1. You. as a writer, shouldnt be so defensive. Rule one of writing. Thats why a Letters to the Editor isnt really a good way to engage. It can get real huffy, and leads people simply not to bother. Then you get groupthink. And people like me who disagree with some of what you say simply turn away because we have no interest in snarky responses on your main page. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am not saying you shouldnt respond at all, even on the main page. What I am saying is that responding without proof, with circular assumption and advesarial defense isnt a great idea. As I will mention later. the assumptions you make are not guarenteed to be accurate.
And I dont need to be here, paying for the priviledge.
I am here to interact with those I disagree with, thoughtfully, AS WELL as agree. The single biggest issue I have with you guys is your circuitous logic based on assumption and the arrogance such responses connote. The former is who you are and have a right to be, but since I am paying for this. it seems like your responses to me should not showcase the kind of arrogance this comment comes off as. It will be the reason I leave and it has been the reason that centrists will continue to lose.
It is simply arrogant to suggest people should have voted fot Hillary for whatever reason you give. Prime facie is an argument that wins elections. You got to win over people. too. It is also arrogant to blame others for their choices if they dont align with yours, no matter how much you grouse about some "stabbed-in-the-back. loet cause" narrative. You win votes, you dont demand them.
If we are being honest with ourselves, we can admit that Biden only won because Covid made the economy suffer and Ts horrid response to it. I HATED T, as I am sure you do. But people dont like to change course midstream. They did it toward Clinton because of a bad economy, as they did toward Reagan. Thats what actually matters to voters. If you enact policies that avoid the worst in downturns, you get rewarded, sometimes, if you demonstrate it like, say, FDR did. You fail, you get replaced. Therefore. all the centricism and undue caution (there are many progressive paths that lack any sense of caution, btw) in the world will never and has never been rewarded because, tada, it leads to nothing. Centricism has no policy perscriptions of its own, I am sorry. At best, it tries to.moderate from others. like the health care policies that were right wing to start. And people dont vote for nothing, for inaction. Because we all pay taxes, so it is sensible to either expect results (actual public rather than public/private) or to lower them. The later has won out time and again because the former is abandoned by overcautious centricists. And we NEED the former, no better example than climate change But dont believe me. US History backs me up. But please. continue to blame others for what people like Hillary couldnt achieve.
2. We are a representative government. Some areas are more right than others. People should be represented by those who reflect their thinking.
But your argument is both circular and.temporal, not dynamic. A couple recent cases of how things can change fast. Not all that long ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. And marijuana got shot down in California, as did gay marriage. Today. a gay husband can pick up joints for a family party. My point is generational thinking changes. Nixon passed laws that would be unthinkable today. Same thing. Roe vs. Wade? There you go.
So you are basing your framing on prejudicial assessments. If you preceed from such prejudices, you are defeating yourself. Centrism is failing to get things done that need doing. All that talk of this country's character, if followed out, means climate policy is doomed. It literally cant be. So we have an unnatural stasis, borne of assumption and the stiffling that assumption tends to generate, that favors the wealthy wildly, that WILL breakdown because the conditions inherent to it will ultimately make no sense to voters.
This will lead people toward losing hope. and others to turn to strongpeople to get it done, as it has countless times before. Your framework ultimately denies that solutions are possible. And that, my friend. is a recipe for ruin.
To Justin's point - there is a dark underbelly of White Privilege/ Class Privilege on the Far Left. Many Leftist in America exposes idealistic beliefs and goals with no concern for practicality. The reason is that most far leftist are well heeled intellectuals and writers who are mostly shielded from the worse aspects of a bad idea or they know that frankly being white (and usually not queer or a woman) will protect them.
This is in response the the "Fascism makes the rains run on time" and "the undeniable fact is fascism often gets things done, as much as they terrorize and oppress" comment'
The idea that it "makes the trains run on time" is the oldest MYTH in the book about Fascism. People always like to make that claim, but that is absolutely and demonstrably untrue. Fascism as a system is universally corrupt and incompetent, and Fascist government are rife with cronyism and graft. The ONLY thing Fascism ever actually "gets done" is the part about oppressing and terrorizing its victims, who get saddled with all the blame for its failures. In Fascist governments people are not promoted to higher positions of power based on their competence, but only based on their loyalty to ideology or to those at the top.
"In terms of Democrats and message, yes, I agree. They need to get a hell of a lot better going into 2024."
Alas, that same sentence would be true no matter which of the past 40 years you put at the end.
I have two reposts.
1. You. as a writer, shouldnt be so defensive. Rule one of writing. Thats why a Letters to the Editor isnt really a good way to engage. It can get real huffy, and leads people simply not to bother. Then you get groupthink. And people like me who disagree with some of what you say simply turn away because we have no interest in snarky responses on your main page. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am not saying you shouldnt respond at all, even on the main page. What I am saying is that responding without proof, with circular assumption and advesarial defense isnt a great idea. As I will mention later. the assumptions you make are not guarenteed to be accurate.
And I dont need to be here, paying for the priviledge.
I am here to interact with those I disagree with, thoughtfully, AS WELL as agree. The single biggest issue I have with you guys is your circuitous logic based on assumption and the arrogance such responses connote. The former is who you are and have a right to be, but since I am paying for this. it seems like your responses to me should not showcase the kind of arrogance this comment comes off as. It will be the reason I leave and it has been the reason that centrists will continue to lose.
It is simply arrogant to suggest people should have voted fot Hillary for whatever reason you give. Prime facie is an argument that wins elections. You got to win over people. too. It is also arrogant to blame others for their choices if they dont align with yours, no matter how much you grouse about some "stabbed-in-the-back. loet cause" narrative. You win votes, you dont demand them.
If we are being honest with ourselves, we can admit that Biden only won because Covid made the economy suffer and Ts horrid response to it. I HATED T, as I am sure you do. But people dont like to change course midstream. They did it toward Clinton because of a bad economy, as they did toward Reagan. Thats what actually matters to voters. If you enact policies that avoid the worst in downturns, you get rewarded, sometimes, if you demonstrate it like, say, FDR did. You fail, you get replaced. Therefore. all the centricism and undue caution (there are many progressive paths that lack any sense of caution, btw) in the world will never and has never been rewarded because, tada, it leads to nothing. Centricism has no policy perscriptions of its own, I am sorry. At best, it tries to.moderate from others. like the health care policies that were right wing to start. And people dont vote for nothing, for inaction. Because we all pay taxes, so it is sensible to either expect results (actual public rather than public/private) or to lower them. The later has won out time and again because the former is abandoned by overcautious centricists. And we NEED the former, no better example than climate change But dont believe me. US History backs me up. But please. continue to blame others for what people like Hillary couldnt achieve.
2. We are a representative government. Some areas are more right than others. People should be represented by those who reflect their thinking.
But your argument is both circular and.temporal, not dynamic. A couple recent cases of how things can change fast. Not all that long ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. And marijuana got shot down in California, as did gay marriage. Today. a gay husband can pick up joints for a family party. My point is generational thinking changes. Nixon passed laws that would be unthinkable today. Same thing. Roe vs. Wade? There you go.
So you are basing your framing on prejudicial assessments. If you preceed from such prejudices, you are defeating yourself. Centrism is failing to get things done that need doing. All that talk of this country's character, if followed out, means climate policy is doomed. It literally cant be. So we have an unnatural stasis, borne of assumption and the stiffling that assumption tends to generate, that favors the wealthy wildly, that WILL breakdown because the conditions inherent to it will ultimately make no sense to voters.
This will lead people toward losing hope. and others to turn to strongpeople to get it done, as it has countless times before. Your framework ultimately denies that solutions are possible. And that, my friend. is a recipe for ruin.
To Justin's point - there is a dark underbelly of White Privilege/ Class Privilege on the Far Left. Many Leftist in America exposes idealistic beliefs and goals with no concern for practicality. The reason is that most far leftist are well heeled intellectuals and writers who are mostly shielded from the worse aspects of a bad idea or they know that frankly being white (and usually not queer or a woman) will protect them.
This is in response the the "Fascism makes the rains run on time" and "the undeniable fact is fascism often gets things done, as much as they terrorize and oppress" comment'
The idea that it "makes the trains run on time" is the oldest MYTH in the book about Fascism. People always like to make that claim, but that is absolutely and demonstrably untrue. Fascism as a system is universally corrupt and incompetent, and Fascist government are rife with cronyism and graft. The ONLY thing Fascism ever actually "gets done" is the part about oppressing and terrorizing its victims, who get saddled with all the blame for its failures. In Fascist governments people are not promoted to higher positions of power based on their competence, but only based on their loyalty to ideology or to those at the top.