I absolutely see where you’re coming from. Sorry if I made bad assumptions about your opinion because I’m responding to you and the original comment, and in a sense I agree on your assessment but differ on the approach.
The physical crises are coming whether we shut our eyes or not, you are correct. I am maybe a lot more optimistic than many here on how pliable that system could be. My optimistic vision still does hinge on many improbable sounding feats like getting money out of politics, drastically reforming the court amongst other changes. Preparing for the break is fine, but I argue we’d be better off doing that while still trying to bend the system to better handle the break if it happens, and form some strategic alliances with the establishment to get there.
I don’t think it’s strategic to ally with someone who won’t agree to a certain bare minimum of what’s necessary. Let me use an example.
The US spends nearly a trillion dollars on the military every year, more than the next nine countries combined. Putting aside the humanitarian and ecological reasons I oppose that, the US is also now nearly $40 trillion in debt. It spends even more on interest payments than on this globe-dominating force. That debt is mostly because of those military adventures, and because the government cut taxes on the rich while it was doing them. I wouldn’t call myself a deficit hawk, but it’s hard to imagine that this situation is at all sustainable.
What needs to happen is a drastic reduction in military spending. If we cut it in half, we’d still be easily outspending any plausible threat, and at least part of that could go to actually helping people instead of hurting them. That still wouldn’t fully solve the issue, and I would prefer to go further, but it would be a reasonable compromise, bending to what will be necessary before we’re forced to. If a Democrat ran on that, then I can certainly see how it could be a strategic alliance.
But to maintain it where it’s at would be totally unacceptable as a compromise. It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, and if Democrats only maintain it while Republicans increase it, then the problem is just going to get worse and worse.
But they don’t even offer to merely maintain it! They actively increase it. They are not merely failing to address the problem, they literally are the problem! They are actively making things worse!
Now, are they the lesser evil on this issue, compared to Trump? Sure. Trump said he wanted to increase the military budget to the unbelievable $1.5 trillion. The rate that one party wants to dive headfirst into this debt crisis is faster than the rate the other one does, but on the dive itself, there is complete bipartisan consensus.
When the other shoe drops, when we’re faced with massive inflation and a debt crisis, then all bets are off about what parts of the budget are “untouchable.” And if the military isn’t cut, then it may well be social security.
The Democrats are giving us a hard no right now, hitting record highs and talking about “the most lethal military in the world.” When I say that foreign threats are overblown and that we need to reduce military spending, the damn liberals even accuse me of just trying to weaken the country and of being a secret agent hired by Putin or Xi. Because militarism is a political rule right now. The minimum that needs to happen is politically impossible.
But there are weeks when decades happen, when those rules can be shaken up. And those weeks will come, because that is what it means to be unsustainable. Since it is impossible to achieve what is minimally necessary now, all we can do is prepare for the moment when the conditions change. And part of that preparation includes distancing ourselves from the sources of the problem, so that we cannot be credibly blamed or associated with it, and another part involves identifying and criticizing the sources so that people can point fingers in the correct direction. If we’re standing next to them, covered in shit too, nobody’s gonna listen if we try to say, “Called it!”
And if we don’t, or aren’t able to do that? Then when that time comes, it will be the right that’s offering explainations, which will be total bullshit, but if those are the only explanations anyone’s hearing, then it won’t matter that they’re bullshit. Then, they will be the ones able to influence which political rules get broken. That is the absolute worst-case scenario. But if you can agree that what the Democrats offer is less than what is minimally necessary to avert disaster, and you think the left should join them regardless, then, logically, you are making that an ineviability.
My optimistic vision still does hinge on many improbable sounding feats like getting money out of politics, drastically reforming the court amongst other changes.
And you believe the democratic party to be the vector for this change? Even “naive” is too kind a descriptor.
Preparing for the break is fine, but I argue we’d be better off doing that while still trying to bend the system to better handle the break if it happens,
Voting for democrats is akin to reinforcing the system, thus making it harder to “bend”
I absolutely see where you’re coming from. Sorry if I made bad assumptions about your opinion because I’m responding to you and the original comment, and in a sense I agree on your assessment but differ on the approach.
The physical crises are coming whether we shut our eyes or not, you are correct. I am maybe a lot more optimistic than many here on how pliable that system could be. My optimistic vision still does hinge on many improbable sounding feats like getting money out of politics, drastically reforming the court amongst other changes. Preparing for the break is fine, but I argue we’d be better off doing that while still trying to bend the system to better handle the break if it happens, and form some strategic alliances with the establishment to get there.
Thank you for listening to my perspective.
I don’t think it’s strategic to ally with someone who won’t agree to a certain bare minimum of what’s necessary. Let me use an example.
The US spends nearly a trillion dollars on the military every year, more than the next nine countries combined. Putting aside the humanitarian and ecological reasons I oppose that, the US is also now nearly $40 trillion in debt. It spends even more on interest payments than on this globe-dominating force. That debt is mostly because of those military adventures, and because the government cut taxes on the rich while it was doing them. I wouldn’t call myself a deficit hawk, but it’s hard to imagine that this situation is at all sustainable.
What needs to happen is a drastic reduction in military spending. If we cut it in half, we’d still be easily outspending any plausible threat, and at least part of that could go to actually helping people instead of hurting them. That still wouldn’t fully solve the issue, and I would prefer to go further, but it would be a reasonable compromise, bending to what will be necessary before we’re forced to. If a Democrat ran on that, then I can certainly see how it could be a strategic alliance.
But to maintain it where it’s at would be totally unacceptable as a compromise. It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, and if Democrats only maintain it while Republicans increase it, then the problem is just going to get worse and worse.
But they don’t even offer to merely maintain it! They actively increase it. They are not merely failing to address the problem, they literally are the problem! They are actively making things worse!
Now, are they the lesser evil on this issue, compared to Trump? Sure. Trump said he wanted to increase the military budget to the unbelievable $1.5 trillion. The rate that one party wants to dive headfirst into this debt crisis is faster than the rate the other one does, but on the dive itself, there is complete bipartisan consensus.
When the other shoe drops, when we’re faced with massive inflation and a debt crisis, then all bets are off about what parts of the budget are “untouchable.” And if the military isn’t cut, then it may well be social security.
The Democrats are giving us a hard no right now, hitting record highs and talking about “the most lethal military in the world.” When I say that foreign threats are overblown and that we need to reduce military spending, the damn liberals even accuse me of just trying to weaken the country and of being a secret agent hired by Putin or Xi. Because militarism is a political rule right now. The minimum that needs to happen is politically impossible.
But there are weeks when decades happen, when those rules can be shaken up. And those weeks will come, because that is what it means to be unsustainable. Since it is impossible to achieve what is minimally necessary now, all we can do is prepare for the moment when the conditions change. And part of that preparation includes distancing ourselves from the sources of the problem, so that we cannot be credibly blamed or associated with it, and another part involves identifying and criticizing the sources so that people can point fingers in the correct direction. If we’re standing next to them, covered in shit too, nobody’s gonna listen if we try to say, “Called it!”
And if we don’t, or aren’t able to do that? Then when that time comes, it will be the right that’s offering explainations, which will be total bullshit, but if those are the only explanations anyone’s hearing, then it won’t matter that they’re bullshit. Then, they will be the ones able to influence which political rules get broken. That is the absolute worst-case scenario. But if you can agree that what the Democrats offer is less than what is minimally necessary to avert disaster, and you think the left should join them regardless, then, logically, you are making that an ineviability.
And you believe the democratic party to be the vector for this change? Even “naive” is too kind a descriptor.
Voting for democrats is akin to reinforcing the system, thus making it harder to “bend”