We need a new party for the working class. The democrats are no longer that party and it cannot be saved.
You’re right. MAGAxMAHA has absorbed the working class and is in the process of shedding the RINOS. Looks like Dems have scooped the RINOS up
You can’t tax an economy into prosperity, you can’t regulate a nation into prosperity, and you can’t export your industry and become prosperous.
The Democrats and Republicans since about 1965 have worked in concert to offshore industry, tax and regulate domestic businesses out of profitability, printed more money then you can imagine - driving inflation. And the crowning jewel of all of this was killing to gold standard, with a nice improvement to the display of the crown through implementation of Free trade.
If we had a Fair trade arrangement - that allowed for Tariffs that explicitly were put in place to undermine the value of subsidizing foreign production that is exported to your nation, we would have a very different story. If we had an explicit way or costing up production that is done to the detriment of environmental standards - China and such would have had actual pressure to clean up their environmental standards.
Lets explore something that demonstrates the missunderstanding:
I want to talk about China, It’s National Security concern, and Renewables. And yes - these three things are linked HEAVILY.
A lot of people who are pro Renewables will point to China: They can do it. And sure - they can. But what they entirely miss out on, is that to China Renewable energy is THE ONLY OPTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. And Energy independence is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIALLY if you want to be a global power. Energy independence allows the nation to be more aggressive without risk of embargo - for if China were to engage militarily in Taiwan, the shipping lanes in and out of china could be put under blockade, western insurers would basically kill the option to use them to ensure the ships going to/coming from the region - and that would dramatically reduce the amount of oil/gas coming into the nation. It would also limit food entering the nation.
See: A Nation like Canada, or the US, who are each are (or capable of being) food AND energy independent - you can’t exactly siege them. While the last several decades manufacturing in these nations has been lacking, these nations also have tremendous mineral resource availability if they ever choose to start exploiting it at scale again: China has none of this.
Traditionally, this is why China has a strong incentive to facilitate the power of their Empire through Trade (ex. Silk Road). Because they have such need of importing food (especially over the last couple of decades), trade is the only option China has for expanding it’s influence. China CAN NOT use military force without fear of retribution that literally starves out it’s populace of energy, and food. Basically: China is vulnerable to a nation wide siege. And China’s potential greatest Rival: The US, has the absolute means to do this.
So, in order to solve ONE of these problems, China needs Energy Security through renewable. Oddly enough - in the mid term, as China’s populace begins to shrink it will become feasible for China to become food independent as well. Once that occurs, we may very well see China become more aggressive militarily.
Now: Take that same principle and apply it to EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL ISSUE.
When you start to see the agenda’s being pushed - and start ripping down and looking at the underlying motivations which come down to “we don’t want to die” and a couple other core ideas - each of which is very immediate - what we find is both Republicans, and Democrats are prone to ignoring the details in favour of pushing their agenda.
See: Climate change is very much real - the only question is, how much is it human caused? See - the big forest fires in Western Canada/US come down to a couple of things that are piling up over the last 5 or so years. 1. Beavers killed in massive quantities through the 1700’s and 1800’s. 2. Then we have massive fire suppression. 3. Then we have clear cutting of forests. Beavers seems odd - but beavers build damns out of wood, wet wood takes A LONG time to dry, like - from green wood to dry we are talking a year of air drying in near ideal conditions per inch of thickness and the beaver damns are… wet, covered in part by silt, and it’s deep. From the time the water ways start re-routing we are probably talking like 100-150 years for that material to dry out, break down and rot, and otherwise cease helping to maintain moisture in the area. When you suppress fires heavily - underbrush builds up and as it dries, becomes perfect fuel for a forest fire. Then you have the clear cutting which accelerates the drying of the area out. Look at the time lines and: Yep, forest fires will probably remain a problem for another decade or so.
What is going to fix the forests is: Removal of artificial damns (more fish in the water ways), Recovery of Beaver populations (they slow water ways and redirect them - they don’t stop them and control them the same way artificial ones do), and ceasing clear cut in favour of selective cuts and thinning (doing it this way does cost more per log, but - it actually can help the forest grow more lush, and a more limited area of forest support more life as more shrub and such is capable of growing in a way that allows safe spaces for wild life while providing food sources in the form of berries etc).
You know what WILL NOT fix the forest fire situation? Fighting carbon emissions. But that is exactly the argument.
I don’t see republicans, or democrats arguing for sensible long term models for dealing with the problems in a sensible way that can actually solve the problem. I see radical climate denial, and radical human caused arguments - and they aren’t useful, nor helpful but it’s what the media focuses on, it’s what gets spouted, because: It’s easy.
Good news, you’ll all be able to sit out the next one as well!
For a non-American this thread and other like this are hilarious: the people who spent the last year campaigning “Vote Not Trump” now blame everybody else but themselves for how their strategy of having a candidate who did nothing to appeal to voters and sold fear of the other instead, failed miserably.
So they post tons of such “it’s the fault of everybody else” memes as topics were they and other members of the tribe make posts with wild ass reasons for why it really is everybody else’s faults and responding to such posts from others by basically saying “yeah, you’re so right”, like one gigantic circle jerk, pretty much a continuation of what they were doing for a whole fucking year - a big fat circle jerk whilst not paying attention to anybody else - only now they’re doing it with sad faces.
Sure, it’s the 14 millions who stayed home that are to blame, not the massive incompetence of the DNC and the mindless tribalist muppets trading dumb Trump and Vance memes whilst thinking that their “leaders” deserved a win merelly for wearing the right pin on their jacket and not being Trump, without needing to actually have policies that appealed to their natural voters.
“Bloody natural Democrat voters, not going to polls and doing what they’re supposed to do!”
What a heady, heady mix of stupidity and sense of entitlement.
Reminds me of the whole saying: “Only two things are infinite - the Universe and Human Stupidity - and we’re not sure about the first”
Here’s the thing though - more than one thing can be true at the same time (some people even say that three things can be true at the same time - shoking, I know).
DNC incompetent? Sure.
How about not voting against a fascist because “DNC incompetent”? Sounds like “a heady mix of stupidity and sense of entitlement”.
Sincerely, A fellow non-American
You’re participating in the same circle jerk.
You’ve concluded that Trump is a huge Fascist and a danger beyond all other considerations (but not the Democrats, even though they’re giving weapons to an ethno-Fascist regime committing Genocide which is literally “supporting Fascism”) and you reached that conclusion from consuming Democrat propaganda in places like Lemmy with no actual use of skepticism, so now you repeat it.
Meanwhile all those people who don’t think like you and all the posters whose posts you read here, had very different levels in the like-hate Trump scale, and the like-dislike Democrats one, and the trust-distrust what the Democrats/Republicans say scales, the politically engaged scale, the thinking that my vote makes a difference to my life scale, the what matters to me most in life scale and other such scales in human belief and behaviour that together add up to make them or not go vote and for whom they vote, which in this election also included things like the flexibility or inflexibility of one’s principles thanks to the Democrats activelly breaking a really strong set of principle for lots of people when they supported with weapons the commiting of a Genocide in first Gaza and now also Lebanon.
The “incompetence” was the Democrats with their words and actions targetting a point in all those scales that turned off a lot more people that it turned on. The 14 million less Democrat votes make it undeniable that it wasn’t Trump that conviced those votes to flip, it was the Democrats that failed at convincing enough people to vote for them, so clearly their words and actions turned off from voting a lot of people.
The “entitlement” is the idea that everybody is equally politically aware as you, trusting about what the Democrats say of Trump as you, fearful of Trump as you, trusting that voting maters as you and so on. I’ve been a member of two different political parties over the years (in two different countries) and this blindness is incredibly common amongst party members: such strongly politically active and highly tribalist people just don’t get it that most of voters don’t think like them, not even close and it gets worse when they end up in circle jerks like the one here in Lemmy during the US Presidentials - they basically just strengthen each other’s beliefs in that what’s right or wrong, what will work or not work to help their side and what people think or don’t think, all with no actual proof being involved just the say so of like minded people, a pretty straighforward “groupthink” situation.
(In fact it was my experience with canvassing and leafletting in those two parties and countries that opened my eyes to the reality that in terms of engagement and trust in politics most people are nowhere like you and me.)
Even more “entitlement” is the idea that your values, forecasts and interpretation of the world are the right ones and those of the ones who didn’t vote are wrong, then compounded with the idea that others should just do as you think they should and if they don’t they’re wrong (all of which on display in this meme and all the type of posts here blaming the 14 millions) - this a pretty straightforward “I know best and others should follow my lead”, pure entitlement.
The “stupidity” is that the kind of people that have been engaging in this sort of thinking and posture are unable to, now that it has been shown beyond doubt that is complete total bollocks, review their own beliefs, behaviour and ideas in light of it. Instead they just blame everybody else like self-deluded simpletons.
Lets be honest: The Not trump vote, probably made the election results as close as it was. And that might be difficult for some to wrap their head around - trump is unlikable, but: To anyone dealing with the fall out of certain choices Biden made attacking trump era policies (I’m thinking of one in particular), it’s a bit of a no brainer. This brings us to three key issues that are causing problems in US politics, but western politics in general:
-
The Stay in Mexico agreement is the perfect example of how Opposing political representatives have a “everything the opposition does is mostly evil and bad, and it needs to be killed as soon as possible” - and this goes for EVERYTHING. If we could have sane, nuanced discussions and come to agreements and policies we would see a LOT less whip lash, and a LOT MORE cooperation. But people who think they have the moral high ground - doesn’t matter the side - uses that as a justification for their actions, no matter how harmful those actions are. To say that illegal immigration is a problem is an understatement - it creates downward pressure on ceertain wages, which is then used as justification because hard working americans don’t want piss poor wages.
-
We have seen migration problems bleed into regional crime issues, tent cities, and so on.
-
There are a handful of very democrat cities that are suffering dramatically from catch and release policies to the point that corperations that provide necessary essential services to make a city viable are leaving the city. They are simply closing up shop. And the attitude from the democrats is not to solve the underlying problem - it’s to try to make it illegal to close up shop in the city or area. Well: The only other option is to drive up prices, or basically make it impossible to get in and out without exactly what you have paid for.
All of this comes to a reality that we have seen a march towards Institutional Authoritarianism for DECADES, since about 1970… well, a little sooner, but if you look at a lot of shifts you are going to find that about 1965 through to about 1975 is a big shift in a lot of governance decisions, and this is no different. More, and more federal agencies were created - and laws were more and more written such that it was agency rules that dictated the specifics instead of clear written law by congress. In function, it was a divestment of power from Elected officials to Appointed agencies - and over time, the Bureaucracy has been ever more empowered to dictate the direction of many of these organizations, not the elected officials or congress: And yes, Democrats are the biggest fault in this, though republicans are… barely better in this regard.
So: How do we fix this?
The answer is: Smaller government. Simpler regulations are cheaper and easier to be in compliance with, and require less resources to audit. Simpler taxes are this with added benefits - in that, by simplifying, you crush the legal loopholes used to hide money from scrutiny. And part of the simplification is you remove basically everything that is eligible as a tax credit.
And this applies for EVERY SINGLE regulatory body, every government agency, all of it.
You can’t tax a nation into prosperity, you can’t regulate it into prosperity. You can tax a society into equality by making everyone miserable - but since the politicians are human beings as well, you can bet they will NOT be living a miserable life meaning it will never happen. Those two things are the core of stratifying a society - and again, they have increased in count and size consistently. And if you think taxing the rich is a great idea - income tax on the rich was the first income tax in the US, levied to pay the debts of the civil war. Pretty soon governments decided that taxing everyone else would be better then taxing just the rich: After all, it’s just fair… right? And pretty soon, the regulations, and rules shifted such that the rich pay significantly less as a portion of their income as does literally everyone else: Oops?
It’s almost like Equal opertunity serves society better then trying to force equitability. It’s almost like Free association, is better then trying to force everyone to associate. It’s almost like Freedom from government oversight is better then a government up in every bit of your business. And it’s like Free trade is good for the wealthy - and bad for about everyone else in the long term: Because it’s not about YOUR benefit, it’s a bout the owner classes benefit.
I think it would be obvious after 4 decades of Neoliberalism that you can’t deregulate your way into prosperity and in fact the very opposite happens: you end up with consumers constantly swindled, widely sold products that cause long term problems like cancer, all manner of systemic problems having grown uncontrollably (most notably Negative Externalities) and lots of markets turned into cartels and monopolies (with prices up, quality down and improvement stopped) - enshitification is the product of deregulation, as is the housing market bubble, the internet access local monopolies in large parts of the US (and associated high prices for shit service compared to the rest of the World) and a lot of other things.
“Small government” is a content-free slogan rather than a solution: absolutely, in some areas there is too much “government” (for example, the oversized military spend), yet in others there is too little (a National Health Service would literally make Healthcare in the US consume half of what it does in GDP terms so “big government” there would actually be the smart solution business-wise). It’s a problem of how Government is managed, which is a hard thing to do and solve and were the devil is in the details, not just a simple sounding “solution” of “just make it smaller” that sounds good but solves nothing.
Migration is a complex problem. I think that legal immigrants should be treated as guests because they were literally invited in, but that does not extend to illegal ones.
Immigration (as an economic strategy of a country) can indeed be a problem, especially if it’s done too fast and with low integration because whilst immigrants bring themselves as workers, they also bring their needs for products and services and that’s more works that needs to be done or in other words, more jobs - so when they arrive they are workers competing for jobs but over time they also cause more jobs to be created because they too are consumers buying products and services which have to be produced by even more workers - whilst the low integration is a problem because of cultural clashes between the immigrants and the locals (maybe more of a problem in Europe than the US) because people coming from different countries don’t have the same assumptions as the locals on how on is supposed to behave in certain situations (some being small details and other much bigger) and hence can behave in ways that other see as weird or even anti-social, which in large numbers generates conflict. With time living in a new country an immigrant will adjust to be a lot more like the locals, but if the influx of immigrants is too many in too little time there are too many clashes with those freshly immigrated who haven’t learned to behave more like the locals and people in a host country end up feeling that immigrants are unpleasant people , even bad people.
Immigration (the legal kind, approved by Governments) is being used to paper-over flaws in the way a country is being managed (for example, in my own country politicians caused massive house price inflation and other problems, mainly affecting young adults, so the end result is lower birth rates and hence an aging population, which is then made up with immigration, and this is so extreme that in this country literally half of university graduates leave the country and then they’re replaced with immigrants with much lower educational levels) plus it’s massively good for the wealthy (both because it increases worker competition for jobs when they arrive and because it eventually pushes up the size of the Economy as a whole, and whilst normal people’s prosperity relates to the size of the Economy per-capita, the wealthy are the ones taking slices from the whole of the Economy so for them and them only, growing the Economy by adding more people is a gain), so problematic Immigration is really a consequence of problems at a political level (and that includes Corruption) - the country is not being managed for the good of most people and high Immigration is both part of that directly (it makes the Wealthy wealthier) and indirectly because it’s used to paper over problems caused by that political mismanagement (like in my country young adults leaving or having fewer children because life is way too expensive for them here and salaries are low, so then immigrants are imported because there is a lack of workers).
Immigrants themselves, however (as I say, the legal kind, hence people like you and me who were invited and changed their whole lives and invested time and effort in the country they came to) shouldn’t be treated as the problem - they’re just people doing their lives the best they can in a perfectly legit way. Look at the Politicians for the people to blame for Immigration reaching problematic levels.
Anyways, the more general point I’m making is that a lot of the problems you see have been created by very much local people in positions of power doing what’s best for themselves and for those who will pay them (and most definitely politicians in the US are Corrupt as fuck), and afterwards scapegoating the problems they themselves caused on something or somebody else and the easiest target there is are the most powerless people in the country (who don’t even have a right to vote) - immigrants.
I think we are on the same page as Immigration: Can be good, too much is generally bad, and the Immigrants unfortunately get flack when the problem is the government. And unfortunately - fixing the problem is going to suck for a wide number of prospective immigrants. What so many on the left don’t seem to get: It is not the American tax payers job to give a rats ass about people who WANT to move to the US. It is the US’s duty to ensure the people being allowed to come in WILL BE a NET BENEFIT to the society. And this means: They must end up being a net contributor. As it stands - we see government funds going to support migrants illegal or legal. We see growing crime rates - with information coming out that statistics were manipulated purposefully or accidentally to look better: But the truth wins out.
Smaller Government - not small government - I want to clarify this: I don’t think a small government works. I mean, if you are in a hamlet where everyone knows everyone, everyone comes together to solve issues as they crop up in a big town hall that encompasses everyone: Sure, small government works. But we are talking about an entity that has to deal with hundreds of millions, over a vast area, with various regional concerns and interests… it’s a NIGHTMARE. But Big government is also not the answer.
When I talk about reduced regulation - I’m not talking NO regulation. I mean: If you want to tax - flat rate it, have it low, get rid of as many deductions as you reasonably can. No longer do you have “I pay 35% income tax in my bracket but have 23000$ in deductions” - instead you have “I pay 20% tax rate on everything made over 30,000$”. And that can work - really damn well. You can do it for business as well - first, I dunno, 500,000$ in revenue isn’t taxed, at all - anything over 500k is taxed at 3%. I know - insanely low. But a company right now that makes 50 billion in revenue through tax games and loop holes can end up paying 0%… and that is more common then not when you get into large corporations. So: Simplify the tax code. People will be mad at first, until you state “This will help small business by reducing their tax burden, while ensuring large corperations like Google, Microsoft, Wallmart, and so on will pay their share for the benefits they reap for operating within this nations economy. We understand that some of them may feel the need to pass the costs on - but we strongly feel the market can, and will be better able to compete with these entities as a result - which will, in time get you better paying jobs, better prices on your products, and more option in where you shop”. And for once - the argument that corperations are greedy assholes might have some merit.
Why I like Medium Sized Governments
Maybe I should define what I mean.
If small Government is one that does basically nothing, and Big Government is one that expands itself whenever it wants to do more - then Medium Government is a government that looks at it’s current activity list and decides: Is any of this non-critical? Can we simplify and attain the objective?
to me: That is what government should be constantly doing - If it has staff pushing paper around for all intent and purpose, and that paper needs 5 signatures, and it needs 8 audits before it’s approved: Why? Can you do it with 2 audits, and 2 sign offs? Well: Probably. And considering the sheer amount of errors and mistakes that make it through the overly bloated systems we have today - my guess is less is actually more, and the entire reason? Because with less - people are forced to take ownership: They can’t just pass on the buck, they are accountable to what they sign off on, what they do.
And so we get to the core of it: Big Government is accountable to no one and no one person is accountable to anyone. Small Government does so little it doesn’t worry about accountability. And so, we get to another reason why medium sized governments are better: They are, by their nature, far more accountable to the people.
You don’t get to have a “perfect” candidate. Most of the time, your choices are between which choice you dislike the least. And when the choices are between Harris and another 4 years of Donald farking Trump . . . well holy jumping shitballs . . . that should have been the easiest choice in the world.
Fark EVERYONE who made this possible. And enjoy your precious little “protest vote” Dems. This is your fault, too.
No its the DNC’s fault. The onus is on them to win votes. I voted for Harris, but i wasnt excited to do so. That lack of excitement kept people home. Harris ran to the right and didnt give a fuck about winning leftists or the working class, banking on Liz Chaney to win her Republican votes. It didnt work. The dems need to focus on being progressive, not being slightly less worse than Republicans in the grand scheme of things.
Your assignment of blame assumes that most people shouldn’t be involved in their democracies at all. But that’s kinda not how democracies are supposed to work. For the people, by the people.
No doubt, the parties and the system share a large degree of the blame and they’re extremely far away from being perfect — but the notion that politicians have to come to you and dazzle you as a citizen is not excusable either.
I don’t mind progressives staying home in 2016 to send the message to the DNC that a more progressive candidate was needed.
What I have a problem with is those same progressives showing up for Biden in record numbers in 2020, which sends a conflicting message to the DNC that you do need to put up a white moderate against Trump, and then staying home in 2024 when another moderate is on the ticket.
I hear you Bernie bros, I wish Bernie had been on the ticket in 2016 as well, but we’ll never know whether he would have beat Trump in the general. I would have rather given Trump four more years in 2020, then have to still deal with him now.
If he had just won in 2020, then we wouldn’t have had a violent insurrection that WILL happen again because it was validated by re-electing this guy and failing to hold him accountable.
Now it’s both totally unclear whether a progressive candidate could actually win in the general, and we have to deal with Trump until 2028. If the Democrats put up a progressive candidate like an AOC for 2028 and still lose… Then we’re completely fucked and would have to swing moderate again in 2032… would progressives still stay home out of protest if it’s shown that progressive policies are unpopular in the general election? Or would progressives finally agree to get behind a moderate candidate?
To be clear, I hope the Democratic primaries for 2028 do yield a more progressive candidate, and that they do win the general, but this is a really dangerous gamble. I hope the nation, world and vulnerable groups can hang on while we see if it will pay off.
I’ve been wondering if would be better off if McCain or Romney had won. Not that they would be better than Obama but questioning if that time-line would have avoided Trump. Fuck that’s depressing.
And I bet Obama has nightmares about that event where he made a joke at Trump’s expense.
