Discussing UBI vs "socialism" (UBS)

 So, I finally had an interesting discussion today with a "socialist" type who was willing to discuss UBI vs a more traditional Bernie style "democratic socialist" platform like we often see proposed. I was thinking of doing a video about this after reading that the DSA released a new platform which mentioned "decommidification", which is something I see referenced a lot among socialist types, but I figured it would be best just to discuss the topic more generally as I really don't want to discuss the ins and outs of the DSA's proposed platform. 

Generally speaking, "socialists" have doubts about UBI, and especially Yang. They see UBI as a trojan horse that will preserve capitalism and undermine "welfare", whereas the yang gang and people like me question if bureaucratic and authoritarian government solutions will really solve our problems as well. I know I kind of sound conservativish in my framing there but it's a discussion to be had, and we're having it.

Here's how I see progressive platforms. I see a lot of "we're doing this and we're doing that", but not a lot of impact on how things actually work, for the most part. Progressive solutions seem to be reactions to solving problems endemic to capitalism, often within a piecemeal way, but don't solve the core issue of wage slavery and coercion which is, in my opinion, at the heart of my issues with capitalism. Socialists tend to go a bit further, basically wanting to throw out the baby with the bathwater, saying capitalism and evil and we need an entirely new system. And in practice they propose more of such programs.

On the other hand, at the heart of the progressive reluctance to embrace UBI is a skepticism of capitalism and markets. Here's the thing. I've always been for markets. Even when I was somewhat socialism curious in 2018-2019, I was only interested in say, market socialism. I don't care as much if we have a few dudes own the means of production or if they're owned more broadly. I think that socialism is aesthetically nice, but I kind of have to wonder about the logistics of forcing it on society, such as how it would impact the creation of new small businesses, or innovation in general. Often times these ideas are great for workers, but they might also stagnate the system hard, as no one wants to start a new business or try a new idea because the workers will just reap the rewards anyway, I kind of understand the need for incentives in society to encourage people to do things that have a positive impact on society. Although I prefer carrots and not sticks. 

But socialists, they look at UBI, and they just see market relations as so broken, and so flawed, that rent will go up, everything will go up, UBI won't solve anything, blah blah blah. Honestly I think this is ideological and dogmatic. Markets aren't always bad. They can be coercive yes, but they think all markets are coercive or uneven and that simply isn't true in my opinion. Now, I'm also going to basically reject a position that socialists and progressives use against UBI, that the proponents want ONLY UBI and nothing else. No one is proposing that. Not even yang, despite the criticisms about him destroying UBI. We need, at minimum, healthcare and education done separately.

That's the thing. i acknowledge market failures exist. I'm not an ideologue. I hate the idea that markets are always good and that everything should be done by markets. No, socialist critiques are actually valid in certain markets with certain horrid dynamics in them, like healthcare. But at the same time, markets aren't always bad, and I'd rather have money I can spend at grocery stores, than to have the government provide food.

Which is a huge issue I have with socialists. Socialists often talk about "decommodifying" basic needs, which is to say, they want to make it where basic needs are provided directly by the government. They want the government to give you food. They want the government to provide you housing. But what if I don't want the food government provides? What if it gives me cheese that was sitting in the hot sun and has worms in it? That's happened to people before. Theresa Funiciello's book, "the tyranny of kindness" covers the fact that governments and charities do that. And it's gross. It would be very easy for the government to decide if you dont work you eat nothing but gruel 3 times a day, saving real food for people who get paid, ya know, with money. Often times the point of NOT providing cash isn't to really help the poor, but to save them from themselves. People often have degrading and patronizing attitudes toward the poor that they dont know what they want and arent responsible, so we need to tell them what they need. The purpose of UBI is actually to liberate the poor and get rid of degrading patronizing paternalism. To destigmatize welfare and put it on the same level as, you know, having cash from a job, since it's cash. It's not intended to screw the poor or make them worse off, it's intended to help them. 

But that's what I have against the idea of the government providing services directly. You dont have a choice in what the government gives you, if it sucks it sucks. I'd rather have money to buy what I need for the most part. I only really want the government to run stuff themselves when the markets are so broken no one can reasonably afford it. 

Housing is interesting as I do believe the market is broken, but at the same time I don't want the government to give housing directly mostly, as that would imply the government tells you where to live, nor do I want say an LVT, which i see the government as becoming the ultimate landlord, and thus undermining the very idea of UBI. 

I don't really have comprehensive solutions to that since the market system sucks and I can't see the alternative working either (whereas public schools and healthcare seems to work). I know government housing exists, but I kind of believe it should supplement the market, not replace it. So I have nothing against maintaining those programs on top of UBI. 

Generally speaking, I just dont want the government to "decommodify" stuff where it runs entire industries more than it has to. I'm not a socialist. I grew up a conservative in post Reagan America and the idea of the government running everything and telling me how to live my life is everything about "ciommunism" I used to hate. And while I've warmed on the left since, i still can't support the same literal strawman that I grew up with. I'd rather support UBI and have some level of capitalism. That's not to say it's UBI only. I'm not an ideologue who has an obsession with markets. If anything I wish the whole capitalist socialist divide would just die already. people are way too polarized on both sides and neither side has all the answers. Markets work sometimes, government works other times. The question is what should each do, and I say, what they do best. 

So i say we should have UBI, but I also support some bernie style proposals on top of that. Keep in mind despite how much I like yang, he doesnt represent my views entirely and is to my right on economics somewhat.

At the same time, I have gotten to the point I can't NOT support a UBI. i was willing to compromise on it through the "bernie" years of 2015-2020, but UBI is an idea that I believe its time has come now, and I can't hide that view any more. UBI has always been an end goal for me. I just didnt believe it would be popular enough pre 2020 to get anywhere. 

And given I did the work this year to decide if I would rather have UBI + moderate proposals or more extreme proposals - UBI, I choose UBI + moderation. We absolutely can have UBI and other stuff. Medicare for all is tricky but I believe it can work. If not there are some public option routes available that would effectively provide universal healthcare while eliminating/reducing benefit cliffs. Free college and student loan forgiveness are cheap enough that they can work. Housing can be done. CLimate infrastructure can be done, although not a green new deal. 

But yeah. I'm just not a crazed ideologue on this. We should have UBI and then some other stuff, based on what we can afford. I dont want the government to provide all needs directly. I also don't want markets to dominate everything. Socialists argue UBI supporters are all right libertarians who are die hard free marketeers and that's not true. Keep in mind yang was a democrat. he might be a more moderate business friendly democrat on issues outside of UBI and some other proposals compared to say, sanders, but he aint a corrupt establishment figurehead who has secret relations with elon musk and jeff bezos to push UBI at the expense of the working class. He simply realizes that hey, capitalism and its job creation nonsense isn't about providing for workers, so let's have the government providing for them instead. Whereas socialism has a weird obsession with work and workers getting the value of their labor. Okay, it's not weird, but it is dogmatic and strangely comes off as more conservative than the yang position in some ways. I'd rather have human centered capitalism than socialism. No, I dont believe it would lead to serfdom, and if it does, well there would be nothing left to try but socialism so we can take up that debate then. At the same time, socialism just seems to be a way to keep the old ideologies of jobism and traditional but dated solutions to issues that i find lacking going. Like really, for as much as they fear people languishing under human centered capitalism and how we'd all be poor living under UBI, I fear a socialist utopia where while needs are met people have no freedom, and are essentially forced to work long after scarcity has been solved. Of course, I ain't going to get in a slap fight with a socialist over this until they take the first shot. Tbqh I believe both of us are getting so screwed by the establishment neither of us have a chance to have our ideas known, and I believe that this debate is one that should be had once we defeat them. So before we can even debate whether socialism or human centered capitalism is better, we need to break the two party duopoly and defeat liberalism, so i really don't know why the yang gang and the bernie camp have to fight each other so much. We both wanna provide for people, we just differ on how. 

Again, this is the political battle of tomorrow, not today.

Pew's new political typology quiz! (2021)

 So, it's that time of the 4 year cycle again, Pew introduced a new political typology quiz/analysis to discuss the political factions in American politics. They do this every 4 years, normally the year after the presidential election, with the factions being based off of how people voted in this election. The quiz isn't the best, but the analysis is interesting and worth looking into. For reference in the 2013 version I was often split between a "hard pressed skeptic", which was a form of economically distressed democratically leaning independent, and a "strong progressive" due to my sanders support. In 2017, I was split between strong progressive again and a "disaffected democrat", which was, once again, economically distressed person pissed off with the parties. Given that I had a strong dislike for the democrats and had strong progressive views it made sense. Depending on how I answered I would get one or the other. So it would be good to take the 2021 version and see how it goes.

That being said, let's take the quiz. It's short, so I'll copy and paste the questions and give my responses here.

If you had to choose, would you rather have…

A smaller government providing fewer services

A bigger government providing more services 

Big government with more services, given the current political environment. Of course, ideally I prefer more efficient government, with a big government with a few key services, rather than a large bureaucracy, but given I assume this is measuring the moderate vs progressive divide, yeah I'm a progressive and believe in expanding government services compared to what we have.

When you say you favor a bigger government providing more services, do you think it would be better to...

Modestly expand on current government services

Greatly expand on current government services

 Greatly expand. We need a complete overhaul of our systems, not incrementalism. 

Which of the following statements come closest to your view?

America’s openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation

If America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation 

Ugh, neither. Like, I'm actually completely neutral on this. I can't stand democratic circlejerking about "diversity" and how "we're a nation of immigrants" as it does the idpol circlejerk,. At the same time I don't feel anxious about immigrants either. Like I don't worry that much about losing our identity as a nation either. 

Honestly, I ended up going with the more conservative option as I tend to be somewhat conservative on immigration, believing we need to restrict who we let in in order to maintain the social welfare programs I support (since I explicitly support unconditional safety nets, not the neoliberal garbage that's compatible with open borders democrats are for). And I do believe excessive immigration could change our culture, but generally speaking it doesn't matter either way. Like, that's the thing. I just don't care about this issue much, and don't have strong opinions either way. I GUESS I lean slightly toward the right at this point, but really, I could've gone either way on this one.

In general, would you say experts who study a subject for many years are… 

Usually BETTER at making good policy decisions about that subject than other people

Usually WORSE at making good policy decisions about that subject than other people 

NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE at making good policy decisions about that subject than other people

As an educated person who understands how specialists work and how most people in society have dunning kruger, uh, better, much better. How can you make decisions on a subject if you haven't studied it sufficiently? 

Thinking about increased trade of goods and services between the U.S. and other nations in recent decades, would you say that the U.S. has...

Gained more than it has lost because increased trade has helped lower prices and increased the competitiveness of some U.S. businesses

Lost more than it has gained because increased trade has cost jobs in manufacturing and other industries and lowered wages for some U.S. workers

 Eh, this is where I put my money where my mouth is on the expert thing. Experts generally agree free trade is a NET POSITIVE. However, I'll be the first to agree that it has downsides neoliberals don't wanna talk about. Still, given I'm not a jobist, I don't really care if they eliminate jobs. I wanna give people a UBI anyway. So that said, I do lean a bit toward free trade here. I do admit that there are negatives and the anxiety over wages and jobs is real. But I don't exactly idolize manufacturing jobs either.

 

How much more, if anything, needs to be done to ensure equal rights for all Americans regardless of their racial or ethnic backgrounds?

A lot

A little

Nothing at all

 A little. I am not an idpol person. I recognize issues exist, but believe they're secondary and believe in fiddling around the edges. Most of my solutions are universal and colorblind, impacting all Americans. Underprivileged should benefit more than others simply by being worse off, but yeah, ultimately I'm fairly moderate on this issue.

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?

Business corporations make too much profit

Most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profit

 Too much, is this even disputable given my ideology?

How much, if at all, would it bother you to regularly hear people speak a language other than English in public places in your community?

A lot

Some

Not much

Not at all

 Eh, this is gonna piss some people off, but being raised conservative, in a family that is bothered by this A LOT, I still instinctively think in my head when I hear people speaking other languages "speak English." I mean, I'm kind of ashamed of this, but I'm honest about it. Given intellectually it doesn't bother me as much though, I'll just say "some." Like it's mostly instinctive for me, and it's largely beyond my conscious control, but it exists. I can't say it DOESN'T bother me, if I'm being honest.

On a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 means you feel as cold and negative as possible and 100 means you feel as warm and positive as possible, how do you feel toward... 

How do you feel toward Democrats?

How do you feel toward Republicans?

 I voted 30 for democrats and 0 for republicans. I was initially going to vote 50 for democrats, but 50 assumes lukewarm/neutral and I'm not really. I hate the democrats. But I hate the GOP far more. I have zero respect for the GOP while for the dems, eh, I just think they're worthless and/or corrupt.

Which of these statements best describes your opinion about the United States?

The U.S. stands above all other countries in the world

The U.S. is one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others

There are other countries that are better than the U.S.

 

 Honestly, we're a joke among first world countries. I'll say other countries are better. We're not the worst by any means, we're probably ranked, idk, 20-30th out of like 200 or something, but yeah. I'm not an America worshipper. Call me back when we achieve social democracy and don't have an major party full of theocrats and fascists. 

How much of a problem, if any, would you say each of the following are in the country today? 

People being too easily offended by things others say 

Major problem

Minor problem

Not a problem

People saying things that are very offensive to others

Major problem

Minor problem

Not a problem

 People being offended: minor problem. I ain't gonna act like it's issue #1, but I despise the PC police regardless, and do think people get way too offended. Still, I can't say cultural issues are important. 

People saying things that are offensive, well, I think people need to suck it up more, and given I grew up in the wild west days of the internet where you couldn't go 5 seconds without someone saying "kill yourself (slur)", uh, I'm actually nostalgic for those days. Part of this is because of autism, and the fact that I literally like being able to say what I want and not be censored, but yeah. I hate the idea of censorship. I really don't see mean language as a problem at all. Most of it is just baseless trash talk and kind of the way to say "hi how are you?" in the 2000s. 

Which comes closer to your view of candidates for political office, even if neither is exactly right? I usually feel like...

There is at least one candidate who shares most of my views 

None of the candidates represent my views well 

This question is open to interpretation, but generally speaking, it depends. If you mean "candidates who can win", no I hate both parties for a reason. Still, I tend to be attracted to relatively fringe candidates at times like Bernie and Andrew Yang. If those guys were mainstream, I'd be happier, but I'm just not happy with milquetoast democrats or ANY REPUBLICAN AT ALL just about. You might get a weird one like Curtis Sliwa I might start supporting, but other than that, no.

In general, how much do White people benefit from advantages in society that Black people do not have? 

A great deal

A fair amount

Not too much

Not at all

 I'm split between not too much and a fair amount. I mean, privilege exists. But to me, privilege doesn't exactly mean you're set. It tends to make you more or less advantaged relative to others, but it doesn't mean the system is good regardless. I'd rather focus less on privilege and more on ensuring the system is fair where no one is treated poorly even if underprivileged. 

Idk, i guess based on my language "not too much" is a valid response, but still, I could argue "a fair amount" too. I mean those differences aren't insignificant when looked at from a wealth perspective and a local government services perspective and the like. Still, they aren't the big deciding factor in my ideology, as other forces are overwhelmingly more important and actually play into the privilege divide in the first place. Still, I can't deny there are problems, so I'm gonna say a fair amount.

Do you think greater social acceptance of people who are transgender (people who identify as a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth) is…

Very good for society

Somewhat good for society

Neither good nor bad for society

Somewhat bad for society

Very bad for society

 Somewhat good. I mean, I'm not a circlejerker who's like YES, THIS IS THE BEST THING FOR SOCIETY EVER. I kinda lean toward being neutral and not caring, but I do recognize it as a net positive, so....somewhat good is the best option.

Overall, would you say people who are convicted of crimes in this country serve…

Too much time in prison 

Too little time in prison

About the right amount of time in prison

 Too much, for the most part. Insane prison sentences for minor offenses or even victimless crimes? Yeah, it's insane. 

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?

Religion should be kept separate from government policies

Government policies should support religious values and beliefs

 Keep that crap as far from my government as possible.

In the future, do you think...

U.S. policies should try to keep it so America is the only military superpower

It would be acceptable if another country became as militarily powerful as the U.S.

 We should try to remain the sole superpower. We have nothing to gain and a lot to lose from China becoming as powerful as us or more powerful. 

Results

Your best fit is…

Outsider Left

… along with 10% of the public

Read more in the full report: Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology

Read more about Outsider Left

View interactive charts to see how the Political Typology groups compare.

 

Outsider Left are the youngest typology group. They hold liberal views on most issues, particularly on issues of racial equality and immigration, and overwhelmingly vote Democratic. They are more skeptical of government performance than other Democratic-oriented groups, though far less so than those in GOP-oriented groups. While they aren’t particularly happy with the Democratic Party, they also have deeply negative views of the GOP.
Though nearly half of Outsider Left describe their own political views as liberal, only about three-in-ten identify as Democrats; about half say they are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party.

This is, accurate. Although I would say I don't place tons of emphasis on racial equality and immigration. As you can see I have mixed views, with my attitudes on immigration leaning center right if anything and my views on racial justice leaning clearly center left. On economics I'd say my views were consistently left. Still, essentially disaffected democrat. Let's look at the overall typology.

Progressive Left and Establishment Liberals. Progressive Left, the only majority White, non-Hispanic group of Democrats, have very liberal views on virtually every issue and support far-reaching changes to address racial injustice and expand the social safety net. Establishment Liberals, while just as liberal in many ways as Progressive Left, are far less persuaded of the need for sweeping change.

  So these are considered the core of the democratic party. It isn't any surprise I didn't score progressive left this time. While they're generally considered to be the sanders supporters, they're heavily left on social issues, much more than me. And given how much emphasis is focused on race and immigration, which are not my strong suits as far as being left on social issues, yeah, it's not surprise I ended up being more moderate. I'm still further left on economics but I'm more a mixed bag socially, especially as I begin to get frustrated with the extremeness of the democrats on social issues and how racial and cultural issues seem to dominate everything. I'm more left by 2000s/early 2010s standards, where the big issues of the day were issues regarding civil liberties, terrorism, religion, etc. I've never been big on the woke stuff and it's the one area of politics I still retain some relatively conservative views. Still much further left than the modern GOP which seems to stick its head in the sand and be outwardly racist, but we can still see my republican roots in how I answered some questions here. 

Establishment liberals are, well, establishment liberals. They're more moderate on issues and less convinced that major changes are needed. And given this is what makes up the democrats it's no wonder I don't fit. Progressive leftists are too left for me. Not just on social issues, but in practice on economics too. A lot of them are the type these days to identify as "socialists" and scream about how UBI is a neoliberal plot to destroy welfare. But then establishment libs are just too moderate and useless.

Two other Democratic-aligned groups could not be more different from each other, both demographically and in their relationship to the party. Democratic Mainstays, the largest Democratic-oriented group, as well as the oldest on average, are unshakeable Democratic loyalists and have a moderate tilt on some issues.

  This is essentially what I call the "idpol group" in previous analyses, since this is essentially the group most racial minorities fall into. Still, the analysis is weird, they're generally speaking more socially conservative but very economically liberal. Still, they end up, in practice, being democratic loyalists and falling in behind establishment dems. This is the voting bloc most responsible for tipping the scales toward the moderates I think. They didn't like Nina Turner for instance because she called Biden "half a bowl of ****" and they didn't like, say, Yang and fell in behind establishment Eric Adams. Despite having progressive economic views, their identities and loyalty to the democratic party poses problems for progressives. 

Still, I find it weird how the white dominated progressive left is more obsessed with idpol than these guys, but that's apparently a thing. 

I find it good that they largely came to the same three major players within the democratic party that I did. You have the progressives, the moderates, and then the mainstays who actually end up voting for centrists due to loyalty to the party and its establishment. This is why progressives and outsiders like me can't really make ground in the party. Between the three groups, despite attitudes leaning more toward the left, people end up voting more conservatively due to the political engagement being weird. I don't think POC are a lost cause for progressives btw, but as long as they vote based on identity and loyalty to moderates they're not allies. They actually aren't a monolith and many have progressive attitudes. But they just tend to like democrats too much.

 Outsider Left, the youngest typology group, voted overwhelmingly for Joe Biden a year ago and are very liberal in most of their views, but they are deeply frustrated with the political system – including the Democratic Party and its leaders.

 And this is where I am. This looks like a weird mix of disaffected democrats, including some of the less pure Bernie Bros with more socially conservative attitudes, Yang Gangers, etc. I mean these guys have strangely liberal attitudes on a lot of stuff despite being considered moderate. I would argue some are left of the democratic party on stuff but right on others. But yeah, I feel like I fit in well here. I think they focus too much on social issues, which I was more moderate on, but yeah I got it regardless.

The four Republican-oriented groups include three groups of conservatives: Faith and Flag Conservatives are intensely conservative in all realms; they are far more likely than all other typology groups to say government policies should support religious values and that compromise in politics is just “selling out on what you believe in.”

 yeah this seems to be your tea partiers. Uncompromising right wingers.

 

 Committed Conservatives also express conservative views across the board, but with a somewhat softer edge, particularly on issues of immigration and America’s place in the world. 

 This is more establishment conservatives a la George W. Bush. 

Populist Right, who have less formal education than most other typology groups and are among the most likely to live in rural areas, are highly critical of both immigrants and major U.S. corporations.

 This seems to be Trumpers. As the name suggest, they're populist, and they have socially conservative views, but economically progressive views. These are the guys that before 2016 I believed we could win over to the democrats, but then things snowballed into culture war nonsense instead. I still think Yang could likely court some of these guys in his forward party.

Ambivalent Right, the youngest and least conservative GOP-aligned group, hold conservative views about the size of government, the economic system and issues of race and gender. But they are the only group on the political right in which majorities favor legal abortion and say marijuana should be legal for recreational and medical use. They are also distinct in their views about Donald Trump – while a majority voted for him in 2020, most say they would prefer he not continue to be a major political figure.

 This is the right wing version of an outsider leftie or disaffected democrat. They tend to be more liberal on social issues, hate Trump, but are more economically conservative. These are the group the democrats like to court over to the left, pushing moderates who have cross party appeal. 

The only typology group without a clear partisan orientation – Stressed Sideliners – also is the group with the lowest level of political engagement. Stressed Sideliners, who make up 15% of the public but constituted just 10% of voters in 2020, have a mix of conservative and liberal views but are largely defined by their minimal interest in politics.

 And of course these are the bystanders and the true moderates.

Honestly, I can say that this seems to be at least somewhat accurate with politics. The divide on the democrats at minimum somewhat accurate and actually quite similar to the divide's I've been talking about all year. I ain't a conservative who I have less first hand experience on that side, but it seems like it could be accurate. You can see factions like the hardcore tea partiers, establishment republicans, populist trumpers, and more disaffected moderates playing out a role here. And then in the middle, you get the disaffected moderates. 

I'm obviously an outsider leftie here, or what was, in 2017, a disaffected democrat. I clearly lean left, but I ain't orthodox left, and I tend to have anti establishment opinions and hate the democratic party. It seems obvious I am a fit there. 

As far as the forward party, since this is the last thing I want to touch on. It seems obvious his core demographic is the same as mine, the outsider left. I'm not sure how well he will do with the other three democratic groups as all three are democratic loyalists. Moderates hate yang because hes too radical and inexperienced, progressives hate him for being too moderate. And the mainstays seem completely uninterested in his policies despite being an obvious ideological match. This is why he left the party. he himself is outsider left and doesn't fit in the party. He could potentially gain ground among the stressed sideliners and even some populist rightists, but the populists seem happy with trump, buying his MAGA crap despite having a glimmer of economic progressivism in there. Sideliners are a possibility though. 

Honestly, it's hard for the forward party to grow. While Yang can likely get great ideological consensus overall with a lot of people, those people are too polarized into the democratic and republican party coalitions. And outside of the 25% or so that make up the sideliners and the outsider left, most seem happy where they're at. I think that ambivalent righters are a poor match for yang's politics, for reference. It's a shame. Yang, if a full realignment happened, could likely capture much of the left, and even some of the right. But because he's an outsider, and because enough people seem happy where they're at, he has trouble growing. It's obvious why he couldn't win within the democratic party. But he could likely have some success as a third party I guess. i don't think he would win, but he could shift narratives a lot, which is the point of third parties in the first place. 

I do, for reference, think if things weren't so polarized that the coalitions could break up. Democrats are a mess of contradictions at the moment. The right seems split between trump and someone else. But ultimately, party loyalty and a dislike of the other side seems to largely hold the system together.

Hopefully that will change in the next few years. We've seen a shift somewhat since 2016, and things will likely continue to shift. All in all, it's a good quiz, not the best, but I like it. I do think that there was too much of a focus on cultural issues like race and immigration, but those are the issues of the day, so that is to be expected.

Would I support a social conservative candidate with more progressive (economic) views?

 So, this came up in a liberal forum I used to frequent, but quit going to because the users were so insufferable that I rage quit it. I still lurk there and laugh at the comments, but don't post. You'll see why when you read some of these comments. 

Essentially, the user asked the question above, and in providing more details, asked:

Sort of explains itself, but would you support a social conservative individual who had a lot of other more left wing views?

Ex a pro-2nd amendment, pro-life, lukewarm-on-BLM candidate who really liked M4A, a carbon tax, wealth tax, much stricter business regulations etc.

Reasoning: I grew up in a rural area and a lot of my Dem friends there line up with a lot of what I described yet voted Trump because of the first few issues.

 

 Now, first, my answer. And here's the thing. It depends. Despite being anti woke, and fairly moderate on social issues, I would not vote for an extreme rightist on social issues even if they offered stuff I want. By extreme rightist I mean like a theocrat or a nazi. But of course, if their views are more heterodox and more moderate, sure. I like how Yang seems a bit more socially conservative than the rest of the democratic party without being stupid about it, and I tend to have relatively conservative to moderate views on issues like immigration, race, and guns. That said, to discuss the three issues presented.

1) Pro 2nd Amendment- Cool. I, too, am pro second amendment. I did have a liberal phase where I tried being for gun control, but I kind of realized that it doesn't seem to work, at least in America. I know other countries have tried it successfully, but they are on other continents, surrounded by neighbors who are also quite anti gun, or a giant island-continent on their own in Australia's case. I don't believe that such an idea could work well in America, where most gun violence is done with illegal firearms in the first place. Given how much we suck at prohibition type stuff, and given how I believe that punishing legal gun owners just ends up hurting them. This is not to say that we can't improve the process for buying guns by closing loopholes and the like, but most realistic restrictions on guns aren't going to do much to curb gun violence. 

2) Pro life- This, of the three, would be my biggest issue with this guy's platform. I am strongly pro choice and for reproductive freedom. It is probably the social issue I care about most, and am more extreme than the vast majority of democrats on it. I'll discuss why again after reading one of the comments later, but suffice to say, I believe most liberals aren't even consistent on the issue and are only pro choice in order to be virtue signalling feminists. Still, I support Roe V. Wade, and as someone who is childfree, I hate the idea of forcing people to become a parent. Just as I hate wage slavery, I hate the idea of forcing people to work to pay child support or work to raise a child they never wanted in the first place. People should be as free from obligations as possible, and parenthood is a massive one that without stuff like abortion, people are forced into unjustly. I also just don't value a fetus as a life worth preserving with legal force, given the lack of brain development through most of a pregnancy. And I'm not going to even try to honor the perspective of pro lifers who seem to wanna impose their crazy religious views on people

The thing is whether this is more important than basic income, medicare for all, etc. for me. And I have to say, it is not. So it's a bit of a tough sell, but if I were guaranteed support for my top priorities in exchange for getting a pro lifer, I would reluctantly support them as a candidate. I would cringe, but I would support them. 

3) "Lukewarm on BLM"- Uh, join the club. Sums up my views perspective. I wanna emphasize I'm not inherently against BLM as a movement, but I'm not gonna act like it defines my worldview or its an important enough issue that affects how I vote. And given the people who virtue signal about BLM don't seem to give a crap about economic priorities, I would be fine with someone who is merely apathetic on the issue. After all, the line here isn't "wants to go back to jim crow or slavery" or something. We're not talking nazis who wanna send black people to gas chambers here. We're talking someone who is "apathetic" on the issue, in which case I say sign me the fudge up.

That said, would I support this theoretical candidate? Yes. Abortion is my only red line here, and I would probably hold my nose and compromise on that single issue to get everything else I want. 

But, hey, lots of other liberals would NOT do that. So let's look at some of their views.

No, I would not vote for an anti-choice candidate under any circumstances, much less one who was "lukewarm" about equal rights for all Americans.

 So abortion is a red line for them. Which is fair. It is a soft one for me, but given my willingness to compromise, it's soft.

As for "lukewarm about equal rights", oh give me a freaking break. This right here is one of the reasons I hate liberals these days. They put words in peoples' mouths and misconstrue what we're saying. BLM is about policing. It's specifically about police violence and how trigger happy cops are. While it emphasizes black people it really applies to police violence in general. And while I do find those issues to be valid, I would say I'm apathetic, but supportive.

That's the thing. Apathy means it doesnt matter. It means we dont care. It means that we won't get in your way, but dont ram the stuff down our throats. And this is what these guys dont understand. They wanna ram it down peoples' throats and act like if they dont "care" as much as they do that they're crap for it. 

Even if the “lukewarm on Black lives” didn’t disgust me (and it very much does), even if I was only looking out for myself, folks like that generally don’t like trans people like me getting medical treatment or civil rights. 

 

 This one is kind of injecting other issues into it, some of which are more personal, which is valid. A trans person isn't gonna support someone who isn't supportive of their choices, and I wouldn't expect them to. Of course transgenderism only impacts less than 1% of the US population, so I'm not really gonna lose sleep over it.

Either way it wasn't mentioned here. And being lukewarm on BLM "disgusts" him? Again. This is the problem with liberals. They pretty much force you to care. Even if you don't. 

If they support progressive views they wouldn't be socially conservative.

 Uh, gatekeep much? Not everyone is 100% one way or the other. Nuance exists. And yes it works philosophically.

No chance. Economic stances are up for discussion. Social stances are etched are 100%, etched in stone, non-negotiable.

This is the epitome of craplibs. Social issues are read lines, but we can debate living wages, wage slavery, and whether you have access to healthcare. I know I am bordering on putting words in this person's mouth, but he kind of just gave the game away.

Let's rephrase this: would I throw Black and LGBT people under the bus if it might get me M4A? No. I believe that would be what is scientifically referred to as a "dick move."

  Now, this is personal to me, but here's my response:

"Why? They throw me under the bus all the time."

Remember what I said on this blog for years. That I'd be willing to work with them, but we have to be a coalition. They have to be at least nominally supportive of my stuff and me of theirs. Nominally can be apathy, just, dont get in my way. But, it seems quite clear that these groups often will promote their social issues and then tell me I'm privileged for wanting economics. Heck, if you wanna know why I'm so bitter on this, in part it's because I've literally argued with this same lot of people before, on this forum. And quite frankly, they do throw me and my priorities under the bus constantly. While shaming and gaslighting me for it. 

Just for anyone who wants to know why I'm so cavalier and apathetic. I'm just done even trying to work with these people. 

A sub thread of the above:

This is the historical problem with this compromise - Medicare For All becomes Medicare For All*

*People social conservatives dislike not included

 Isn't that a thing you "democrats" do? Means test stuff? Exclude people? Say we can't have universal safety nets? Except they get so high and mighty about the poor, and the underprivileged, and blah blah blah. But, because I'm white, and male, and straight, I can sink or swim. Just the vibe I get from this group a lot of the time. 

I know they're referencing the new deal and how social democracy back then did have a lot of screwing over racial minorities. Dems love talking about the "original sin of racism" in their ideology and flaunting stuff that happened 50+ years ago in our faces as the reason we can't have nice things. But they're actually the ones who are doing this. I just want universal stuff for everyone. And I don't think that excluding people was on the agenda here. They're just injecting that into this.

 

I wouldn’t vote for a pro-life candidate. That typically implies they want to implement abortion bans - which is incredibly dangerous and horrible. There are some sort of more moderate “pro-life” candidates who don’t call themselves pro-choice, but they believe Roe v Wade is settled law and so they aren’t trying to reverse it. I could be ok with that depending on their other stance - but I would prefer someone who vows to defend women’s rights.

I don’t like “lukewarm on BLM” either. It makes me think the person hasn’t actually taken the time to understand the issues the Black Lives Matter movement is about and instead thinks it’s just a monolith you can simply be “for” or “against.” I wouldn’t like a candidate that doesn’t care enough to understand the movement and what a huge part of the population say they need.

EDIT - and I think it’s even worse if someone says “lukewarm on BLM” because it’s like ok you didn’t really look into it and all of the different issues, but somehow you’re still vaguely against it? Vaguely against what? The fact that Black lives matter ? Wtf?

 1) Yeah, okay. I mean, I can kind of respect the abortion thing. it's very close to being a red line myself given my support for unfettered reproductive freedom. As for moderate pro lifers who believe its settled law...dude, that's Hillary Clinton. And I raked Hillary over hot coals in 2016 for her christian views making her politics insufferably moderate. 

2) Uh, lukewarm means lukewarm. It means we understand there are issues there but we don't emphasize it, don't care, and see BLM in a nuanced way as having both good and not so good elements. BLM is...questionable to me. Like, they do good, but then they go overboard and start screaming about police violence when the offender was being violent themselves, contorting themselves into pretzels explaining why they should've used a taser to disarm the hopped up guy charging at cops with a knife. Or, they scream in your ear with a megaphone about how black lives matter. Or, they scream at Rand Paul, who literally wrote a bill banning no knock warrants that led to breonna taylor's death, following him around, harassing her, and insisting he "say her name." To be honest, BLM has a valid social cause, but their tactics are, quite frankly, obnoxious. And it puts people off. 

So yeah, some people are lukewarm on the issue. Meaning they're apathetic, their views are nuanced, and they don't care. I would be fully supportive of such a person. So many libs are making this a red line for them.

As others have said, if you're asking me if I'd trade civil rights for minorities for Medicare For All, the answer is no.

 No one is asking you to trade civil rights for minorities. They simply said "lukewarm on BLM". So much putting words in peoples' mouths.

If your friends prioritize their gun collection and their racism over saving the climate and not dying in an emergency room, I'm happy not having their vote.

My human rights aren't negotiable and at a certain point I'm done pandering to or bailing out rural communities if they can't get on board.

 Well that's a crappy way to frame it. More self righteousness and words in peoples' mouths. To be fair I've debated this person before, and they tend to represent the worst in liberalism and SJWism to me. 

They're not kidding on being done with social conservatives either. This person basically comes off to me as being practically a republican on economics if you're white and male, and gets insufferably self righteous on social issues. 

The funny thing is the feeling's mutual. I'm done working with this kind of person too. Maybe UBI and M4A are my red lines and I'm not gonna get bogged down in social issues, especially when most conservatives and definitely all moderates are nowhere near as crazy as these guys seem to think they are. But that's the thing. You're not allowed to be moderate with these guys. You either are as crazy on social issues as them, or you're a right winger. It's a huge problem this group has. Not willing to compromise on the social at all. But they'll give away the farm on economics in an instant.

No, because the idea that women, Black people, and LGBTQ+ people are fully human is non-negotiable to me.

 Say it with me. NO ONE IS SAYING THEY'RE NOT HUMAN. Heck, pro lifers are pro life not because they hate women, but because they believe the fetus is life. I would know, I WAS ONE ONCE. 

All they said was "lukewarm on BLM", Jesus christ people. They make it out to be like they're negotiating with nazis. Not that they're being asked to bend on a handful of issues to get substantive gains.

Nope. My uterus is not negotiable. I don't care about gun issues one way or the other, though.

 Red line on abortion, I can respect this one.

I don't mind someone who is personally pro life as long as they aren't trying to make abortion difficult or illegal for everyone else. But failure to understand and appreciate the issues behind BLM would make me feel like this person was either selfish or ignorant (not dumb, ypu know, but not educated on the issues).

 Uh thats what pro lifers are. What they're describing is HRC's religious liberal position. 

More obnoxiousness on BLM though. Because how dare you want a better life for yourself rather than dedicating all of your time and energy to issues that don't even affect you. 

If they're aligned with Trump, or even tolerant of Trump, then no chance; none of those other issues remotely justify a Trump vote anyways. If they've favored his impeachment and removal all along; then they'd be in the possible but quite unlikely pile, depending on what they're pushing on those other views. I've seen far too many 'pro-lifers' that push unconstitutional laws, and that really seem more interested in hurting poor women than actually trying to positively address the difficult situations. In practice I'm unlikely to ever support them because there's nearly always some other candidate with better stances available to vote for where I am.

 Aligned and tolerant are two different things, but that's another issue with liberal self righteousness. Either you're one of them 100%, or you're a trumper. Being pro trump for say, economic reasons means you're bad because you might not be pro trump on everything, but you showed its not a deal breaker. And that's where they hate more moderate people. Either you're extreme like them or you're nothing.

But hey, it's perfectly fine to throw out all economic progress like other users said here, right?

I can understand some aspects of this opinion. Some pro lifers are ridiculously irrational and even before i philosophically became pro choice i recognized that pro life legislation is a net negative and should not be pursued. And if canddiates with better stances exist, sure. But that's the thing. Given how so many libs are willing to abandon economic progress for social issues, the question is essentially asking, what if you had to choose between social liberalism and economic conservatism or vice versa. And the thing is, these guys are all in on social issues and dont care about economics.

I mean, for the record that would apply to me too. I would like someone fairly left wing on most social issues too. As I said, I feel like guns and race this hypothetical candidate gets just about right for me, but on stuff like abortion, yeah, more pro choice. 

Absolutely no.

Look, I’d be happy to have heavier regulations, but the social policies are a big part of why I’ve got the views I do. Absent a better option, yeah, but I’d gag myself in the ballot box.

 At least they're honest.

No because my alternative is almost certainly going to be better on social issues and the same on the rest.

 Not necessarily. Look at, say, forward. Socially moderate, economically left. Given how horrid the centrist wing of the democratic party is, which is most democrats, yeah, if you actually could make real progress on economic issues, they would not be better on other issues.

Then again this particular guy is a moderate if I recall, so he isn't exactly pursuing lofty goals.

If said conservative was fiscal only, maybe. I'm in a weird limbo where I live (rural area) and I do feel as though progressive candidates don't properly represent the county I live in (wildfires and responsible forestry/water rights to name a few local issues) but I can't in good conscience vote conservative. Talk about out of touch... I would however like liberal representatives to listen to what the rural counties have to say. I know I'm harping on it but, we need to be able to log our forests out here. Not clear cutting of course but sustainable logging to bring back a few good paying jobs, and mitigate wildfire risks. As far as water tables are concerned, no problem sharing but the private water company out here needs serious regulation, they charge us out the nose and are about to start metering wells, it's ridiculous.

 Again, fine if it's economics, not on other stuff. And people wonder why I've come to hate liberals.

I'm still waiting for the part where you describe this hypothetical person's progressive views. Because the misogynistic bigoted racist wasn't doing it for me.

 Obnoxiously strong language. Medicare for all isn't progressive?

Would i tolerate them? Yes. Would i ever vote for them over a dem? Fuck no.

Pro-life, and indifferent to BLM completely ruined it for me. Those are non negotiable to me. We can do better than settling for a cup of warm piss.

Im sick to death of this crappy tug of war where we are stuck arguing over who is slightly less shitty.

 This guy is labeled a socialist so, slightly different, but to analyze. Vote over a dem? Dems are socially far left but economically moderate/conservative. 

It's literally asking you to choose between economics and social issues. And you chose social. Again, i can understand pro life, but I feel like the amount of outrage over someone not caring about BLM is ridiculous here. I will never get how liberals and leftists get so uppity over someone not caring about social issues as much as they do, and why that's such a red line. Again, not even anti their goals, just neutral. I look at people neutral on UBI or M4A and I kinda have to wonder if they would support them push comes to shove, but it's better than someone who is outright anti those goals, which the democratic party and in the case of UBI a lot of the left has positioned themselves as.

I'm tired of the tug of war between crappy candidates too, btw. But they seem more than happy to settle if they're voting dem. It just depends on their red lines.

 What does "lukewarm" on BLM mean? He only thinks some black lives matter?

*rolls eyes*

 Except for the anti choice thing, which i agree is a deal breaker for me, you're describing Bernie Sanders.

 And this one gives away another aspect I find insufferable about libs. Abortion thing, okay fine. But describing Bernie in this way really gives some insight to the craplib psyche and shows how effective the clintonite propaganda was. Bernie was very pro BLM, probably one of the most pro BLM candidates. he just didnt circlejerk about it like a caricature of a pharasee from the bible. And yeah he is moderate on guns, but hey, rural vermont. So what?

Then again most of these guys hate bernie so...

People are being very knee-jerk about this, but voting is a tactical choice, and there are issues in play (M4A, global warming) that have a very large consequentialist footprint. So if this person would be the decisive vote for M4A and real action on climate change, and an inconsequential minority opponent of gun control and Roe, then I think I would have to vote for them. It's a nail-biting kind of situation with other election uncertainty and potentially a 6 year term for this person, in the Senate. And if the whip count math is less clear-cut, then the choice is much harder. But if the goods are actual lives saved, and the ills are ineffectually symbolic -- and there's no other way to get the goods -- it seems to me that a vote for this candidate would be morally required. That's different from liking them, of course.

 Wait, an actual nuanced opinion that discussed how tactical the decision is? Maybe this forum isn't doomed after all. I wonder how long this person will last there.

This is tough. My instinct is to say yes, but it depends on the specific issues.

When you start selling off the lived experience of actual human being for fiscal boons, or trading one group's rights for another, that's tough. How much am I willing to sacrifice among the gay people I know and care about in the name of better tax policy? Would I be willing to harm and restrict the rights of the women I know but increase and support the rights of black people I know? If a candidate holds positions that bring all of these things into conflict, it's tough. I'd have to gauge candidate by candidate, I don't think a blanket answer can be given to this.

  Another good one. Amazing how once you get past the most upvoted circlejerky opinions we actually see nuanced discussion. It actually is tough, and it's really contextual and depends on circumstances. 

would probably vote against them, unless the alternative was something equally strange.

But hey... if we end up with a President like you described, I'd work to built bipartisan support where possible, but not at the expense of peoples' lives. I think there's room to work on 2A issues. A reasonable pro-life President would understand that they hold the minority view and use their position to advance a policy that's progressive for their position.

Seems like the person you're describing would be a better GOP candidate than we've had in quite some time. So... could be worse.

 Uh, do they really think the GOP would support someone for climate change action and healthcare? They're literally comic book evil on these issues. 

Not if the other option was a full out progressive. But if it was someone socially right but economically left versus someone socially left but economically right, I’d hold my nose and vote for the former.

 Sure. Fair opinion. No one is saying if you can have it all that you should compromise. 

Hell no. I will never support a conservative politician.

If they're ant-abortion or anti-BLM, they can kick rocks. Their other beliefs are irrelevant at that point.

Democrats need to rally the base and recruit new voters, not give a shit what rural conservatives voters who will never switch sides think.

  Back to the kneejerkiness. Wont even hear out their other opinions. Wow.

Perhaps, although maybe not exactly the example you described. I myself am pro-M4A, pro-GND, but also pro-2A. So if I saw a candidate like that, I would be quite pleased lol.

 Fair opinion.

Of course, it would depend on exact definition and the extent, but absolutely.

 yay nuance!

-----

That said let's sum it up. What have we learned here? That many liberals are insufferable on social issues, believe compromising on them even slightly is a mortal sin, but hey, on economics? Well, sink or swim. Most liberals seem perfectly willing to throw away any gains had on economics, as long as they can take hard line stances on social issues.

I admit, ultimately I would side with the minority who would say it's complicated. I could compromise on guns and BLM, but abortion is tougher for me. Ultimately it depends on what sacrifices are made, and what is gained from it. Ultimately, if I had to vote for a pro lifer to get medicare for all though, i think i would hold my nose from that. I wouldnt like it, but if I had to think about what the net pros and cons would be, I think i could live with that (and then I would quickly use my free healthcare to get snipped).But yeah. That's why it depends. If you are voting for a literal nazi, I can see the arguments here. But the guy described wasn't even a hard line far righter. He was just your standard rural moderate who has some social red lines themselves but could go for healthcare admittedly. 

Quite frankly, we wouldn't even need to have this discussion if liberals would just support economics more firmly. I admit, the tribalism on the left regarding that is getting annoying too (tired of "socialists" telling me UBI is a neoliberal plot to destroy welfare and undermine the left, shut up, shut up, shut up), but these guys seem like they would give away the farm on economics to avoid even mild concessions on social issues. And that's actually a huge reason why I've shifted as I have as of late. I've kind of reached breaking points with liberals where I simply realize many of them are not my allies and my friends, and our priorities are fundamentally different. I know i've bashed liberals for this kind of behavior on here before, but I'm not sure if people thought i was strawmanning or exaggerating. I'm not. These are all real people. I've even argued with them before. I don't any more because I just got fed up with them and got myself banned intentionally (it was worth it), and yeah, they're a huge reason I've shifted as I have in the past year or two on these issues in the first place. I'm just done. I can respect a nuanced exchange and even differing opinions, but I just despise how categorically anti compromise these guys are on their precious social issues, to the point that merely someone who doesn't care is literally hitler, while on economics they're happy to just give the entire farm away. Sickening.

Dems run even more to the center to avoid compromising with progressives

 Yep. That's my take on the situation. So as some of you probably know, democrats, fearing that progressives would tank the full build back better compromise bill, because it's a joke, decided to pass an even more pathetic bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is only infrastructure, and stripped out virtually everything else in it. The other stuff will be voted on later, but let's face it, at this point it will probably fail. 

Basically, this was a middle finger to the left, and saying "hmm, so you don't like moving to the center after being told to move to the center? Well we're going to move so far to the center we're going to pick up republican votes to pass this thing." And they did. 6 progressives voted against it, and 13 republicans voted for it. 

And people wonder why I'm officially "done" with democrats, and I keep ripping on Bernie and the like for trying. They don't care. They would rather screw the left, and give it all to the republicans, than give the progressives what they want. That's how they operate. And that's why I'm done. I'm not gonna even try to work with democrats from now on. Because I will assume that they will behave this way. They're worthless. They pushed compromise im the primary, they compromised more in the general, Biden's original proposals compromised more, then they compromised on that due to manchin and sinema, and when progressives say "enough with the compromise, or we tank the thing", they spit in our faces and compromise more. 

To be fair, this has been an implicit threat all along. Democrats love to say that if we don't support them that we're making ourselves irrelevant and that they'll just ignore us harder and move to the right. And that's what they're doing. I say screw them. Time to build new movements outside of the democratic party. Time to break the duopoly. Everything the Biden administration has done has been a disaster, and spitting in the face of the left, and while I am to the point I don't agree with much of "the left" either since many of those guys are descending rabbit holes of socialism and wokeness that I just can't follow on, I still give them props for trying and respect that they actually believe in something and wanna make the world a better place. 

I mean, basically, if you cave to them, they give you crumbs anyway, so I'm to the point I'm happy just to take my whips. Manchin once said he was comfortable with $0 as a threat to progressives, and you know what? So was I. I'd be happy with no one getting anything if we can't get anything decent. That said, props to the handful of progressives who stood their ground. I know that the media and the democrats will frame it as "see, you stupid progressives? If you don't go along with us you get nothing and you played yourself", but we were essentially getting "nothing" in the first place. Does it matter at this point if we get 3% of what we want vs 10% of what we want? I feel like at some point under 50% or so that number stops mattering. Crumbs vs slightly fewer crumbs.

Idk, if the democrats are so intent on screwing people who want to improve lives, then I'm happy with not even dealing with them. And again, keep in mind, I would've theoretically held my nose for the compromise bill for the child tax credit alone. 

Eventually dems are gonna run so far to the center that it will destabilize american politics and trigger a party realignment. Either the democrats will lose miserably as they did last Tuesday, as the republicans they try to get on board are disloyal voters themselves who *gasp* like republicans, while the left abandons them like rats leaving a sinking ship, or their strategy works, causing the republicans to be forced to move left on economics in order to maintain their dwindling conservative base. Ideally, I'd like to see the dems implode with this full stop, as I'd prefer the left wing party to be both socially and economically left wing, but push comes to shove the alternative can happen. Imagine if the dems move so far center economically it causes brain drain out of the republican party as all the fiscal conservatives leave. Then imagine the GOP flipping to be a socially conservative but economically progressive party. it could happen. It wouldn't be my ideal scenario, but it could happen. That said, my next article is going to discuss the ins and outs of this a bit more as I analyze comments by liberals discussing whether they would vote for socially conservative but fiscally progressive candidates.

Dems freaking out over people losing faith in democracy, and how to fix it

 So, post 2021 election, democrats are in a state of fear, afraid of what's ahead. A new talking point suddenly popping up is talking about a poll in which they point out that anti democratic opinions are taking hold in the country. They point to a poll showing a majority of the republican party believes the 2020 election was stolen, and there is a lot of hand wringing over it about how our democracy is in danger.

Honestly, I'm not surprised, but then again, I understand human psychology more than most people. I mean, a huge question in social psychology after WWII was...why were the Nazis like that? So, they started doing experiments regarding authoritarianism to test if German people were susceptible to authoritarianism. The thing is, they actually experimented on Americans to calibrate their studies before hand, and found that Americans can ALSO become very authoritarian under the right conditions. And it actually scared the crap out of the researchers. The milgram experiment was the experiment I speak of, which tested peoples' willingness to give electrical shocks to people simply by being told to do so. And a lot of people were willing. Other early social psychology experiments talked about tribalism and authoritarianism and the like. There was the zimbardo prison experiment where they split college students into prisoner and guard roles, and simply assigning those roles made the guards act increasingly hostile to the prisoners. They actually had to stop the study before people got hurt. Then you got the asch experiment where people would ignore their own sense of reality to conform to a group. It goes on and on. Human psychology is scarily vulnerable to authoritarianism, tribalism, and conformity under the right scenarios. What is the key factor is the environment. And that's what people need to be afraid of.

The thing is, none of this is new about human nature. The American experiment could become subject to authoritarianism at any time. What keeps it away from it is the environment in which Americans exist. There has always been an authoritarian streak in a lot of people in America, it's just that under the past 80 years or so it's been constrained. People won't remember this since it was a long time ago and isn't often talked about, but before WWII, Nazism was actually quite popular in the United States. Don't believe me? here's proof. Right there in Madison Square Garden in New York City. Boom. What happened? WWII happened. And the new deal happened. And that's what we need to talk about if we want to seriously prevent the rise of authoritarianism in America.

The last time we were at this point was the 1930s. Liberal democracy was under assault from rival worldviews of fascism and communism. Fascism was popular in Europe and of course there was the USSR at the time. So, the powers that be had to act. And what did they do? Well, they did the new deal. The new deal wasn't just about improving lives, but saving liberal democracy from rival systems that seemingly offered a better life. And in doing so, they shifted the overton window away from those extremist ideas. WWII also shifted the overton window away from fascism, since nazism was kind of off the table after we just beat a bunch in an existential war. 

So, post WWII, America was prosperous, and free. But, the authoritarian mentality still existed in American culture, dormant. It was exploited from time to time, such as when Nixon used the southern strategy to dog whistle the racist whites out of the democrats and into the republicans, but it was largely constrained. Now a generation after that, most of the authoritarians are in one party, and they're taking it over. Trump actually ended up being a bit of a psycho, and ended up exploiting the authoritarian tendencies of the populace. And now we might be heading that way again. And democrats are hand wringing.

Well, before I go into how we fix it, as I already kind of gave a model, let me castigate the democratic party once again. It was them who brought us here, to some extent. people wanted change in 2016. Heck, they wanted change since 2008. And the democrats failed to deliver. In 2016, they explicitly slammed the door in the face of people who want change. If we had it, we would have shifted the overton window left, and ensured that conservatism was defeated for a generation. but the dems were so darned obsessed with moving right to win over conservative voters, that they essentially lost parts of their own base. And honestly, in 2020 they didn't learn. They did a red scare with russiagate, and then they tried the same strategy. And they won. But it's failing. Fun fact. Republicans know the democrats' concern trolling is a farce. One thing I've noticed about republicans lately is they love to call the democrats the "democrat party" instead of the democratic party. Why? because they want to hammer home the democrats arent democratic. They're not wrong. I mean, they essentially rig their primaries internally, guiding the race to play out in ways that favor their preferred candidates, and then they basically turn around and suppress the competition. Just a reminder I didnt vote for ANY democrat in 2020, even down ballot, because the democrats removed my favored presidential candidate from the ballot because they were afraid they would steal votes from democrats and forced me to do a write in. And maybe that's why people dont really believe in democracy to some extent. The older I get the more I realize we live in an oligarchy and our elections are a ruse and we have no real choice. But I digress. Obviously I am democratic and I want to fix democracy. Heck, my support for the forward party is based partially on that. Yang has solutions to fix democracy and make it better. And I support those mostly. 

That said, how do we fix this? Well, we need to shift the overton window away from the right where fascism does not have appeal. We need to restore peoples' faith in the system, by making the system actually work. Our system doesnt work. Thats the problem. And people want solutions, and when the democrats dont offer them, they get angry and support republicans who become more and more extreme and unhinged. If we want democracy to actually work, we need to do what FDR did and push an economic package that solves the core economic anxiety that people face. We need to shift the overton window left. Not to socialism, mind you, the ideal overton window is one in which socialism is to the left, and fascism is to the right of acceptable opinions. We had it about right in the 1950s-1970s. Back then, republicans were closer to today's democrats and democrats were more socially democratic. That's what I think is ideal. Having a moderate republican party and a socially democratic democratic party. I don't even mind market socialism. I think that it's fully compatible with liberal democracy. Hard socialism is a no though.

But that's where public opinion should be. When you have parts of the left descend into socialism like has happened since 2016, and parts of the right descend into fascism, thats a problem. And this is kind of where, once again, Yang is right. I didn't really understand this when he first pitched the opinion, but the more I think on it, about the tribalism and extremism in American society today, the more I understand it. And I believe he has the solutions. When Yang says he wants a moderate, he isnt saying he wants something in the middle of the republicans and democrats. Rather, he wants people to stop dehumanizing others and grasping at ideological extremes. If we wanna fix this country, we need to solve the core issues of our time, and break the two party duopoly as it exists. Feckless, weak, but anti democratic democrats are just enabling the right to become more extreme, and the right simply is being allowed to run amok with few checks on them. If democrats are serious about saving democracy, they need to 1) step up to the plate and solve problems and 2) stop being anti democratic themselves. Seriously. We can do it. That's actually kind of why I wanted to shift the overton window back in 2016. And it's why im so anti idpol. Well, one of the reasons. The fact is, we need to de-escalate tensions on social issues, and quietly move the overton window left away from the growing fascist movement.

Democrats have this thing where they like to take on cultural issues head on in an abrasive way. And as someone who has been getting back into advance wars recently, it's like charging your helicopters right into the enemy's anti air. I dont' care if you're sensei and your copters are better, you're still gonna lose. but I digress. The point is, the democrats need to shape up. What they're offering isnt working and if they're serious about stopping republicans, they gotta stop being merely the lesser evil nobody likes.

And that is the problem, isn't it? This grave the dems seem to be in, they dug it themselves. I've warned them all along. But they just kept insisting on doing it. Well, look at where we are. We don't wanna be here. Let's get out of here.

Red wave, what happened?

 Well, last night the democrats got destroyed. VA, a state which went +10 Biden, went red, and NJ almost followed. We could go over the ins and outs of what went wrong and all of the reasons, but I'm just going to get to what I consider to be the crux of the matter: democrats suck. 

I've been saying it for a while. The dems go all in with culture war issues no one cares about, while simultaneously doing nothing to meaningfully improve peoples' lives. Biden was a hard pill to swallow, and no one, outside of the sliver of the electorate that showed up in primaries, wanted him. Even then they basically rigged the primaries via having all the other centrists drop out right before super tuesday to make it happen. Bernie WAS winning. But they wanted Biden so they organized to stop him. 

And Biden is just as milquetoast and worthless as I said he would be. Sure he on paper wants to do some mildly (and I do mean mild) progressive things, but the dude isn't going to actually be the system fixer we need. 

Theres a lot of reasons for this loss. Youngkin was apparently more distanced from Trump, causing those moderates the democrats have been pursing to shift back to the right. There was apparently a controversy over teaching critical race theory in schools that motivated the right against them. And while snarky neolibs will insist this isn't a problem and isn't the governor's job (ran into a few today online), the people don't know that. They vote on party line and feeling. And obviously, there was low turnout. Turnout went way down from 2020, and most of the lost votes were democratic votes. 

The fact was, no one could be bothered to turn out, because why? The democrats were demotivated by all that's been going on. They're not seeing the democrats do anything, so they're like why bother. And then the republicans are fired up over cultural issues.

This is basically what I've been saying all year. Too much identity politics and culture war nonsense, and too little economic policy. When dems have to fight a culture war, they lose. I'm sorry, they do. The way the left wins the culture war is by being relatively moderate, framing the issues libertarianly, and making the right look stupid as they tilt at literal windmills that don't exist. But with the SJW left becoming the seemingly dominant strain, it gives the right a nice big target to attack, and dems do terrible. I was watching NBC last night and they were scratching their heads at why they were losing so many white and male voters. Isn't it obvious? The democrats do nothing to improve those peoples' lives. They shove idpol down peoples' throats, and they act so obnoxiously self righteous. And they learned all the wrong lessons from last night apparently. I'm already seeing the narratives forming. That Americans aren't uncomfortable talking about race and we need to do it more (speak for yourself). That racial ignorance is the reason the dems lost. Yes, blame the voters. The dems love to do that. They love to blame the voters for their own darned losses. You stupid white people railing against CRT, what's wrong with you? Why dont you get educated and vote democrats? CRT is only discussed at college level and higher.

Which is part of the problem. Democrats act like if people were educated on CRT they'd agree with it. Which isn't really true. Take me for instance. White male social science graduate, studied the theory, understand the theory, but has a complex relationship with the theory I've discussed here. I've always given some level of respect to the ideas academically, but the dems suck at messaging. And it is admittedly too high level for the American people. And the way the dems want to teach it in schools isn't about education, but indoctrination. And that turns people off. I understand the theory, but being a white male who is exhausted politically, I don't care. The thing is if you read enough about different theories and models for politics, you start understanding none of them are objective. And while i obviously have favorites, you cant just expect people to become educated and that they'll fall over the stuff. Marxists do the same crap with their "theory". Uh, I understand it, I still dont like it. Why? because it doesn't materially improve my life and because its cynically weaponized against my own interests. No one likes being told they're racist, or sexist, or privileged for merely disagreeing with someone. But the dems throw out those insults like crazy.

Heck, democrats always throw out insults like crazy. I admit I'm not innocent here either. I'm a hot head in political debates, and my track record with civility can be questionable. I go full dillahunty syndrome on people sometimes. It's a fatigue you get after you debate so much, that you just run out of juice. It becomes frustrating. The people are often using bad faith or otherwise hackneyed arguments. You dont wanna respond to the same point 100 times. You get exhausted, sure. But at the same time, the democrats just seem dishonest. They dont seem to understand theres a massive disconnect between themselves and many voters, and seem more intent on blaming the voters themselves.

And there's a lot of that going around too. "Just vote" they say. But we dont like the candidate, we say. They say "it's better than trump/the republicans." I say it doesnt meaningfully improve my life. They say vote anyway. I say no. They start attacking and insulting me for refusing to support their crap candidates. Uh, hello, I am literally a more marginal voter, not that I want to be, but I am, simply because the candidates are so bad. I'd turn out in every election if I felt it mattered. Id vote democrat if I thought I was getting something out of the deal. I'm not. I'm voting for explicit lesser evils who I dont like, and I'm told I have to support them or get a slightly greater evil. It's a joke. And they just don't get it.

I'm seeing democrats sweating for 2024, and I'm going to be honest, 2024 looks BAD for democrats. If the dems lost this bad in VA, and the election came so close that I literally didnt find out who won NJ until I wrote this article, then that's a bad sign. Those are fairly blue states. But the democrats' idpol and suburbanite obsessed strategy has flaws, and this is it. The idpol turns people off, and those moderates will swing back to the right in a heartbeat and only turned out for biden to stop trump. They can win against a polarizing enemy like trump, but otherwise they collapse. I've been trying to tell the dems this for years. I understood back in 2014 watching those mid terms that dems lose because they lack motivation. Because they suck and dont do anything. They dont even try. Thats the kicker. They literally dont even try. And its democrats who stonewall their own progress. If not Biden, then manchin and sinema. 

But yeah, back to 2024. 2022, the dems will lose the house and maybe the senate. 2024, the dems will run Biden or Harris, although support for Biden himself seems weakening and there might be a contested primary. Still, i don't expect much to change. The fact is, there is no one else. Pete Buttigieg maybe. But that's it. The progressive wing has completely collapsed. Bernie is gonna be too old. He's gonna be 82, and while he seems to be in decent health, he would be going into his 90s by the end of this. He's done. And not to mention he kind of lost a lot of his integrity over his backing of biden IMO. Yang left the democratic party, and didn't poll well within it. I think most polls are 2-4% for him? It's a shame, I think his "forward" approach, a mix of social moderation and downplaying of the culture war combined with direct, simple solutions to the country's greatest problems make him the strongest candidate on paper. But the democratic culture is so broken they don't want him, and he left them as a result. The progressive wing has no one else. Nina Turner was an early name, but after watching her fold in the special election in Ohio, I don't think she could win a primary either. The democrats seem to be longing for something different than the joe biden's and kamala harrises of the party, but the party establishment, the propaganda, and the active reliable primary voter base keeps ensuring we get exactly that. Even though everyone else seems to have a strong dislike for these guys. So, honestly? if I had to guess, i think the dems are gonna get destroyed in 2024. They pushed moderation and culture war BS. We got moderation and culture war BS, turns out people don't like moderation and culture war BS, and the same demographics that trump pandered to to win on moderation and culture war BS like republicans better anyway. Surprise surprise. Meanwhile actual lefties and progressives and independents are so demoralized they don't show up. 

 Even worse, democrats are catching flak for stuff that isn't even their fault. COVID as it stands isn't their fault. The economy isn't really their fault either although republicans are quite successfully turning Biden into the next Jimmy Carter (economy wasn't Carter's fault either). People are blaming the supply shortages, the labor shortages, etc., on Biden. Biden didn't do crap. He just inherited a turd of a situation from Trump and it's blowing up on him. 

Anyway, this should be no surprise, coming from me. I mean, I've been kind of going this way all year. I've been saying this all year. I've been saying it in a way for the past 5-6 years honestly. I haven't been happy with the direction of the democrats since 2014ish, and given I joined up in 2012, I've spent more time as a democrat and hating them than i did in actually liking what they're selling. And over the past year, I've just checked out. I support the forward movement for a reason. They'll never win, because people just end up flocking to the democrats no matter how much they loathe them anyway, but hey, I'd rather at least support something I agree with, ya know?

Honestly, the best we can hope for is a 4 way in 2024 between Trumper republicans, anti trumper republicans, democrats, and the yang gang. Maybe then we'll finally see a realignment between the parties. because this isn't working. Politics is broken.