SS funding didn't run out - it is a binder full of I.O.U.s from govt "borrowing" (read Theft) to fund the military, etc. People take it lying down because of collective wealth - they can't risk their lifestyle by joining a real revolution. Democracy needs a smaller population, it doesn't work at scale - politics became a spectator sport: see Democrats. The system kind of works in Switzerland because of higher education and more direct involvement in the political process, and leaders who are not idolized and put on pedestals. And even, in this system, those with good ideas are set to the side, while in China, in a meritocracy, you would be on the inside, building a better nation. You can't get there from here. Total re-work required.
I hope my country's (Canada’s) federal New Democratic Party and its provincial party wings are taking serious note of the political (and, in my opinion, moral) failure of the American Democratic Party, which was particularly evident with the last U.S. presidential election.
While campaigning in 2024 to become the next president, then-VP Kamala Harris relied too much on motivating enough voters to her side by promising to ‘protect democracy’ and constitutionally enshrine abortion rights nationwide. This, while there was/is a very large and likely still growing electorate who, due to their formidable unaffordability difficulties, don’t have the luxury to make democracy and/or abortion their primary vote-determining concern(s). That many people are financially struggling that much.
To be fair, I find that relatively few Democratic politicians are politically-practicing social AND fiscal progressives, with the ‘fiscal’ ensuring that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life. Those elected representatives are progressive only in regards to following/implementing ideologically neoliberal or ‘woke’ policy — primarily that involving race, sexuality, and the expanding category of gender.
The big tell at the debate was the blind support for Big Military and total solidarity with isra3l. A core issue, since their funding of Truman's campaign.
Well said. Agree. The democrats have not been speaking to the economic reality of most Americans to their downfall. I think that is not by accident since economically they are center right—representing their corporate donors more than their voters, who are much more progressively left. Arguably many of the voters who tend to vote republican would actually do better under progressively left policies (free healthcare, better educations, etc)
I can't entirely disagree with this, although I'm not willing to go into what I disagree with "off the cuff" so to say, without giving it some serious thought first. I may, (or may not) come back to it though, cause I believe we're basically on the same page, and I would like to pursue it. It's just that to explain how I disagree, in detail at present, would take too much space, I need to condense, but I do agree it needs at the very least, an overhaul.
I find that relatively few Democratic politicians are politically-practicing social AND fiscal progressives, with the ‘fiscal’ ensuring that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life. Those elected representatives are progressive only in regards to following/implementing ideologically neoliberal or ‘woke’ policy — primarily that involving race, sexuality, and the expanding category of gender.
Other than perhaps Barack Obama, it's doubtful any presidential contender or president — including and especially Donald Trump — has genuinely, publicly realized that Americans collectively want and deserve better than just either of the usual callous conservative or neo/faux liberal establishment candidate thus very corporate friendly president in the White House (something I believe they very likely will never get).
One almost gets the impression that the Republican and Democratic parties are still unaware of the non-corporately-commissioned polls showing that a majority of Americans favor the governmental implementation of some public programs, especially universal health care.
One would think the Democrats in particular would finally support thus implement a universal healthcare plan, so why is the DNC refusing to allow it — even if only by disallowing the fiscally progressive Senator Bernie Sanders to run as its presidential nominee, however many Democrat-voters want him? That is, other than the DNC being afraid of crossing the corporate lobbyists, especially those hired to represent the healthcare industry’s unlimited-profit interests, who make some of the largest donations to the party election coffers.
Yes, and they audaciously expect usually-Democrat-supporting voters to politically support the party, nonetheless, even if only because it/they are not Trump. It's true arrogance and a misplaced sense of entitlement.
P.S. If I was allowed to vote, I likely would've cast a ballot for Jill Stein.
Everyone sees the wrongdoing and everyone wish to live in better world. There’s nothing an individual can do. Calling this apathy is unjust. It’s blaming as if public is disinterested and bored.
I tried to broaden the affliction to include denial (the refusal to even see the situation we’re in), silence and perceived powerlessness, not just apathy, though I shorthanded it to apathy in the title.
Someone like you that is tracking the issues, engaged, talking about them is likely not the core demographic I’m talking about.
I do disagree that there is nothing people can do though. There are things we can do. Find organization that are working to build parallel systems, mutual aid, labor unity so that the people can coordinate like we did in the 1930s and 1960s and actually influence the future.
Are you asking why I didn’t include Maga in the essay? That’s for sure a major affliction, but not the one I was talking about. Maga is the result of USG social abandonment of the working class, and decades -long misinformation and propaganda campaigns on Fox News.
I like the premise, having around 40 years of on & off 12 step under my own belt. The "off" being more just, I'll call it "independent" (for lack of a better term) than "relapse". I still credit AA with saving my life in 1986, just that certain dogmatic attitudes got tiresome, though that's probably more "personality" than principles, the principles are more or less reflex for me at this point. They've served me well over many years, I got sober pretty young, of necessity, ie, people around me didn't think I'd see my 25th birthday at the time.
After 3 or 4 tries, in 86 it finally took, making an honest effort with it, WILL genuinely change you as a person, in ways it's difficult to quantify. I relapsed for a few years after 15 continuous, but not unlike addiction itself, 12 step's kind of ingrained into my personality, so eventually I "relapsed" back into that, iykwim lol.
I've suggested MAGA could benefit from a "MAGA Anonymous" before. In fact, short of cult deprogramming, I believe it's one of a very few things that could be uniquely beneficial to them. A lot of that whole thing, and their aversion to leaving it, is based in "community", so it would give them a replacement for that, and some tools to work with, if nothing else.
As I was reading this, the question of how to spread it occurred to me. In thinking about it, I recalled reading a book written by Bill Wison entitled, "Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age", Idk if you've read it before, but it might be helpful in this endeavor. I remember finding it kind of similar to "Acts" in the Bible (atheism notwithstanding) I mention it cause I really do think this is an idea worth pursuing, SOMETHING'S gotta give. For my own part, I really don't see us getting out from under this without a revolution, but it's up against that same apathy.
You are correct there, Americans have been classically conditioned, intentionally, over half a century. I'm working up to my own essay about this, I believe much of it, has been, and still is, maybe more than ever, through the television. Around 1975 is when they achieved "ubiquity" in the US, and the "programming" (interesting word choice there), has become steadily more dystopian since, but this is my own pet theory. I just need to do some more reading to round it out. Anyway, thanks, good essay. 🙂
SS funding didn't run out - it is a binder full of I.O.U.s from govt "borrowing" (read Theft) to fund the military, etc. People take it lying down because of collective wealth - they can't risk their lifestyle by joining a real revolution. Democracy needs a smaller population, it doesn't work at scale - politics became a spectator sport: see Democrats. The system kind of works in Switzerland because of higher education and more direct involvement in the political process, and leaders who are not idolized and put on pedestals. And even, in this system, those with good ideas are set to the side, while in China, in a meritocracy, you would be on the inside, building a better nation. You can't get there from here. Total re-work required.
I hope my country's (Canada’s) federal New Democratic Party and its provincial party wings are taking serious note of the political (and, in my opinion, moral) failure of the American Democratic Party, which was particularly evident with the last U.S. presidential election.
While campaigning in 2024 to become the next president, then-VP Kamala Harris relied too much on motivating enough voters to her side by promising to ‘protect democracy’ and constitutionally enshrine abortion rights nationwide. This, while there was/is a very large and likely still growing electorate who, due to their formidable unaffordability difficulties, don’t have the luxury to make democracy and/or abortion their primary vote-determining concern(s). That many people are financially struggling that much.
To be fair, I find that relatively few Democratic politicians are politically-practicing social AND fiscal progressives, with the ‘fiscal’ ensuring that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life. Those elected representatives are progressive only in regards to following/implementing ideologically neoliberal or ‘woke’ policy — primarily that involving race, sexuality, and the expanding category of gender.
The big tell at the debate was the blind support for Big Military and total solidarity with isra3l. A core issue, since their funding of Truman's campaign.
Well said. Agree. The democrats have not been speaking to the economic reality of most Americans to their downfall. I think that is not by accident since economically they are center right—representing their corporate donors more than their voters, who are much more progressively left. Arguably many of the voters who tend to vote republican would actually do better under progressively left policies (free healthcare, better educations, etc)
Yes, it's yet another Business party.
I can't entirely disagree with this, although I'm not willing to go into what I disagree with "off the cuff" so to say, without giving it some serious thought first. I may, (or may not) come back to it though, cause I believe we're basically on the same page, and I would like to pursue it. It's just that to explain how I disagree, in detail at present, would take too much space, I need to condense, but I do agree it needs at the very least, an overhaul.
I find that relatively few Democratic politicians are politically-practicing social AND fiscal progressives, with the ‘fiscal’ ensuring that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life. Those elected representatives are progressive only in regards to following/implementing ideologically neoliberal or ‘woke’ policy — primarily that involving race, sexuality, and the expanding category of gender.
Other than perhaps Barack Obama, it's doubtful any presidential contender or president — including and especially Donald Trump — has genuinely, publicly realized that Americans collectively want and deserve better than just either of the usual callous conservative or neo/faux liberal establishment candidate thus very corporate friendly president in the White House (something I believe they very likely will never get).
One almost gets the impression that the Republican and Democratic parties are still unaware of the non-corporately-commissioned polls showing that a majority of Americans favor the governmental implementation of some public programs, especially universal health care.
One would think the Democrats in particular would finally support thus implement a universal healthcare plan, so why is the DNC refusing to allow it — even if only by disallowing the fiscally progressive Senator Bernie Sanders to run as its presidential nominee, however many Democrat-voters want him? That is, other than the DNC being afraid of crossing the corporate lobbyists, especially those hired to represent the healthcare industry’s unlimited-profit interests, who make some of the largest donations to the party election coffers.
Agree 100%. Democrats are center right economically and only left leaning in terms of social/identity politics.
Yes, and they audaciously expect usually-Democrat-supporting voters to politically support the party, nonetheless, even if only because it/they are not Trump. It's true arrogance and a misplaced sense of entitlement.
P.S. If I was allowed to vote, I likely would've cast a ballot for Jill Stein.
Everyone sees the wrongdoing and everyone wish to live in better world. There’s nothing an individual can do. Calling this apathy is unjust. It’s blaming as if public is disinterested and bored.
I tried to broaden the affliction to include denial (the refusal to even see the situation we’re in), silence and perceived powerlessness, not just apathy, though I shorthanded it to apathy in the title.
Someone like you that is tracking the issues, engaged, talking about them is likely not the core demographic I’m talking about.
I do disagree that there is nothing people can do though. There are things we can do. Find organization that are working to build parallel systems, mutual aid, labor unity so that the people can coordinate like we did in the 1930s and 1960s and actually influence the future.
What does MAGA have to do with this? They’re just convenient ? Too easy 🙄
Are you asking why I didn’t include Maga in the essay? That’s for sure a major affliction, but not the one I was talking about. Maga is the result of USG social abandonment of the working class, and decades -long misinformation and propaganda campaigns on Fox News.
I like the premise, having around 40 years of on & off 12 step under my own belt. The "off" being more just, I'll call it "independent" (for lack of a better term) than "relapse". I still credit AA with saving my life in 1986, just that certain dogmatic attitudes got tiresome, though that's probably more "personality" than principles, the principles are more or less reflex for me at this point. They've served me well over many years, I got sober pretty young, of necessity, ie, people around me didn't think I'd see my 25th birthday at the time.
After 3 or 4 tries, in 86 it finally took, making an honest effort with it, WILL genuinely change you as a person, in ways it's difficult to quantify. I relapsed for a few years after 15 continuous, but not unlike addiction itself, 12 step's kind of ingrained into my personality, so eventually I "relapsed" back into that, iykwim lol.
I've suggested MAGA could benefit from a "MAGA Anonymous" before. In fact, short of cult deprogramming, I believe it's one of a very few things that could be uniquely beneficial to them. A lot of that whole thing, and their aversion to leaving it, is based in "community", so it would give them a replacement for that, and some tools to work with, if nothing else.
As I was reading this, the question of how to spread it occurred to me. In thinking about it, I recalled reading a book written by Bill Wison entitled, "Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age", Idk if you've read it before, but it might be helpful in this endeavor. I remember finding it kind of similar to "Acts" in the Bible (atheism notwithstanding) I mention it cause I really do think this is an idea worth pursuing, SOMETHING'S gotta give. For my own part, I really don't see us getting out from under this without a revolution, but it's up against that same apathy.
You are correct there, Americans have been classically conditioned, intentionally, over half a century. I'm working up to my own essay about this, I believe much of it, has been, and still is, maybe more than ever, through the television. Around 1975 is when they achieved "ubiquity" in the US, and the "programming" (interesting word choice there), has become steadily more dystopian since, but this is my own pet theory. I just need to do some more reading to round it out. Anyway, thanks, good essay. 🙂
“I would rather earn 1% off a 100 people's efforts than 100% of my own efforts.”
- John D. Rockefeller