Seattle City Councilwoman
-
The Democratic Party establishment managed to hold on longer than the Republican. The GOP capitulated in 2016. The Democratic establishment held on in 2016 only through the strength (within the party) of the Clinton brand and held on in 2020 largely due to some withdrawals at the key moment before SC. Really they pulled the chute at 500 feet.
Seems highly unlikely they’ll be able to do that in 2024. I’m already worried about who will lead the house in 2021. IIRC Pelosi’s deal was she wouldn’t run for leadership again.
-
@Renauda said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
It won't really matter in the long run, the Trump era will fade and a new Republican movement will arise and prevail. It will have broad appeal and command almost total support.
As a backlash, you mean?
This is what I was trying to articulate above -- not well!
Can you recommend some writers who talk about this?
I found a couple of articles in Pew Research, that show that "Americans are narrowly hopeful about the future of the United States over the next 30 years but more pessimistic when the focus turns to specific issues," and "Most Americans Say There Is Too Much Economic Inequality in the U.S., but Fewer Than Half Call It a Top Priority." The impression is that the trend of one direction over the other is not large. You get the feeling that things could go either way, depending on many things.
I can't recommend anyone in particular, although I am sure there are some discussing this scenario.
My thoughts on the matter come from watching and reading trends. The left is historically factionalised and tends devour itself in the absence of a strong guiding hand. The right while being less ideologically defined, tends towards consolidation although it too can be every bit as dogmatic the left as it moves towards its own extremes.
The predicament the US is facing is that its two party system is undergoing fundamental changes. Neither party base is content to occupy the centre and is instead looking to the more extreme of its membership for direction. Both parties are targetting populist appeal to gain broad support. Essentially, both parties are equally bankrupt of ideas and any sense of morality.
-
@Larry said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
Jon said that??? This I gotta see for myself!!!
Shouldn’t be remotely surprising if you’ve paid any attention to my posts. I repeatedly said I would pull the libertarian lever back when it looked like Bernie was going to win the primary. And I’ve been consistently and loudly critical of woke ideology since it completed its long march through the institutions c. 2012 or so.
-
@Larry said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
Let's see... you're leaning libertarian, yet you would vote for Bernie.......
That's not at all what he said:
I repeatedly said I would pull the libertarian lever back when it looked like Bernie was going to win the primary
Also, I remember Jon being critical of the Wall Street protestors back in the day when drum circles were a thing.
-
The problem with grievance-based discourse (from both parties) is that it makes revolutionary ideas sound appealing.
This country is great. Like truly. Other countries would love to have the problems we have (for the most part). While we need more than incrementalism in a few areas (healthcare costs, inequality, automation) - but we don't need revolutionary change.
But that sort of constructive conversation isn't happening anywhere.
-
The problem with grievance-based discourse (from both parties) is that it makes revolutionary ideas sound appealing.
This country is great. Like truly. Other countries would love to have the problems we have (for the most part). While we need more than incrementalism in a few areas (healthcare costs, inequality, automation) - but we don't need revolutionary change.
But that sort of constructive conversation isn't happening anywhere.
@xenon said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
inequality
There is no inequality where it matters - under the law and opportunity.
None.
Dead, solid exactly equal
And has been for a long time
If you want equality of outcome, try Russia or North Korea, outcomes are equal for all
-
Great comments to read in response to the tweet which began this thread.
Hey Ax, 'ol buddy! Did you read the comments or responses? What did you think? Do you think there were sufficient comments expressing all viewpoints? What percentage did you agree with?
-
The problem with grievance-based discourse (from both parties) is that it makes revolutionary ideas sound appealing.
This country is great. Like truly. Other countries would love to have the problems we have (for the most part). While we need more than incrementalism in a few areas (healthcare costs, inequality, automation) - but we don't need revolutionary change.
But that sort of constructive conversation isn't happening anywhere.
-
@xenon said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
The problem with grievance-based discourse (from both parties) is that it makes revolutionary ideas sound appealing.
Which grievance based discourse do you see from the right?
-
@xenon said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
inequality
There is no inequality where it matters - under the law and opportunity.
None.
Dead, solid exactly equal
And has been for a long time
If you want equality of outcome, try Russia or North Korea, outcomes are equal for all
@Copper naw, there are problems. Running a small biz is harder. Business formation is down.
It’s easier for large companies to capture regulators. There are more parts of the economy becoming “winner takes all”
It’s harder to hold down a blue collar job.
Things are changing - and this creates resentment which in turn creates political instability.
But again - none of the things above require you to tear the system down to tackle.
-
The problem with grievance-based discourse (from both parties) is that it makes revolutionary ideas sound appealing.
This country is great. Like truly. Other countries would love to have the problems we have (for the most part). While we need more than incrementalism in a few areas (healthcare costs, inequality, automation) - but we don't need revolutionary change.
But that sort of constructive conversation isn't happening anywhere.
@xenon said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
This country is great. Like truly. Other countries would love to have the problems we have (for the most part). While we need more than incrementalism in a few areas (healthcare costs, inequality, automation) - but we don't need revolutionary change.
Very true Xenon!! Wise words indeed.
It is hard to understand what you have (and take for granted) when you have never been without.
-
@Copper naw, there are problems. Running a small biz is harder. Business formation is down.
It’s easier for large companies to capture regulators. There are more parts of the economy becoming “winner takes all”
It’s harder to hold down a blue collar job.
Things are changing - and this creates resentment which in turn creates political instability.
But again - none of the things above require you to tear the system down to tackle.
@xenon said in Seattle City Councilwoman:
@Copper naw, there are problems. Running a small biz is harder. Business formation is down.
It’s easier for large companies to capture regulators. There are more parts of the economy becoming “winner takes all”
It’s harder to hold down a blue collar job.
Things are changing - and this creates resentment which in turn creates political instability.
But again - none of the things above require you to tear the system down to tackle.
None of that is even remotely true.
In fact in every case you mention the law requires equality to be enforced, and it is.
The largest corporations in this country are afraid of nothing more than being accused of racism against minorities.
And you don't even have to scare them anymore, they are true believers.
