this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
411 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3167 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

As an old guy, I'd have to agree, though as a leftist turned anarchist, I don't give much of a fuck.

I think back though on the Republicans of my youth, and it really was a notably different party.

It's sort of weird to phrase it like this, but they were assholes with principles. I mean - they were shallow, bigoted assholes then too, but it was more common then for them to still be like the old '50s All-American cliche - patriotic, proud, moral, hard-working, honest... conservative in the old sense of the word. I didn't agree with them at all but at least they had a relatively coherent, if shallow and ignorant, ideology that they generally actually lived by.

Somehow though, especially over the last 20 years or so, they've morphed into this bizarre and startlingly toxic mix of psychopaths, hypocrites and grifters. They have no principles at all really - just things and people that they hate - and it's not even vaguely about trying to accomplish things that they sincerely (if mistakenly) think will make the world a better place, but just about fucking over everyone else. And even themselves, if they can colorably believe that by doing so they'll manage to fuck someone else over even more.

I sincerely believe it's a sort of collective mental illness, and truth be told, I think it can only lead to the collapse of western civilization, and the US in particular. There's nothing really that can stop it. It's effectively a closed loop in which greedy psychopaths fuck things up for their own profit and privilege, ignorant psychopaths look for someone to blame for the fact that things are fucked up, power-hungry psychopaths point them at some vulnerable fringe group and tell them that it's all their fault, then while everyone's distracted, the greedy psychopaths fuck things up even more. And 'round and 'round it goes, like a turd circling a toilet bowl. And there's only one way that can end.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

There's nothing really that can stop it.

Things that can stop it:

  • The passage of time, Republicans skew older*
  • The death of religion, the irreligious are unlikely to vote Republican* and Americans are moving away from religion
  • Education, those with degrees tend to vote Democratic*
  • Election reform that doesn't give outsized power to rural states
  • Legal consequences for lying to the public in the guise of news
  • Ranked choice voting that allows for viable political competition from other parties both on the right and left

*https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/demographic-profiles-of-republican-and-democratic-voters/

What does the opposite of stopping it:

  • Fatalism that makes the good people who outnumber the bad not show up to vote
[–] Hector_McG@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
  • Fatalism that makes the good people who outnumber the bad not show up to vote

It’s the same as the “all politicians are the same” moan.

No, they’re not. It’s the crooked ones that want you to believe that they’re all the same, because that’s what keeps the crooked ones from being voted out.

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

It should be noted that the last three of those things require the exercise of authority to enact, and that authority is vested in people and institutions that flatly will not exercise it in pursuit of things that will in any way undermine their privilege or that of their wealthy cronies and patrons, and all of those things would do just that.

This is where it becomes relevant that the Democrats are only relatively less corrupt than the Republicans. They feed at the same corporate trough as the Republicans - they just have to, and do, play a somewhat different game to stay in office and maintain their privilege.

The Democrats have already demonstrated that when they have uncontested power - the presidency and congressional majorities - they will still find a way to fail to actually deliver. That's not just supposition - it's established fact. It's what they've already done. There's certainly no reason to believe that they're going to do any differently in the future.

Now that's not to say or imply that I disagree with you fundamentally. The first half of your list would at least slow the decline and putting Democrats in office would be broadly better than putting Republicans in office.

But the Democrat establishment, and the DNC in particular, is too corrupt and too compromised to provide more than token opposition to the oligarchy.

Elsewhere in this thread, a poster wrote of the possibility of the Republicans self-destructing snd the Democrats fragmenting. I don't think that's particularly likely, but it is attractive, since it would serve not only to eliminate the most overtly corrupt and destructive party but to provide a rallying point for those who call for genuine reform - the handful of actually decent politicians of the AOC/Sanders type could potentially have some real influence instead of just being lone voices made ineffectual by their subservience to a well-established and thoroughly corrupt party hierarchy.

Again though, I don't think it's at all likely.

[–] CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Election reform that doesn't give outsized power to rural states

I completely agree with you about voter apathy, but this one in particular I don't know how you get past. You need 2/3rds just to get an amendment for it up for a vote that you then need 3/4 of each state to pass. As long as a quarter or more of states are rural we're kind of screwed on that one. I don't see it happening in my lifetime at least.

The rest are spot on. Also, Jack Fucking Smith. It's not just the news that needs consequences.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I’m an old guy who also turned anarchist. I unfortunately agree with you. But I’m gonna fight the fascism as long as I can. These kids deserve better.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well… maybe so. This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it—that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable. The tragedy of all this is that George McGovern, for all his mistakes and all his imprecise talk about “new politics” and “honesty in government,” is one of the few men who’ve run for President of the United States in this century who really understands what a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon. McGovern made some stupid mistakes, but in context they seem almost frivolous compared to the things Richard Nixon does every day of his life, on purpose, as a matter of policy and a perfect expression of everything he stands for. Jesus! Where will it end?

-Hunter Thompson, "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72"

I think it's the way a lot of empires end. Everything gets easy, and without the survival element to keep people honest, over generations the people just lose touch with reality. They think migrant caravans are coming. They think all they need to do is half-ass their way through college and they deserve to get out make six figures still half-assing it. they think Trump is a genius, they think their adult kids are off the pills. The adult kids don't really grasp what the pills are really going to do to them and everyone around them, because everything's been mostly fine so far. Et cetera.

Speaking as another old guy, I wish I could disagree with you on your conclusion. 🥲

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah - it is more or less the way that old and previously healthy civilizations generally die. The details differ, but the overall dynsmic is fairly consistent.

As a civilization ages, the broad focus shifts from working to contribute to its well-being to living comfortably off of its established well-being to scrambling to grab as much of its diminishing well-being as possible as quickly as possible. And the US is well into that last phase.

There are only a few ways it can play out from there. The common people can force the civilization into a sort of reset, as the French did in the late 18th century, or the civilization can just go into a long, slow decline like Egypt did or it can collapse under some combination of rebellion from within and attack from without, as Rome did.

The third scenario is far and away the most likely for the US.

[–] Elderos@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I love the saying : “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” because it is true.

I have a theory that societies can go into a circular loop and pivot into 3 different states, any which can serve as the starting point.

At one point you have a society that collectively take care of the issues, and being selfish is frowned upon. In this environment everyone sort of make small sacrifices for the greater good, and everyone is better for it. The problem though, is that the more honest everyone is, and the more you can gain by being devious and two-faced. Eventually some assholes will game the honest system, and more assholes will follow.

This lead to being dishonest and selfish being the norm, as if you're not you will simply have nothing since people will be taking advantage of you. The meta is changed and society is now two-faced.

This lead to the last possible state, where the mask has completely fallen off and people are being genuine dick to each others. There is no honour and everything you can get away with openly, you do. Being two-faced is shunned and seen as weak, you also don't have to worry about the appearance so you can go full selfish mode. This lead to a miserable existence for everyone, and suddenly people might wonder what's the point.

To close the loop, people starts to realize what they have lost. Some people will make themselves vulnerable and show integrity, to try and make things better. Nobody trusts.nobody anymore, and making yourself vulnerable is the only way to gain influence, since nothing else can be trusted. After the big era of con men, selflessness is trending and respectable again, and those without are shunned.

To put in simply, in 1 state being honourable get you further in life, in another one being two-faced gets you farther, and in the last one being openly selfish and hostile will get your farther.

I think we might be somewhere in the peak(hopefully) of the openly hostile state, where you're better off min/maxing society without pretending to be a good person. I think it might turn as the younger generation gets older and people get tired of the division and realize they can have a lot of success by doing what is right.

Anyway, this is just a theory. To me it make sense in game theory sort of way.

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

It absolutely makes sense and yes - game theory specifically addresses it and explains it.

At this point, the American political and corporate systems are effectively rewarding and thus selecting for psychopathy. The gloves are off, and success goes to those who are willing and able to do absolutely whatever it takes to succeed, no matter how much harm it does. Those who are constrained by morals, principles and empathy are at a disadvantage.

Trump and Musk and DeSantis and the like aren't aberrations - they're simply the leading edge of a broad dynamic - the most obvious extreme examples of the personality most suited to success in this corrupted era.

Unfortunately.