LogFAQs > #914936726

DarkRoast posted...

I'd say I'm probably more left-wing than right-wing, but I don't consider myself a liberal. Not even sure what I consider myself anymore. It's really hard to identify with either party lately.

It's basically lesser-evilism vs semi-fascism. I guess one is better than the other, but I'd rather have an actual good choice.

I view you as a populist who only posts after 24-hour on-call days.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

by "progression of society", are you referring to the accumulation of wealth in a few hands while everyone else becomes poorer until they starve?

by "slow the progression", do you mean "implement some nice but ultimately ineffectual socdem policies to placate the poor people so they don't stage a revolution"?

and by "disruption of order" do you mean said revolution?

because that's one possible interpretation of what you said.

The answer to all of your questions is no.

The advancement I refer to is the natural progress of a society towards a status in which all citizens have equal rights and opportunities, via broadly popular changes. In the US, that translates to the ending of gerrymandering and the electoral college, removal of voting barriers that prevent registered voters from participating in elections, equal treatment under the law, etc. And of course, welfare programs that enable citizens to prioritize advancement over basic survival.

The above are supported by well over 50% of the US population, yet are not in place largely because of the chaos their implementation would create (mostly for campaign donors).

Slowing the progression is what the US GOP did for most of its existence, until somewhat recently. Historically, they have favored more incremental changes to policies and programs, such as favoring what is now Obamacare when the Clintons proposed a single-payer healthcare system in the 90s.

But starting around the civil rights act and progressing more over time until its crescendo in 2010, the GOP has shifted to a reactionary position somewhere between "there will be absolutely no further progress in this area" and "we should actually rewind and remove some of what has been accomplished." Rather than presenting competing ideas and promoting amendments to democratic party bills to draw policy changes to the right, they ceased participation entirely. This was when we saw use of the procedural filibuster on 100% of bills, including justice appointments, and when the number of bills passed in a session of congress plummeted from 400-500 to 100 or so (and most of these were not consequential).

Such a status is not historically typical, nor is it long-term stable for a political party, except in a system like the US where gerrymandering enables a minority to control the house, and an even smaller minority to control the senate. The senate is more a consequence of an ill-conceived legislative design in our constitution that never considered states might have population variations as wide as today, which in turn is a result of the rapid urbanization of the last 30 years.

So we have to remember--the status quo here in the US is not representative of normal right/left distribution. We have a moderate conservative party and a reactionary party, rather than a traditional left and right.

By disruption of order, I mean riots, such as the LA riots of 1992, large-scale protests such as the nationwide reactions in the black community to recent police brutality, particularly in places like Baltimore, and yes, revolution.

Both the center left and right prefer not to have a revolution. The extreme right would create a police state or counter-revolution to prevent it; the extreme left would support the revolution if it advanced their goals.
---

And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.