just...another conservative whig. Screw, it, going Daniel Webster I guess.

1840- William Henry Harrison

And yet another bad one. Again, I fear this is our future for the next 40 years. But yeah, Van Buren would've been up to his neck in crises by now and they finally got the best of him. Seriously, the democratic party of this era SUCKED. And the whigs weren't much better. But at least the whigs represented stability even if their politics were very boring and they refused to run on any good ideas ever, often for "political" reasons. 

1844- James Birney

I mean, most people were arguing over annexation of Texas this election. And the idea, while it makes sense in hindsight, seemed awful at the time as it was a tacit endorsement of slavery given the fact that southern states would become slave states if brought into the union. And of course, both parties ended up supporting annexing it. So that pissed abolitionists off and they did a third party vote for James Birney. And given my propensity to vote third party and distaste for two out of touch parties, I would too. Funny thing is, the whigs even used the same arguments democrats do today to shame people into voting for them.

1848- Martin Van Buren

After rejecting Van Buren so many times in the 1830s, he finally became the anti slavery guy, providing an alternative to dysfunctional and out of touch two party politics. 

1852- John P. Hale

Another bad election in which I vote for a third party. Almost like there's a pattern here.

1856- John C. Freemont

The first election the republican party ran in. Them being the radical anti slavery party. I would have happily voted for them. Because let's be honest, this system is a joke at this point. And we all know what happened next.

I'm going to be honest, reading about this era...scares me. It legitimately scares me. It most mirrors the politics I feel the republicans and democrats today are trending toward, where we have a populist republican party and an institutionally conservative democratic party, with the coalitions being very dysfunctional and anti change. And while I would prefer the stability of the institutionally conservative party, I despise BOTH parties. And as this era went on, America just became more and more divided, with all of the worthless political compromises and posturing being all for naught, and it led to the civil war. If it gives me any solace, I think my third party votes would be vindicated in this era, and perhaps I myself am thinking decades ahead of my time today. The point is, reading about this era scares me. 

As far as how I did:

I voted with the winner 2/8 times, or 25%. That's awful, but that's what happens when I hate the alignment and reject the two party duopoly and vote my conscience. I stick by that. 

I voted for the democrats once out of 8 elections (12.5% of the time), the whigs 3 times (37.5% of the time), and anti slavery third party candidates 50% of the time. This era sucked. If anything it teaches me to always stick to my guns on politics no matter how unpopular you may be, because perhaps you will be vindicated by history though. 

Third party system - 1860-1892

While wikipedia marked 1856 as the start of this party system, I mark 1860 because the republicans did not win in 1856 and it was more of a transition election to me anyway. This era is marked by the civil war, reconstruction, and beginning of capitalism. This is where my politics starts to become more relevant and I can take stronger stances on issues other than slavery.

1860- Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln is bae. One of the best presidents ever despite being somewhat tyrannical. I would've voted for him on being anti slavery alone, but he also tended to have socialist sympathies in general and was pen pals with Karl Marx. Weird history fact no one is taught these days. This dude was progressive way ahead of his time and while not perfect, I would happily support him.

1864- Abraham Lincoln

Middle of civil war, probably be unhappy with Lincoln's civil rights violations and imposition of the draft, but I'm just gonna go with a Bush-esque "dont change horses midstream" approach to the issue. And given the alternative was "keep the war but don't abolish slavery", yeah, that's about the most unattractive campaign ever in my opinion.

1868- Ulysses S. Grant

Straightforward, democrats represented the south and despite Grant's flaws I would've went with him.

1872-Horace Greeley

Not my original choice, but reading more about him he seems progressive and based as fudge. I wasn't happy with Grant anyway. But Greeley was actually a hyper progressive socialist in his time. So, vote.

1876- Rutherford B. Hayes

This one is hard, the GOP seemed corrupt here, but the democrats wanted to ease up on reconstruction. I guess in this era I'd stick with republicans though. 

1880- James B. Weaver

At this point I'd jump ship from the GOP. While Garfield is stronger here than Hancock, I really would be fed up with two corrupt parties at this point who just seemed to be doing their typical tit for tat thing. Weaver was the greenback candidate and he was pushing for extremely progressive labor issues like the "8 hour work day, safety regulations, and an end to child labor" (source). Like, this dude was FDR before FDR was a thing. Way ahead of his time. Given the lack of two party system attention given to capitalism's obvious failings, bye GOP, hello greenbacks. 

1884- Benjamin F. Butler

He was the anti-monopoly party candidate, and the strongest candidate that had an anti big business platform. He was even endorsed by the greenback party. Yeah. On the tail end of this alignment, as the discussion shifts away from reconstruction and slavery and capitalism's excesses become the big problem, I start to support these third party guys in absence of the republicans and democrats putting forward a big candidate.

1888- Alson Streeter

While the two parties fight over tariffs, I push for labor reform with the union labor party ticket.

1892- James B. Weaver

More tariff bullcrap, and here I just want labor rights. Screw me right?

That said, this alignment was solid for me in the first half, but in the second half I just became alienated. I would have been for ending slavery and civil rights, but once the luster of republicans wore off and my main focus would be labor rights and the like, I would quickly shift to third parties. Those guys were ahead of their times, pushing for stuff that it took decades to gain traction. Third parties were a half a century ahead of their time. Really shows how regressive republicans and democrats can be. They get it right a couple elections when a crisis blows up in their face, but then they start failing the people and fighting over petty incremental BS.

In this era, I voted with the winner 4/9 times or 44%. I stuck by the GOP in their glory days, only to bail for pro labor third parties once they started becoming viable.

I voted republican 4/9 times (44%) and third party 5/9 times (56%). I was a republican who shifted to being an independent around 1880. To be fair I kinda cooled on the republicans as early as 1872, I just didn't see a good third party alternative earlier (EDIT: I backed Greeley). Greenbacks existed in 1876 but they didn't stand out to me.

Fourth party system - 1896-1928

I mean here we FINALLY started seeing a shift toward economic issues. The civil war coalitions FINALLY died off, and people wanted something new. Hence, the "populist" era of politics. It kind of reminds me of the second party system and potentially our upcoming (ugh) seventh party system if my nightmare scenario happens. Two ineffective parties but one better than the other.

1896- Charles Matchett

McKinley seemed like a boring status quo candidate. Dear republicans, it's not 1860 any more, get with the times. Bryan had fiery passion but I kinda see him as regressive on social issues. And he seemed to be more talk than action on economics. That said I'm going to start off strongly by supporting Charles Matchett of the socialist labor party. I mean, I just want labor rights. Screw me, right?

1900- Eugene Debs

Another boring election between the same two bad choices as last time. Social democratic party it is.

1904- Eugene Debs

While Theodore Roosevelt ended up being okay for the time, almost Elizabeth Warren-esque, I'd still take Eugene Debs. There's something to be said of the two party duopoly sucking for much of American history. Really, I don't care about coinage of gold and silver and these incremental fixes. Give me the socialist.

1908- Eugene Debs

While I would prefer Taft over Bryan, Debs is better. All hail Debs.

1912-Eugene Debs

Roosevelt is good, but Debs is the man. All your Debs belong to us. Wilson was okay but a clear third choice.

1916- Allen L. Benson

I mean Wilson's anti war stance seemed nice, and the republicans didn't offer anything worth a darn, so I can see why Wilson won. Third party candidates were in turmoil around this time. Roosevelt refused the progressive party nomination, and Debs the man didn't run in 1916. I'd stick with the socialist party though.

Honestly, if I voted for Wilson, I would have been betrayed anyway, so I'm glad to stick to my third party line. 

1920- Eugene Debs

Dude ran from prison. Such a trooper. Got arrested for protesting Wilson's WWI draft after he broke his campaign promises. Harding seemed like a better candidate than Cox, but honestly, the two party system is just trash.

1924- Robert M. La Follette

With Debs gone and a red scare going on the socialists kind of faded into obscurity and ended up merging with the progressives. I'd vote for the progressive Robert M. La Follette. 

1928-Herbert Hoover

This was a crappy election. The socialist and progressive movements seemed to have up and left. I would hate both Hoover and Smith. Smith seemed corrupt and to be honest I almost never supported democrats up through this era. Smith opposed prohibition but was otherwise a weak candidate. Hoover wins by default. I'm not voting for the prudes in the prohibition party. 

This era kind of sucked. I'm going to be honest. There was a lot of valid movements toward progressive ideals during this time frame. Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, and the like, weren't awful. The problem is, they were mostly talk, many of the issues discussed seem relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but I ended up going consistently with socialist and progressive third party candidates over the big guys. The socialists were ahead of their times. They ran campaigns akin to what you would expect from the greens today. The republicans often offered a decent second choice but they often messed around with incremental fixes that didn't seem to do much, whereas I like systemic solutions. While my current politics weren't represented in this era as they're way ahead of this time, I would fall back to fiery labor activism around 100 years ago, pushing for the most progressive candidates wanting major reforms. Socialists offered reforms we wouldn't even touch until Roosevelt. So I went with them, given my propensity to vote third party.

All in all I voted for republicans 1/9 times (11%) and third party candidates 8/9 times (89%). I also voted for the winning candidate only once (11%). I stand by my values, even in defeat. After all, I feel vindicated by history. 

Fifth party system - 1932-1976

Now we're freaking talking. Progressive issues hit the mainstream, and Roosevelt comes along, doing what I would have been calling for for at least 50 years by this point. This is probably the most progressive golden era of American politics for me, and where I finally come back to the two party system after abandoning it for a good half a century.

1932- Franklin D. Roosevelt

I mean, he was better than Hoover. 

1936- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Roosevelt did good. Unemployment and social security. I mean, it isn't exactly what I would be for, but it was something substantial. Landon largely accepted the New Deal, but criticized its efficiency apparently. Fair, but without knowing what he would propose instead, sticking with FDR. Landon seemed pro business so that's a no from me. He seemed to basically be low key arguing for conservatism.

1940- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Labor regulations, OSHA, minimum wage. I'm in love, man. This is real crap. Willkie ran against that and acted like a small government conservative. Just...LOL. No. FDR all the way. I admit him breaking the two term tradition was suspect, but he did such a good job he deserved a third term.

1944- Franklin D. Roosevelt

All the republicans have it "but but muh traditions!". Yeah, no. FDR. 

1948- Harry S. Truman

Eh, I'm mixed on this one. Truman seemed to be a solid candidate, but we started seeing fractures in the coalition, as he was weaker than FDR. Two groups splintered off as the party had infighting over its platform. The progressive party was more progressive on some issues, taking a stronger stance on civil rights, and anti war, and some economics, while the dixiecrats went more conservative. Still, I feel like despite the progressive party's advantages, I would probably go with Truman to keep the coalition going. Not to mention I would support a strong foreign policy in this era, only backing down in coming decades like the 1960s. I mean, at least this coalition I can work with and seemed to be pushing substantive change. The differences aren't enough for me to abandon it.

1952- Adlai Stevenson

And this is where things start going downhill for me. The republicans still sucked. Ike wasn't a bad president in hindsight, but his 1952 campaign is cringe to me. Not big on mccarthyism and red scare crap. At the same time the democrats owned the Korean war at this point, making me question whether going Truman was the right thing to do in 1948. Stevenson ended up being a weak candidate to be honest. Given no third party candidates though, I'd go with Stevenson. The democrats were losing their luster, but I would not support the republicans probably. 

1956- Adlai Stevenson

Man what is with these repeat elections between crap candidates sometimes? They ran Stevenson again. Still, he seemed progressive, wanted to expand the new deal, end the draft, de-escalate tensions with the USSR, all good things. Eisenhower was popular, and I don't think he was a bad president, but I would still stick with the democrats here. 

1960- John F. Kennedy

Eh, boring campaign, not much difference between the two. But I would probably go JFK because of my democratic party affiliation and his charisma. 

1964- Lyndon B. Johnson

Republicans STILL running on conservatism? Gosh, what is this? The 1920s? Goldwater sucked, and Johnson was very progressive, so I'd wholeheartedly support Johnson. 

1968- Hubert Humphrey

Honestly, this is where I would start getting turned off from the democrats. They got too involved in Vietnam, and while I would support them through all the southerners flinging their dung around over "muh states rights", the 1968 primary seemed very crooked. Much like 1948, there was a lot of tension with progressives and dixiecrats fracturing off of the coalition, except this time the coalition ended for good. The south left to join the republicans, the progressives ended up dealing with a hostile institutional party that didn't listen, and it was kind of a crapshow. I still would've stuck with Humphrey though I think. Even if I would be very unhappy, Nixon primarily appealed to the south, and I sure as heck wasn't supporting Wallace. 

1972- George McGovern

Here's the thing. I actually would have largely liked Nixon up to this point. I mean, the dude was even for freaking UBI, my signature policy. The problem was, so was McGovern. And then Nixon turned against UBI when McGovern was for it. Nixon was a bit of a scumbag, as we know, although the extent of that wasn't well known until after he won reelection. Still, McGovern was for tons of progressive stuff that I largely supported. He was radical for his time, but he was my kind of radical. Still, I would be honest, I would be pissed at the party establishment for stopping him.

1976- Jimmy Carter

Ford would not have been very popular in my book. He was just the "steady hand" kind of guy after Nixon's disgrace and Carter seemed fairly progressive.

 All in all, throughout this era, I would have been a solid democrat. FDR had swept me off of my feet and I would likely remain loyal to the party throughout this entire era. A few republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon seemed not terrible, but none of them were the best candidate.

I went for the democrats 12/12 times (100%), and my candidate would have won 8/12 (67%) times. And the times I would have lost would not have been bad. But ultimately the tides shifted in 1980, leading to the modern era.

Sixth Party System - 1980-?

While the fifth party system is the golden age of America in my opinion, the sixth party system sucked. By 1980 the New Deal coalition was gone and Reagan's coalition was ascendant. This caused the overton window to move way right, where democrats started sounding like last era's republicans, and the republicans started sounding like unthinkable right wingers. Reagan essentially took advantage of Carters' crises and came along at just the right time to offer an alternative attractive to people. This is, in my opinion, the beginning of a new dark age of politics.

1980- Jimmy Carter

I would likely not be thrilled with Carter's leadership, suffering malaise like the rest of the country, but against an existential threat like Reagan you bet your butt I'm supporting him. I see the appeal of Reagan, I could even see a dumber me voting for him. But honestly, I would stick to the liberal tradition and back Carter. This is the kind of party loyalty that's good, it's loyalty not to an organization, but set of ideas. And I would want to keep the new deal tradition going at all costs.

1984- Walter Mondale

It seems obvious I would hate Reagan and vote for Mondale. 

1988- Michael Dukakis

Why yes, I would support Tanky Boi. 

1992- Bill Clinton

Being a democrat at this point is like being a masochist. Since 1968, it's just been disappointment after disappointment. And Clinton would be a sell out of the ideology. It would seem obvious, by this point, that perhaps a change of direction was needed. I wouldn't like Bush. Clinton at least says all the right things, despite running as a centrist "new democrat". Perot was interesting but largely appealed to conservative sentiments. So yeah, I would go with Clinton.

1996- Bill Clinton

I'm going to be honest, I would be unhappy with Clinton's leadership. He would have sold out quite a bit in my opinion. I'm split for this one. Because honestly, Ralph Nader ran this election and I would be more inclined to vote for him in principle with my present mind, mindset. But if I were say a 250 year old man by this point voting in every election, I likely would have tolerated Clinton again. Still, I'm going to be honest, "new democrats" would have been a bitter pill for me. At the same time, I would have likely accepted them as a necessary evil of the times. So I will put Clinton this election, but honestly I could have just as easily gone Ralph Nader. Still, it might be too early for me to be that rebellious. 

2000- Al Gore

This would have been the green party's breakout moment. Much like 1996, I would feel conflicted. Part of me would stick with the democrats solely because of my bias toward them in the previous 70 years, but I would be unhappy with them. Clinton was a sell out, Gore was a sell out. Bush would be untenable to my current politics. I mean I would be tempted to vote green, and I admit the greens did a better job at appealing to my platform, but I likely would have still committed to working within the democratic party given the hostile environment in previous decades and wanting to maintain the remnants of the New Deal. Yes, as far as 2000 goes, I think looking at it in the context of history, I would likely be a "blue no matter whoer." Heck I might even be frustrated by green voters.

2004- John Kerry

So, the real life me started getting into politics after 9/11 and would have voted for Bush, as I was a religious conservative back then. However, current me likely would have voted for Kerry. Again, not ready to rock the boat yet and turn on the democratic party. I likely would accept the new democrats as a necessary evil in this cursed age. Nader would have been a choice my heart would make, but again, context of the times.

2008- Barack Obama

Real life me voted for McCain simply because I felt Obama was a radical socialist who wanted to turn us communist. LOL. Stupid conservative me. But yeah, I'd fully support Obama and be one of those people hoping he could start shifting us away from New Democrats. I would quickly support him over Clinton and would hope he would win. Only to be disappointed.

2012- Barack Obama

Real life me did vote for Obama this election, and this is where I made my shift to liberalism. Romney represented an awful corporate candidate, and the tea party made me absolutely hostile to conservatism. This is where hypothetical me starts to align with the real me, where I would say we would be on the same page.

2016- Jill Stein

Okay, now THIS is where I give me grand rebellion vs the democrats. Both real world and hypothetical world. While I could have turned on them as early as 1996, I likely would have bit my tongue and accepted the need for the democratic party to moderate itself after the failures of the past decades. Clinton at least delivered us elections. But I'm going to be honest. 2008 changed everything for me. The recession convinced me the system is fundamentally rotten, and at this point, I make my stand against the democrats. They refuse to change and shift back to the left. They spat in the face of voters like me and told me I had to accept them, or else. Hypothetical me would see this as an outrage, being, by this point, a loyal democrat for over 80 years. And real me, saw things the same. Real me, hypothetical me, same page. Screw the democrats, this is where I break from the party.

It should be noted I believe 2016 is a similar type of election to a lot of the tail end political realignment elections where coalitions start fracturing. We saw it before, the 4 way in 1824, the 1856 free for all, 1968, etc. The current realignment has started coming to the end in 2016. And as I said, I see four factions. Trumpers, traditional conservatives, "new democrats", and progressives. Me aligning with progressives most, but really being a "humanity first" yang ganger which is a much smaller movement. 

But yeah, I rejected HRC, I'm not sorry by this point, and I felt like I compromised enough since as early as the 1960s. And this is where the democrats start realigning themselves. The thing is, this scares me because this realignment could be a lot like the 2nd or 4th alignment. One where my politics are completely ignored. 

2020- Howie Hawkins

Democrats run Biden after having such a diverse field with some candidates being good, I'm voting for Howie.

I'm gonna be honest, looking at historical trends, I might be screwed. I've noticed a pattern here and that pattern is I'm willing to vote for candidates that are a good 50 years ahead of their time. I might lose elections in the process, but history always seems to vindicate my vote. Maybe by 2070 people will be like "you know what, outofplatoscave2012 was right all along." One can hope. But I stand by my vote. I would have supported the democrats so loyally for 80 years because I wanted to keep that tradition alive, but by the tail end of this alignment, it's quite clear that the new deal dream is dead, and the democrats had turned their backs on it. And I ain't taking it any more.

That said, this era, I voted democrat 9/11 times (82%) and green 2/11 times (18%). I would have won theelection 4/11 times (36%). Kind of what happens in a dark age of conservative run politics, with me eventually turning on the democrats.

The way I see it, the upcoming 7th party system, if we're not in it already, either has to make room for a progressive movement, or I'm gonna be in exile voting for third parties for a long time to come. Because much like eras 2 and 4, I really don't identify strongly with either party any more. Sure, the democrats are BETTER, but given they're holding the system hostage, yeah, no. I'm done with them.

Conclusion

The final tally is this. Out of 57 elections:

Democratic-republican/democratic party votes: 27 (47%)

Federalist/whig/republican party votes: 11 (19%)

Third party votes: 19 (33%)

My votes are very split, and how I end up voting depends largely on the era. Some alignments I really liked the republicans (such as the third and to some extent fourth era), whereas I tended to vote democrat a plurality of the time, primarily because they had a good start in the first era, and were dominant for me in the fifth and sixth. However, in some eras I just end up disliking both parties, such as in the second, third, and fourth eras. Arguably I could have voted more for greens in the modern era, and I probably should have from 1996 on in retrospect, but hypothetical me being influenced by the forces present at the time likely would have held my tongue and supported centrist democrats as a necessary evil in hopes to eventually reclaim dominance. The problem is, on the tail end of this alignment, it appears to me they're more than satisfied to remain a centrist corporate party, and have fundamentally rejected its past roots in FDR's progressivism. I could have tolerated centrism in the 90s and 2000s as a way to stave off republican dominance, but with the goal of eventually reclaiming its past glory as the dominant party based on progressive politics. In rejecting candidates like Bernie Sanders and supporting centrism, even looking to expand its centrist coalition with disaffected republican voters, I am looking to leave the democrats. I may end up just doing what I would have done in previous eras, supporting third party causes decades ahead of their time in hopes a major party takes it up.

Well, while my ideals have remained consistent across generations in this simulation, obviously my affiliation is constantly in flux. Outside of 80 years of unbroken democratic party support in the modern eras, I have been willing to support anyone who I feel supports my causes. I arguably would have, for a brief 20 year period, been a loyal republican outside of the one socialist running. And if I wasnt so busy supporting socialists during the populist era, I arguably would have regularly supported them in that era too. So I'm willing to play ball for anyone who will work for me. Either major political party, and even third parties. 

I just thought this was an interesting simulation to do.

The "old book" problem of many modern political philosophies

 So, I recently came to a conclusion on why I find many mainstream philosophies to be distasteful, and it's because most core political philosophies these days are still, ultimately, based on old books, or old philosophies written a long time before we were even born. To some extent, there's no problem with old books. I mean, we had to get where we are today, right? But imagine using the Bible as a standard of morality in the 21st century. Many christians do it, but as an ex-christian, I find it distasteful. They have outdated cleanliness ethics because they didn't understand how germs worked. They literally had slavery in it and thought that was okay. Human life feels cheapened a lot reading the Bible. It just seems like a horrible book to use for morality today, because it's an old book, and there are better books with different moral theories that exist today. Well, I'm arguing many philosophies, left, right, and center all rely to some extent on "old books", and that we need a new philosophy for the modern age. 

The right

The right seems to primarily get its ethics from enlightenment texts, relying heavily on John Locke and founding documents in America that were based on Locke's theory. Even today, Locke's philosophy is still dominant among the right, in which people have views based on so called "natural rights" , the three of which are life, liberty, and property (property being changed to "pursuit of happiness" in the declaration of independence). Most conservative, and right libertarian philosophies still rely on Locke's work. It's a huge reason why we see the right scream "taxation is theft", while they completely ignore sociology. Sociology hasn't been invented yet. And that's the problem with the right in general. Its founding texts are from the freaking 18th century. Society was different back then. We didn't have modern capitalism. Land was abundant and we had a largely agrarian economy, with near limitless land (at the time) to expand and live on. Society was more like, say, Minecraft, at least if you were a property owning white male. And of course, that philosophy only ever worked for property owning white males anyway. Slavery was a thing, women were breeding mares. And the propertyless were still screwed. 

These philosophies might have inspired the birth of our nation, but they should not be celebrated today in the 21st century. As my own ideology largely points out, without adequate access to resources, people are enslaved to each other and there are a lot of issues with power relations. These philosophies don't care about this at all. It is a weakness of theirs. And they completely fall apart when looking at issues related to modern employment. Which, in America, led to the rise of modern liberalism in the 1930s, which I will discuss a little later. The point is, because these extreme free market agrarian philosophies failed so hard in the 20th century context, they no longer have any relevance today at all.

The left

The modern far left developed in the mid 19th century, after the rise of capitalism. Unfortunately, their views of society were largely dominated by the zeitgeist of the time. You gotta understand where Europe was around this time. Before 1800, we largely had monarchies with feudalism. This was the established way of life for centuries. But then they did away with slavery, and they often did away with monarchies. A revolutionary tide swept over Europe, inspired by the United States, and this caused  societal disruptions on a massive scale, with many people wondering if what replaced the old ways was actually any better. 

That said, a lot of leftists wrote books about how evil capitalism was, because it was forcing people to work 16 hour days for peanuts, leading to mass poverty and exploitation, and the solutions the left came up with largely involved, you guessed it, more revolutions. Much like the French revolution of about 60 years prior, leftists thought the way to deal with capitalism was to overthrow it. 

For as spot on that these criticisms of capitalism were, even today, the far left has always been light on actual solutions. There's a lot of theories, and a lot of diversity of ideas for what should replace capitalism, but I have yet to find one that actually seems to be better off than what we have NOW, in the 21st century. We tried revolutionary socialism and the results are, quite frankly, horrifying. We end up with dictatorial command economies, and those seem inefficient and tyrannical. There are various forms of anarchism that exist, but most of them seem to rely on regressing in terms of living standards and are not attractive today in my personal opinion. Some moderate forms of socialism could work like democratic socialism and market socialism could be viable, but, I'll get to my issues with these once we get to the "center" section, where I plan to address liberal/social democratic/light socialist solutions to the economy. 

The point is, whereas the right is stuck in the 1700s, often times the left is stuck in the zeitgeist of the 1800s, and I don't think that either philosophy really seems viable in terms of 21st century capitalism within an advanced economy. Both seem like horribly regressions in living standards, rights, privileges, and freedoms. Conservatives want to recapture the glory of agrarian 18th century America, and leftists want to recapture the glory of killing off the elites and replacing one system with another. But neither of them really have any decent solutions to how things are now. Which brings me to the center.

The center

Modern liberalism came about in the early 20th century as a way to compromise between various reactionary and revolutionary forces in America. The 1920s and 1930s have showed us that we couldn't just keep going in the direction that we were going. And wanting to avoid fascism and communism, FDR implemented a form of liberalism that attempted to "save capitalism." While the far left wanted to abolish capitalism, liberalism sought to improve it. So we started getting a 20th century Keynesian consensus in the US. The non fascist and communist parts of Europe also shifted toward social democracy, with scandinavia being the most prominent examples. Under these paradigms, they formed social programs, regulatory states, and unions to reform the unjust parts of capitalism, ensuring fair working conditions, generous pay, and good working hours.This paradigm is, by far, the best we've ever done, and the better part about it is, it was constantly improving. 

However, things have changed since the golden era of capitalism. Starting in the 1970s, things started creeping right. Neoliberalism began taking over, and pushing the consensus right in response to energy crises and stagflation. By the 1980s there was a revolution of thought between Reagan winning the elections in the US, and Thatcher in England, in which the previous Keynesian ideal of, effectively social democracy, and full employment, have withered away. As Thatcher once said, "there is no alternative". And then when the USSR fell, the right further reveled with its "end of history" crap in which capitalism reigned supreme over communism, and is the bestest economic system ever, and how dare you ever say otherwise. 

The problem is, this right wing shift was actually a regression and undid a lot of good of the previous Keynesian era. Living standards stagnated, worker rights regressed,economic inequality got more extreme, and every recession, it got worse, until in 2008 the housing market crash and the global recession exposed to many people, including me, that something was seriously wrong with the system. 

And that's where I'm looking at this now. In the 21st century, post 2008. I could go on about what happened from 2008-2021, but we all know that and I don't think it fundamentally changes the outlook.

Since then, we've seen America split into three camps. The neoliberal center, the fascist right, and the socialist/social democratic left. The neoliberal center likes to act like there's no problem. They think the economy is good, it's always been good, we recovered from 2008, everything is fine. Sadly, this is the DEMOCRATS acting like this, which is why I rip them so hard. The right recognizes there is a problem, but they are ignorant at addressing it and keep misdiagnosing the problem and pushing harmful solutions because they have no idea what they're doing. So they trend toward fascist demagogues like Trump because at least he appears to wanna do something. And then you have the left. 

Now, I originally threw my lot in with the left. While I never thought the old Keynesian solutions were perfect, they were the best we've ever done, and I believed that we needed to bring that back to advance from there. You know, one thing I always appreciated about the Keynesians of old was that they were ultimately utopians. They did not see their changes as the end all, but as a good first step. Keynes wrote that by 2030 we should have 15 hour work weeks and insanely high living standards. He thought we would keep building on those legacies. But when I look at the Sanders movement and the people in it, I'm just not sure if they really seek those kinds of lofty goals. They seem more intent on just going back to the 1940s again. At best, they embody Roosevelt's second bill of rights, which had rights to stuff like healthcare, a job, and a decent wage. That's all well and good by the mid 20th century's standards, but I think even by the end of the original Keynesian consensus, people recognized that we needed to evolve. Being a "UBI guy", in 1969, mere years before the troubles that toppled the entire consensus, a presidential commission came out detailing that the system as it was, systemically led to poverty, and the best way to solve it was basically a UBI with strings attached. Nixon's family assistance plan (or FAP, yes, I know, terrible acronym), was basically a limited UBI intended to fix the problems of the previous Johnson administration's flawed war on poverty. I mean, for all the good the democrats of that day and age did, man did they like inefficient solutions. They always threw money at the problem, adding bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy, and government agency on top of agency to fix problems. This is actually a huge failing that eventually turned public opinion against them. People saw that the government was spending tons of money on complex solutions that didn't solve the core problems, and they decided they wanted lower taxes and small government instead. But before the public was primed for that under Reagan, more moderate conservatives like Nixon were pushing for, essentially, UBI, to fix that.

And as you guys know, my own philosophy seems to more represent the Nixonian approach to new deal politics, than the left's own versions. Sanders seems fine to return to 20th century solutions. And don't get me wrong, 20th century solutions are better than 19th or 18th century solutions of previous ideals I dealt with. But I kind of wish, instead of going full right wing, that perhaps if Nixon succeeded, and things played out differently in the coming decade, that perhaps we would be better off today for it. I feel like UBI really is that missing piece to get to the next stage of our societal evolution, along side universal healthcare. I would always prefer a few good solutions over dozens of mediocre or bad ones. 

And that's why I can't support liberalism or social democracy today. I'll work with them against more centrist libs, hardcore marxists, and conservatives/fascists, I mean they're actually close enough to me to vote for them, but they don't really have the vision to carry this country into the future. They just want more of the same. And we need a new 21st century approach to things, that relies on going further than we ever went before. And to me, that future is in less work, not socialism. 

 If we could pass a UBI, medicare for all, free college, etc., we could achieve a system where we build on the liberal dream. We could finally reduce our work weeks, while respecting personal autonomy. Standard social democracy and keynesian liberalism is nice, but if the 40 hour work week with a $15 minimum wage is as far as they want to go (or thereabouts, I know some want 35 hour work weeks instead), then that's not good enough. 

This is also, by the way, why I'm not hardcore on moderate far left philosophies like democratic socialism either. At best they wanna just have more complicated solutions. Instead of UBI they want "decommodification" and "universal basic services". In other words, bureaucratic solutions like seen in liberal and socialist economies. Whereas being more left libertarian, I want to help people but also increase their freedom.

The way I see it, the right still lives in the 1700s. The left still lives in the 1800s. The center still lives in the 1900s. We need a new philosophy for the 2000s. Something like Yang's "human centered capitalism", or my post work economy. Something that builds on the past, and improves it, rather than abolishes it. 

It should be noted, for anyone who happens to read this in say, 2152, that my ideas might be horridly dated to you too. Good. Well, take them for what they are, and don't follow them. You might be living in an AI run post scarcity economy, or maybe climate change destroyed modernity and you're reading this on some old smartphone you got working from some makeshift battery. Well, take things in the direction that seems best to where you are. I can't predict that far ahead. I'm only interested in designing a society that will work for the next 50 years or so. Because, as I've kind of implied all throughout this, ideas tend to eventually have an expiration date. You might be relevant for say, 50-100 years before conditions change so much that something better has to come along. I'm not interested in anything beyond 2100 at the very most. Heck, my ideas might seem quaint by as early as 2060-2070, when I expect America to undergo its next major political realignment after the one today. As my generation begins to die out from old age, a new one will have to pick up the torch, and their response to my anti work aspirations might be met with the equivalent of "okay boomer." I mean, I know it's coming, one day or another. But I digress.

The point is, most political ideologies today all have an "old book" problem, and my respect for those ideas seems directly related to their age (minus our lapse into "neoliberalism", that ideology can die in a fire and was never good). Ideas of the past...should remain in the era in which they were written. Locke's natural rights were a huge improvement over the divine right of kings and theocracy. Marx's "Kapital" had valid critiques against capitalism, but also seemed light on actual productive solutions, as it was wrapped up in its post French Revolution revolutionary fervor. Anarchist ideas like those of Kropotkin weren't much better, although in their defense they don't have the body count of 20th century communism. And liberalism did a good job toeing the line between the far left and far right, threading the needle for a viable approach to society for much of the 20th century. And given our neoliberal lapse even that is looking good about now. But still, liberalism and social democracy have an "old book" problem too. I dont think anyone alive in the 1930s who made our current labor standards and social programs still expected them to be in use like they are today. And it's about time we started moving on from them as a society, shifting toward a new model for economic governance in the west.

How i differ from Karl Widerquists indepentarianism

 So, as you guys know, I've been identifying as an "indepentarian" lately. This is an ideology based on the idea that most mainstream political theories tend to ignore how much implicit coercion exists within them, and the author of it, Karl Widerquist, tends to resolve this by creating his own theory. He has a book, which I recently reread, called "Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No." It's an excellent book. I remember the author posted links to it on reddit before, and I found it to be one of the most brilliant piece of political theory I had ever read. Essentially, he finds fault in most right libertarian and left egalitarian political theories (which are represented by right libertarian and mainstream liberals in politics), and pushed for a form of left libertarianism that argues that in order to be free, people need enough resources in order to survive without coercion, and the best way to provide them is a basic income. This really does form the foundation of my philosophy too, especially as I struggle to really find myself post 2020, and the book does an amazing job why. The first time I read it, I had a bone to pick with extreme libertarians with their whole "taxation is theft" and extreme definitions of negative freedom that ignored how coercive capitalism really is. This second time around, I focused more on how mainstream liberals and social democrats also impose coercion on people in their theories of justice, which ultimately is causing a rift between myself and their flawed, dated ideologies.

I would say I actually agreed with 98% of the book, until the last substantive chapter about "duties." After that, I would say I agree with it more like 90% of the time, but that's still pretty good. And that's what I'm here to talk about today. I have two objections to Widerquist's theory as a whole. One is a minor nitpick that might not be a substantive difference at all, and the other is something that is very substantive in my opinion. 

First, the minor nitpick. Widerquist's theory, rereading it in 2021, kind of seems like a light form of anarchism in a sense. It seems related to anarchistic theory, in which in the state of nature people are free, but then society comes around and imposes its social project on people by hoarding all available property, and that to compensate people for this, they need a UBI. I mean, I largely agree with this, but he does seem to think there's nothing inherently wrong with a state of anarchy in which people work for themselves, implying that in such a state UBI would not be needed as they can just move elsewhere and do their own thing. It's possible I'm misinterpreting this idea, or reading too much into it, but I do feel like I have a different perspective.

Here's the thing. I would describe myself as a believer in society. Society helps us achieve the bottom two rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and it comes down to the basic premise in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes": "Apes, together, strong." We are primates, much like apes, and we are social animals. Cooperation is going to be inevitable, because it's part of our survival strategy. And due to how life in a state of nature is, as Hobbes would put it, "nasty, brutish, and short", I think that some level of society is inevitable. And before people start advocating for anarchism primativism or something, yeah no, that's not going to work. What happened when the native American tribes, or really, any tribe around the world, came into contact with the west as we know it? Well, they basically got enslaved and genocided. The fact is, we need the modern nationstate system. It provides a common defense against potential enemies looking to off us and take out land, and also, the economic systems that come along with it tend to produce progress not available in other systems. Even though I rant about how crappy capitalism is all of the time, I actually do believe that it's a viable system from a functionalist, wealth creation perspective, and it has made society better in a lot of ways, technologically. People live longer, they have more stuff, it does have upsides. 

That said, I believe that a modern society is inevitable, and that it is, ultimately a good thing. HOWEVER, I do also agree with Widerquist's main premise that in taking over all property, it does make people propertyless and as such, forces them to work for a system that inherently does not benefit them. While capitalism has some upsides, it also has a metric crapton of downsides, and I believe that in order to reach the next stage of human societal evolution, we need to rectify these problems. I am NOT an anarchist, I might lean left libertarian and see a lot of the same problems with capitalism that anarchists do, but I do not desire the abolition of the state. Neither does Widerquist, it seems, but I did feel like I need to point out a potential difference in our two outlooks. 

He argues something along the lines of:

1) People live in a state of nature

2) A state or social project comes along and takes control of all the land

3) People are forced to work for those who have property to survive

4) People need a basic income in order to acquire independence from forced servitude. 

Now, I agree with this. However, my difference is that he seems more morally ambiguous on whether the social project existing is a good thing. I am in favor of it, but I see the property rights system established as socially unjust and dysfunctional. I ultimately agree with his conclusions, but I will tend to view the formation of the social project, the state, and capitalism, as good things, and that UBI is intended to work out some inherent kinks with the property system. The property system is, in some form, a positive way, but it has downsides. Not everyone can acquire property and some will be forced into dependence on others. It's a necessary evil. So this is something that should be fixed, and UBI is a way to fix it, without upending the entire social order, because unlike the far left, I don't necessarily see that social order as inherently evil on all levels. 

The second objection I have with Widerquist is far more substantive, and it is something he wrote more about at length, and that is the concept of "duty." While Widerquist does not wish to impose duties on people, he does recognize in certain emergency situations such duties might be necessary. I'm with him so far, to an extent. I mean, both of us have to approach the situation of, for example, what if basic income fails to achieve true freedom? What if it isn't sustainable and a level of UBI that provides people financial independence can't actually work, because then too few people would work? I think anyone in the business of advocating for UBI has to have an answer to this question. If voluntaryism does not work, insofar as work goes, what then? Well in this case, Widerquist believes in a duty to work. He believes everyone should be forced to accept this duty equally, and society would attempt to rectify the conditions that created it as fast as possible so people can be free. He imposes the duty equal on everyone in order to make it fair to people, so some people aren't forced to borne certain costs, but others aren't. And he hopes to guarantee peoples' freedom in terms of a maximum number of years.

Here's the problem with this. In my opinion, this, potentially, has the ability to undermine his entire theory. It reintroduces the concept of a duty to work, making it indistinguishable from a system in which there is forced participation. In making the duty to work spread among the entire population, and making it count in numbers of years, it sounds to me that if some work needs to be done, the answer would revert back to basic social democracy, just with a lower retirement age. Say we have a society of 100 people and we need 40 to work. I base this on the idea that our current society has roughly a 60% labor participation rate, but that COVID demonstrated roughly 1/3 of this is nonessential work. So we need 40 people working at all times in this society. Well, if only 30 would willingly work, society starts to suffer. So he would basically require everyone to work in a rotating fashion where everyone works so many years, but is able to retire early, or perhaps works less than they current do. Maybe Widerquist would reduce the work week to 25 hours, maybe he would instead reduce the retirement age to 50 from 65ish. These are both valid approaches in line with his purported theory of justice. But...here's the thing. That just...reintroduces the problem we see in liberal egalitarian societies. They force you to work so many years then give you a nice retirement at the end of it all. They might give you some paid leave every year, or eventually reduce your working hours from 40 hours to 30-35 hours. These are all common things that happen in western European social democracies, which...isn't terrible. I mean it's probably the best system we've tried, but it ultimately does not give people true independence. 

I mean, looking at it another way, it's like saying the solution to not enough military recruits is the draft. And I've seen some liberal egalitarians advocating for bringing the draft back before because "well it's unfair that the underprivileged are forced to join the military by market forces, everyone should have skin in the game." As someone who became an adult when Iraq was going on, I was SCARED TO DEATH of the idea of the military bringing the draft back in order to fill Bush's "troop surges". But, that would be the solution according to this theory of freedom. Not enough military recruits? Well, everyone has to provide 1-2 years of military service. We actually had a draft, and it was so unpopular, we got rid of it. Because people didn't want to be forced to fight in wars they didn't believe in. The draft was a horrific solution, so we instead made an "all volunteer" military and then resorted to economic coercion...ironically the same economic coercion that Widerquist points out in his book as objectionable.

And I agree that it's objectionable. That's why I like his book and agree with the other 90% of it. But...I believe the all volunteer military is more just, despite its injustices, than mandatory military service would be. Just like, I believe that wage slavery is a step up from literal chattel slavery. As horrible as capitalism's coercion is, it's still better than dragging people over here from Africa, putting them in chains, and whipping them until they work. I do admit, that the shift toward wage labor didn't fix the problem entirely, it just made the relationship less explicitly coercive, but I do believe that implicit coercion is preferable to explicit coercion. 

So, what would my solution be, if a universal basic income of above the poverty line, had such high work disincentive that it threatened the viability of society? Well, my solution is more in line with Phillipe Van Parijs' perspective, which was referenced in Widerquist's book. I would make the basic income as high as it is sustainable, and settle for a partial implementation with a long term goal of achieving that full ideal. There is likely an economic curve for work willingness based on UBI amounts and marginal tax rates, and it's ultimately up to us to find out what that is and see what works best, balancing the needs and freedoms of individuals with the most basic needs of society as a whole. 

Imagine it like this. We have a society of 100 people. We need a minimum of 40 to work. With no UBI, 60 work. Why not 100 you ask? Well, many of those 40 are children, or the elderly, or the sick and disabled, or other dependents on those who work, just like today. So, with no UBI, 60 work. Say, with a full UBI at $1100 a month, or $13,200 a year, only 30 would work. Half the work force would find work so objectionable they would quit. I think that this would be an absurdly high amount, and most data I've seen suggests work reductions would be less than 15% at such amounts, potentially even being negligible, but let's go with it for the sake of discussion. We do with less work. COVID has shown us, we dont need sit down restaurants, we don't need movie theaters, we don't need amusement parks. They're nice to haves but not necessary for society to function. So, say we introduce a UBI at $1,200 a year or $100 a month. No one quits their job, because no one can live on that. So 60 people still work. Say we bump it up to $3,600 a year, or $300 a month. Well, at that point, some really marginally attached people who just want some spending money, like, say, teenagers, might cut back their hours and quit. Say we're left with 57 people working, implying a 5% work effort reduction. That's acceptable. After all, as long as more than 40 work, we're fine. Say, we bump it up to $6,000 a year, or $500 a month. Well, at this point those teenagers might quit, but you also might have some secondary earners in families quit too. Keep in mind that's $6k per adult, if you got 2 adults working in a household, that's $12,000. Someone might quit their second job or one partner might stay home with that money. So say we see a reduction to, say, 50 people working. This is still acceptable for society functioning, so we can go higher.Say we up the UBI to $800 a month or $9,600 a year. More people quit. People start deciding some essential minimum wage crap jobs aren't worth doing, and pressure is put on employers to raise prices, automate, or go out of businesses. Some jobs are automated, some businesses fold, and some businesses pay higher wages at higher prices. But we still see 42 people work. That's about as much as we can handle.

At that point, we cap UBI at around $10,000 a year, and we basically just let things go as they are. People who want jobs for more money can get them, but people who don't can quit. Society is better off, and people are freer than they were before UBI, but ultimately, some financial coercion proved necessary to keep enough people in the market. 

In this situation, we can just accept a partial UBI. Perhaps in the future, we can raise it higher. Maybe we will be able to automate those essential jobs. Maybe productivity gains would happen in other ways. It's possible we could, in a few years or decades, post introduction of UBI, to then change the conditions and culture surrounding work, where we could then support a much higher UBI. Perhaps, if a UBI of $13,200 is sufficient, we could boost UBI to $15,000 or even $20,000. Or maybe we could shift it upward to $25,000-30,000 if our economy becomes much more heavily automated, these are all solutions. We don't have to do it any one way, ultimately the balance between productivity and UBI is something that is going to be subjective and up to what we are willing to accept, but this is actually much more in line with Phillipe Van Parijs' "real freedom" according to Widerquist's book. Van Parijs pushed for a UBI at the highest sustainable amount, to maximize peoples' freedom. I actually find that to be a more acceptable theory than Widerquist's on this front. However, both theories are so close to my ideology this is more a debate over minor sub issues than anything else.

I just really wanted to point out the difference between my own ideology and Widerquist's, when I call myself an indepentarian. Perhaps I should call myself a "real libertarian" after Van Parij's theory, but sadly, I don't have access to his book as unlike Widerquist he does not make it free to read online, and given my attempts to call myself a left libertarian with no one knowing what that means, calling myself a "real libertarian" would likely cause major misunderstandings and at worst could make me sound pretentious and condescending, because it makes me sound like only I am a "true" libertarian. That said I'll stick to left libertarian or indepentarian as my label, despite these differences from Widerquist's indepentarianism.

Ripping Biden on vaccines

 Okay, so Biden gave speech today announcing vaccine availability for everyone on April 19th. I feel like I have to ask...is he nuts?!

I get it. Biden is trying to create a legacy. He's trying to get America back to normal as fast as possible and he wants to be the guy who gets the virus under control, given Trump did such an awful job at doing so. However, Biden tends to be way too optimistic sometimes, and this is why I am ripping him on this.

So, full disclosure, my parents got the vaccine already, and I got my first dose and will get my second at the end of the month. I can tell, you the process of getting a vaccine is NOT easy. There are MASSIVE shortages, and anyone who is vulnerable who wants one is having trouble getting one. For months, I spent every day going online looking for places to actually give them out, and they weren't available anywhere. Mainly because last time Biden had one of these overly optimistic pushes for vaccines, he decided to expand eligibility requirements too early, and there wasn't enough stock for them at all. 

My parents got lucky because our family doctor had shots. And then I didn't get one until last week, when a local hospital FINALLY got some supply. I got the email for it and got on RIGHT AWAY to get it, as I was on their waiting list for close to 6-8 weeks. 

But that's how it goes. Availability opens up, and you either get in line in the first 5-10 minutes or it's gone. Every day, I would try local drug stores, but apparently they only got 100-200 doses a week...in a county of 400,000+. So say 10 drug stores in the county at 200 a week, that's 2,000 doses a week, that's enough to vaccinate everyone...in 200 weeks or close to four years. Admittedly occasionally there will be a "mass vaccination site" that might have more, maybe a few thousand, but again, given how insane the demand is for vaccines right now, we can't even ensure accessibility for those who need it. I mean these are with the requirements only open to those with "preexisting conditions" that make one more vulnerable to die from the disease, and while one of those preexisting conditions is admittedly obesity, which applies to roughly 40% of the population, it's just so hard to get a vaccine. And now they wanna open it up to everyone early? Recreating the same problem, dude.

Biden is trying to be the calming voice to the American public I guess. But so did Trump. He was so calming about the pandemic he downplayed the fact that it was happening in the first place, and that's why we're in the situation that we're in, because half the country refuses to take it seriously, even now. Now, why don't I talk about Trump on here? Because Trump ain't worth my time. He's a freaking idiot, and everyone should know it, and we should just expect anything he did to actually be bad, because that's how bad he is. That and I didn't really post about much of anything in 2020 but election coverage.

But I kind of expect more from Biden. Biden is a democrat, he's a believer in science, and he's actually worth talking about and critiquing. And Biden is being overly optimistic about this. Yes, vaccinations are happening, but I'm under the impression we likely won't have everyone vaccinated until like, next August/September at the current rate.

Which is another thing Biden is annoying me about with COVID. Biden is trying to open schools, despite kids not being vaccinated for COVID. WHY?! Really. I don't get it. I kinda do, but it's conservative logic. We gotta get everyone back to work despite it not being safe, people can't go to work if they have to take care of their kids at home, the school system functions as a glorified day care for people, because our whole social structure revolves around work.

Ya know, I could just rip into how our entire social structure revolves around work here and how this is yet another thing wrong with America and how COVID has caused capitalism to have cascading failures in every aspect of society because our society doesn't know how to be idle, but I won't go into another rant here.

Let's instead focus on how this is COMPLETELY UNSAFE. Seriously, you want kids, who often have no discipline and self control, to congregate in small packed rooms for 6-8 hours a day, while there's still a global pandemic going on!? Are you nuts?!

Why can't we wait until next year? School year starts in August/September. America should be mostly vaccinated by then hopefully. Why push it now? When I was in school, I'd start counting down the days until summer in April. You're only 2 months away. Just let the kids finish off the school year online and pick it up in the fall. We will all be a lot safer for it.

I expect this kind of stupidity from republicans, but my standards are higher from democrats, and Biden is kind of screwing up on that front. Both republicans and democrats are trying to force opening too quickly, to get back to "normal", largely for economic reasons. It's just a matter of degree. I guess that's the nature of the two party system though. Both suck and do bad things, the democrats just in a less obviously bad way than republicans.

Gig economy: bad for the left or the first stages of post work?

 So I came across an interesting discussion today about the gig economy, and whether it's bad for the left, and I figured it would make a nice blog post given my current ideological clearings post election, as I feel like I have shifted my opinions on this in recent months as I have fine tuned my beliefs a bit. 

Why the gig economy is bad

 The big problem with the gig economy is that it bypasses almost a century of regulation intended to improve the conditions of workers within our forced participation economic system. Capitalism used to be unregulated, and it was horrible for people. People would work 16 hour days in terrible, unsafe conditions day in and day out just to survive, and they would be paid poorly. But then the great depression happened, and FDR came along and reformed things, "saving capitalism." He passed ideas like the 40 hour work week, minimum wages, and workplace safety laws, reforming capitalism's labor standards into what they are today. 

It seems clear, in retrospect, that these standards were intended to evolve over time. People in the 1930s-1960s were so optimistic about the future and how we wouldn't have to work as much and how our standards would be high. it was clear that FDR's legacy was not intended to be an end all to be used 80-90 years later. But...here we are.

All of these labor standards revolve around what was acceptable circa 1938. The 40 hour work week being standard, minimum wages and full employment economies, this was all necessary at the time. And our standards not being updated since then have locked us into a cycle of no progress ever being made. We still expect people to work 40 hours a week. The minimum wage is set at a level assuming full time work, and it often fails even at that. Employer provided health insurance is tied to a forty hour work week. Everything about the system is intended to make everyone work forty hours a week, and if the system cannot sustain a system of forty hours a week, it has problems.

Which is where the gig economy comes in. The gig economy is the employer's way of skirting labor laws. We valorize working forty hours a week or more, but here's the thing, EMPLOYERS DO NOT WANT TO PAY PEOPLE. We have a societal goal, everyone works forty hours a week. They get wages to live on, and they get healthcare. Even Bernie argues that "no one who works forty hours a week should live in poverty." It should be noted he doesn't say "no one should live in poverty", he says "who works forty hours a week", implying that that is the standard that should be met my individuals. But, employers don't want to employ people for forty hours a week. They're cheap, they desire to minimize costs. And the gig economy is their way around those standards. Instead of having a tightly regulated taxi industry with high wages and the like, we have Uber now, which does the same thing, but all workers are "independent contractors" who use their own vehicles. This externalizes the risks from the company, cuts back on worker compensation in terms of wages and health care, and makes their "employees" use their own vehicles or "taxis." On the flip side though, uber drivers in my experience report being able to make some serious money in the short term, despite these obvious precarious conditions. However, most who like it seem to be working part time and looking to pick up money on the side.

Let's also look at a lot of part time work as it exists. We dont have workers often working stable 9-5 shifts any more in retail, full time. We have workers working part time, so they can't get healthcare, while having little control over their schedules, and working for low wages. You cannot live on these sorts of jobs, so people need to work multiple jobs just to survive. 

And that's the problem. The promise of this whole forty hour a week social democratic ideal seems to just fail miserably in practice. We try to regulate, regulate, regulate companies to try to make them pay workers decent wages, give them good hours, give them healthcare, and treat them well. But employers don't want to treat their workers with care, they want disposable slaves. This valorized 1940esque ideal just doesn't hold up to the 21st century economy. And now with gig work becoming more and more prevalent, people live in more and more precarity. Less consistent work schedules, less reliable pay. Workers can't live like this. Instead of working less they gotta scrounge and work more, often working tons of odd jobs just to keep their heads above water. 

...But is it REALLY bad?

I mean depending on your perspective, if you're on the left, the answer will likely always be some form of "yes". If you're a liberal or social democrat it's bad because it leads to mistreatment of workers, and if you're a socialist it's bad because it downgrades employees even more and gives them even less room at the table in terms of owning the means of production. 

But, I would like to offer a different view on it. As I've kind of hinted throughout this whole thing, maybe the real problem is that we still expect people to work like it's still 1940? Again, These labor standards were implemented in 1938. It's 2021. We're 9 years from the date of John Meynard Keynes' "Economy Possibilities of our Grandchildren", and I don't see our 15 hour work weeks. These labor standards were implemented 8 years after that was written, and we're now 9 years from 2030, and we're still working like it's 1940. 

The big problem with the economy these days, in my opinion, is that there are never enough jobs for people and the jobs that exist aren't enough to live on. We struggle to find work to employ people for forty hour weeks, and businesses quite frankly don't want to if they have to actually pay their employees and give them healthcare. So we end up with tons of 25 hour a week crap jobs that pay poorly and have no healthcare. And because we still coerce people to work under the threat of poverty if they don't, well, things aren't working so well. 

These are arguments Yang has been making for basic income, and I have to concur. Automation and other shifts in the economy due to technology over the last few decades have made jobs more precarious. Well paid factory work is being replaced with low wage service work, and a lot of jobs, including the crap ones being created, are at risk of further automation in the future. It's possible the future of work for many people IS going to be precarious. For the top 20%, the economy is looking better than ever, but for the other 80%, eh, we should be worried about the future of the economy for them. The fact is, we are on track for work reductions predicted by the utopians of the past, the problem is that our standards are still the same ones they used almost a century ago, and they just don't work any more. 

We need to update our social conventions, and first and foremost, that involves weaking the link between work and income. If people can have SOME income and other basic needs taken care of without work, then it's good for both employers and workers. Employers wouldn't have to worry about providing healthcare to people, and workers won't have to worry about getting their entire paycheck from precarious jobs. It would largely favor workers because workers could just...you know...quit, if work conditions suck, and I think that if people find their conditions intolerable and exploitative, they might. 

It's possible we might see the positives of gig work be the positives of all work. Gig economy workers often set their own hours and work at their own pace, rather than being told to come in at a certain time. This is a good thing. I mean, who really wants a boss to cut their life up into segments for them and tell them what parts of their lives they own? Maybe if we could have basic income, workers would be free to set their own hours and work as much or as little as they want? And from there, it all comes down to motivation. The exceptionally unmotivated will likely not work at all, living off of a meager UBI. Many people might decide to only work one job at $10-15 an hour for 25 hours a week. This would give them, $250-375 a week, or $200-300 after the UBI tax, multiplied by 50 weeks that's $10,000-15,000 a year. So they would go home with $23,200-28,200 a year. Some might be more motivated and work harder and longer. That's their choice. As long as the UBI is sufficient, it doesn't matter to me what people do, as long as they choose to do it of their own accord without the threat of poverty.

Conclusion

That said maybe the future of work really IS gig work, and maybe that's not a bad thing. The problem is trying to insist we must employ every able bodied individual between, say, 16-66, and have them work 40 hours a week. That system doesn't actually work, and it will always fail a portion of the populace. Given the future of work, it might fail them even harder than it has for the past century. 

We have a choice. We can cling to our past and glorify labor like we always have, trying to make this kind of work illegal and try to ensure everyone has $15 minimum wage and works forty hours a week at a job that provides healthcare, or we can realize that this system is garbage, it's becoming antiquated, and maybe the work-income link should be weakened, and maybe people should be given the basics without work, with people working part time odd jobs to make a bit more on the side to cobble together that mystical "living wage" standard that Bernie and the like valorizes. We can all work a bit less, we can have our needs taken care of, and we can still eek out an existence worth living that way. Idk, it seems kind of appealing to me. 

That's not to say other goals of the left aren't worth pursuing, by the way. It's possible a UBI will not be sufficient to truly "live" on and some economic coercion will still exist, if so, regulations, minimum wages, etc. will also likely need to exist. But, if we had a UBI and medicare for all, we could actually see the economy for what it is, recognize that expecting it to provide a living in exchange for work is a fool's errand, and we could likely rely less on a regulatory state that apparently only gets overhauled once a century. The choice is ours.

Social justice, ableism, and autism

 So, following up on my post, and discussing more about how my autistic traits influence my political views. And now I'm going to focus on why I dislike the social justice movement as an autistic person. 

I'm going to be honest, my views do not speak for all autistic people here, but I find in my own experience, discussing these issues with other aspies I know, that there some seem to be some validity to them. The autistic community seems very divided on the social justice movement, and I guess it depends on your other characteristics. If you're like me, a cis straight white male, you may not go for these politics very much. If you have certain identity quirks like transgenderism, which seems overrepresented within the autistic community, well, you might think differently. I guess it depends on whether these politics are "for you."

As a straight white male autistic person, I don't believe these politics are "for me." If anything, they're very anti me. First of all, social justice movements come off as ableist as heck. Many of us aspies lack social skills. And social justice movements require a very adept, constantly evolving set in order to navigate the movement's politics. I need things set in stone. I need very clear instructions, that make sense, for how to behave. But that's the problem with social justice movements, everything becomes a minefield. Everything offends someone, and as such, words, terminologies, and behaviors that used to be acceptable can become unacceptable overnight. Mild faux pases can be treated as great social offenses worth castrating someone over. I can be fine, have a conversation with someone, but because I said the wrong thing, I end up offending them. This happens to autistic people all the time. But then add in the outrage culture SJWs have, and yeah, everything becomes a potential point of offense.

Dating mechanics are almost completely un-navigable, because autistic behavior is often defined as "creepy" for not conforming to typical social norms. Because we don't know how to behave, we seem to be put in darned if we do, darned if we don't scenarios in which everything we do is wrong. Oh, we don't make the right amount of eye contact? We must be creepy or alternatively uninterested. We're not supposed to approach people in certain situations? So when is a good time? I didn't get any feedback at all, why is it bad if I ask for some? Feminism often confuses a lot of these things. I get it. I'm not some guy who longs for the 1950s in which a guy asks a girl out, the girl can't say no, and that's all there is to it. But at the same time, a lot of the changes feminists want to help women be more comfortable, make crap exponentially harder for us. I'm not saying we should give up all progress, rather we should look at what makes sense and isn't horrifically one sided. That's kind of the problem with feminism, and why men's rights movements exist in opposition to them. When you have groups who only care about women, and are outright hostile to men and their concerns and needs because "privilege", why should men care? Now, to be fair, MRAs have their own problems. They often end up going full neckbeard, and incels (overrepresented among aspies due to our romantic failures) end up being the opposite extreme and literal woman haters. I'm not advocating for hating women. I'd actually rather treat people like people and cut the crap of all this identity stuff as much as possible. And that involves having social conventions that are fair to all parties and make sense. Nothing sucks worse than trying to force aspies to serve a structure of social conventions that makes no sense and is hostile to our existence, speaking of which.

To go on more about feminism, I feel like a lot of feminists are outright hostile toward male aspies. I mean, we're the stereotypical "creep" or "incel" in a lot of cases. And they often don't care about us. If anything some of these guys are just like "screw men, they're privileged, they'll adapt." Well, you know, we're autistic in this case, remember? We have limited adaptability. Thanks for making our lives harder. 

Another thing that really doesn't rub a lot of us the right way are social conventions related to virtue signalling. Virtue signalling is a social activity, or a circlejerk. It's a bunch of people going on about how virtuous they are for showing how much they care about certain issues. It's something that NTs seem to do, to gain the approval of others. "Look at me, I support BLM, im part of the club, ain't I cool?" Well, this once again puts us at a disadvantage. Aspies often have limited social energy. We can only put so much on our plate and care about so many things. Like me, with politics, as you guys notice I tend to be obsessed over the whole basic income thing. That's my thing. Basic income and medicare for all are my top priorities. They're the top 2 priorities I litmus test candidates over. But, the democrats do social justice stuff. And a lot of social justice people hate "bystanders". They like to force people to participate in their circlejerk or social activity, and say stuff like "it isn't enough to not be racist, you have to be actively anti racist." They have to show how much they care about these other issues. They have to constantly apologize for being white males, if they're white males. It's not enough to be a passive supporter, like I've tried to be over the years, if you're not an active social activist, you're crapped on by these people. And god forbid if you actually want to vote for a candidate that serves your interests and top priorities, if you're not entirely selfless in giving up your priorities for the social justice stuff, you're a bad person.

Honestly, this is actually why I end up being so ANTI social justice politics these days. It ain't even about the issues. Even above, pointing out the difficulties I have with a lot of this stuff as an aspie, I do see some academic value to it. Women do face a lot of crap from men who won't say no or are flat out dangerous. Some language might be patently offensive these days while it might have been acceptable say, 15-20 years ago. But, these dynamics often do make life harder for, in particular, white male aspies who other than their autism, are considered "privileged." 

And honestly? I would go so far to call social justice movements extremely ableist. These movements preach intersectionality, and even are doing the autism awareness stuff as of late, but all things considered, how aware are they of aspies really? Not very, on the whole. Even other aspies who are into that stuff (since other aspies who are say, female, or of alternate sexualities can be attracted to this stuff) can be very not understanding of our social difficulties. They will get extremely hostile over people saying the wrong thing, even if not intentional, not acting the right way, not virtue signalling, or, like I'm doing now, calling these people out. 

And this is why I've had my patience wear thin with these people. On a pure intellectual level, they often make valid points, but the movement as it exists is a toxic mess that is very anti...me. They do all the virtue signally stuff about autism awareness, but push comes to shove they're very hostile toward a lot of autistic people, and very not understanding of our actual issues. I'd go so far to call them ableist.

If you want to celebrate autism awareness month, stop virtue signalling and start advocating for basic income and medicare for all!

 So, this is going to be a very personal, and a very blunt discussion. 

Here's the deal. While I'm not formally diagnosed, I'm very likely autistic. Like, 98% at this point. When I really think about it, my autism very heavily influences my politics. It's an obsessive interest you see. One that ebbs and flows. Sometimes I get obsessed with certain topics and talk about them nonstop, but sometimes I just get burned out and need a break. Hence why, sometimes this blog is full of posts nonstop, and then I'll just take a year or two off. 

Why am I not diagnosed? Well, first of all, I'm one of those kids born in the 80s who grew up in the 90s who slipped through the net because autism wasn't as well known and if you have "aspergers", or mild autism, you're "normal" enough to pass as normal, but not normal enough where you continue having problems for years until in your 20s, you realize, holy crap maybe something is wrong with me after all. Autism can often go under the radar until the person tends to struggle enough with life that its demands begin to exceed a person's capabilities. And being sheltered, as long as I was confined to the environment of school with my focus being good grades, I generally was able to function well enough to blend in. Although I did get excessive crap from people for failing to blend in socially, how I dressed, and how I did not do things other people my age did like drive and work (in teenage years) because, well, doing those things would overwhelm me. 

The second reason is because I lack healthcare. That and I just don't see the purpose in getting a diagnosis. But that's the problem with healthcare in America, you need money to see a doctor, and if you lack money, you're not gonna bother doing something so frivolous as getting an autism diagnosis. We struggle to go to the hospital in America when it's an emergency, you think we're going to go because gee, you know what? I might be autistic? Nah, we just live with it. While there are some arguments about how if I got diagnosed I could likely get disability, heads up, they don't really give disability out like candy and try to force more people to work.

For this month, I want to explain what it's REALLY like to be autistic, and why I find so many of our social structures to be so intolerable. Which is, by the way, another reason I don't get treated. Because mental health treatment in America is about trying to force people to cope in a crappy system. "Oh, your job sucks and you're depressed? Here's some nice little pills to take and some deep breathing exercises so you can handle it better." And then once a year they come up with some vapid circlejerking "awareness month" to talk about this stuff in a patronizing way, which really doesn't help US that much, but might make the virtue signallers feel better. That's what virtue signalling is really about by the way. Just this vapid circlejerk of caring that doesn't accomplish crap, which is why I come down so hard on that stuff on this blog. You know what would be nice? Systemic change. Or at least accommodations that didn't amount to vapid "inclusivity" oriented symbolism. 

Here's the thing. The huge reason I'm so anti work, really comes down, push comes to shove, on not being cut out for the working world. While I can do limited work on my own terms, I feel poorly equipped for a job.

First of all, the social stuff. Jobs are inherently social. You have to have people like you. Coworkers, bosses. You need to interview well. You have to talk about the big sports game on the weekend and if you don't like sports, you tend to not be likeable. You need to know how to schmooze people and kiss butt, and if you're autistic this is extremely difficult, because you're brutally honest to the point that you'll offend people, without even realizing it. I have lost so many friendships over the years, simply because I'm "annoying." And I am. I discuss random topics no one really cares about. I don't care about other topics people do care about. I don't see the point to lots of social norms, and feel like they work against me. Social interaction is a minefield, and very draining. I feel like an impostor in Among Us, but all the time. I have to fit in and pretend to do the thing, and if I'm caught not doing things like others do, I'm ejected. It might be an immediate thing, or it might take months and years as I open up to people only for my faults to start grating on them. We're also expected to be very excited and enthusiastic to work. Like we have to beg for a job, and constantly be grateful for the opportunity. And if you don't, you're fired, and you need that income. So you basically gotta put on this fake act all the time, and it just wears thin. This is also, by the way, why I'm not for socialism or social anarchism. These solutions aren't answers to me. They just replace one social hierarchy for another, when I want independence from said hierarchies.

Second, dress. People have this idea that "clothing makes the man" and "dress for success." Okay, well what if business attire is SO uncomfortable, that it literally makes me dread getting up in the morning, let alone spending all day in it? Business attire sucks. The fabric is just so uncomfortable and grates on my skin in just the right way, to ensure that I am in hell when I wear it. It isn't the pants as much, it's dress shirts. The fabric is just...terrible. I can't really describe it. When I was a kid I would say it makes me feel "cold". I guess the feeling is similar to that. The feeling of it rubbing on my skin literally gives me chills. As far as pants go, jeans do the same thing. I'd be so happy if I could just wear sweats my whole life, except when it's above 70F, then I wear athletic shorts and a t shirt. Uniforms just...don't work for me. This isn't even getting into the fact that many autistic people have other sensory sensitivities that make workplaces hostile to them, such as noise and lighting.

Third of all, the idea of inconsistent schedules like exist in many lowly paid industries like retail and food service are hell. We aspies like routine and consistency. Telling us we gotta work 6-11PM one day and then 6-11 AM the next is the very definition of hell. Being asked to come in at the last minute? Hell. But these are all regular expectations of employees these days and we're just expected to take it or be fired.

Fourth, the long hours tend to burn us out more. We tend to have obsessive interests, and jobs in a modern society take up the majority of our working hours. We can't engage in our interests if we gotta work 40 hours a week, and then commute and do tons of preparatory work on top of it. It's even worse if we have "pathological demand avoidance", which isn't recognized in the US due to how work heavy our culture is, but is a subset of autism where the very idea of being told what to do and not having control over your time is just hell to you. But that's what work is, our time isn't our own. We're rent a slaves. 

The problem with conditional aid, is that it's conditional. If we can prove we can work at all, we can't get help. So many of us aspies are in that uncanny valley of being horridly out of our depth as far as navigating a world set up for neurotypicals, but we're also "normal" enough we have the same expectations from us as a neurotypical person. It's hell. And it makes many of us experience burnout, mental breakdowns, and even regress mentally from the trauma. The working world is horrible enough for most neurotypicals, but for us, these expectations on us literally are hell.

I don't want pity. I don't want little awareness circlejerks the SJWs like to put on. I want systemic change. Fix this crap so I can actually have control over my life. Let me have universal healthcare and a basic income, and let me choose when and how to work on my own terms, if I feel up to it at all, rather than just imposing tons of expectations on me I can't say no on. It's bad enough being a wage slave in our economy, but being an autistic wage slave is so much worse, because this structure is hostile to our very existence. Less virtue signalling and more political action for actual solutions, please.