https://medium.com/@andrewdobbs/nati...s-c3c3fdbd3966[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]US politics is experiencing the final consolidation of a major realignment. On one side are the Nationalists, dominant now in the Republican Party. On the other side are the Technocrats at the head of the Democratic Party.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]One is centered in rural and exurban areas, and in regions dependent upon extraction and industry; the other is focused in cities where finance, technology, cultural production, education, and government dominate. The reactionary US Cons ution gives a structural advantage to the Nationalists, but Technocrats have found their niches in culture and municipal policy.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]The Nationalists have completed their takeover of the GOP; the few remaining “Never Trump” conservatives are quickly passing into irrelevance. There is still a struggle over the extension of Technocracy into progressive spaces, however, with the vanguard of that movement trying out a variety of ways to sell their line to left-leaning cons uencies. Despite appearances, however, Technocrats are just as committed to projects antagonistic to democracy, workers, and the oppressed as their Nationalist opponents.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]This may be just one data point, but it is illustrative of something easy to observe: if your community relies upon agriculture, extraction, or manufacturing you’ll probably find more conservative families than if you live in an area dominated by technology, finance, or professional services.[/COLOR]
the political class totally corrupted
the above BS is really irrelevant, just academic politics.
the lower 4 quintiles have been ed, and that ing's continuing unabated.
What major aspect of American society is going great and getting better?
private/public pensions?
health care?
education?
socio/economic equality (actual economic and of opportunity)?
race relations?
democracy?
you should try reading and then give topical comments.
we all know what you already thought beforehand.
I read Medium, esp umair haque.
The most important, dominant factor is the wealth, economic class warfare, the oligarchy vs the non-oligarchy, the haves vs the have-nots.
and of course, VOTING is irrelevant, since the oligarchy owns and operates both parties who will do whatever the oligarchy pays them to do which is most often not in line with the preference of the disenfranchised voters.
What major aspect of American society is going great and getting better?
private/public pensions?
health care?
education?
socio/economic equality (actual economic and of opportunity)?
race relations?
democracy?
who said things were going great?
The pillars of America are athletics and entertainment
I'm just asking what is going great.
the medium article is 2nd order bull
Athletics is an entertainment industry.
If it was just people getting out on their own recreationally and enjoying their own experience instead of the tube, we might be a healthier society.
Interesting.
Much makes sense but I got a number of points I disagree with and some things that will never work imo.
When I finish today I might discuss.
I would add the Trump phenomena that is thought of as a symptom can actually crush some of the ideas it arose from if Trump fails. The “disease” (nationalist or technocrat) is dependent on the symptom as well imo. Much more to say but I got too much going today. Good stuff though.
Why don't you give your thoughts on the article you posted.
Why don’t you?
Just pick one point.
I haven't read it, not going to. I didn't post it and then complain about people not giving their thoughts on it while not giving any of my own.
But you complain about complaining, that’s cool.
I will when i have a moment.
Care to share yours?
Like I said, I'm not interested in reading the article. Just from your quotes I can tell it is ridiculous. We are at the beginning of a realignment not the "final consolidation". Way to early to tell where things will end up.
I think the author is basically saying what you stated.
There are some states of realignment that are more probable than others. I think Trump’s success with people like yourself who have a faith in his ways without any particular facts to back it up is what makes this interesting. I mean just the fact that a liar who flies by the seat of his pants and the payback that ultimately drives Trumpetes says a bunch to me. Look at who a democracy elected as president, it’s amazing. This can’t happen in Russia. The author would probably state his underlying principles made this possible.
I think there is a large element of FU Democrats, you lost mentality. We don’t care as long as you lost. This black skinny smarty pants comes in and the world does not change, so taste this medicine now, bas s. Republicans should never utter the word patriotism again. Being a patriot to the idea of democracy is dead in the Republican Party at present. While the way the Republicans chose their candidate was far more democratic than the Democrats. But it spilled over into populism bordering on nationalism.
For a younger person, who listens to older people, this is an amazing experience. I work in a situation where being accurate is the ultimate end game. So it amazes me how many people choose the most dubious sources to back their preconceived notions. In the end, I must be fckn correct, or at least be able to explain rationally my beliefs or I’m fired and totally worthless. In politics and history, the way I have been trained and why I belive what I belive, is fleeting based on some people’s thinking on this board. It’s astounding to me.
I thought trying to approach accuracy mattered, but it doesn’t. Social sciences are not kind to self criticism. This is just mind numbing. Why can’t one say, “I think this, but I could possibly be wrong because of......” ?
Trump may be a billionaire. And that may matter as a social plateau. But he would be fired immediately in pursuits that require accuracy and self reflection/criticism. I could say, “you are fired”, immediately to the Donald, and it would be an obvious decision. Backed by everyone I work with.
DId Not Read.
Understood...
I quite agree that it's nowhere near final, some of the rhetorical flourishes are overdone for sure, but I think it might be a workable rough sketch.
I found the descriptions of intraparty divisions apt, as with the comparison of the Texas Association of Business with Empower Texans. I also thought that the identification of interest groupings along the economic value chain mildly -- which is to say, not completely -- compelling. And while the Panic of 2008 may not be THE inflection point, it's a big one. I also agree than the political agon is not between left and right per se, but between contending authoritarian strains in both major narratives, nationalism and technocracy. Both major parties partake of both, but it might be roughly correct to say that the Republicans are the nationalists and the Dems are the technocrats, and that Bernie Sanders represents a leftist nationalism.
The author isn't impartial. He's a leftist and has his knife out for nationalism, left or right:[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]What sort of illiberal rule will we have in the future — chauvinism or a tyranny of experts and machines?[/COLOR]
I think it's roughly correct to point out that contemporary democratic socialism isn't Marxist-Leninism or Stalinism or Castroism but instead[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]The idea that economic nationalism can solve cultural problems is a neat inverse of the Right Nationalist idea that cultural nationalism will solve economic problems.[/COLOR]
The similarity of 2018 DSA and the 1948 Democratic Party Platform is instructive: there isn't much daylight between the two.[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)] that despite affinity for the name “socialist” they are merely pushing for the restoration of arrangements capital tolerated for decades.[/COLOR]
The leftist jargon is off putting, but if the people are getting screwed, it makes sense to try to figure out whose putting money in their pocket as a result.In an incipient oligarchy, it makes sense to ask who benefits from the current arrangement.
The bit at the end about a tenants revolt against landlords is absurd on its face, but one does wonder, short of total and irreversable immiseration, what might be the result a political culture of cities that are increasingly unaffordable for the people are not already rich.
I'd edit that a little if I could, but eh, who cares?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
