| cathexis |
03-18-2019 02:15 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_crystal
(Post 1242883)
You're talking about Horseshoe Theory and there are very few two-word phrases that will get leftists online as riled up as that one.
I just feel like capitalism is totally fine when it comes to discretionary consumption items, but it never should have been applied to staple items, justice, health, education, warfighting, or politics.
And it seems willfully obtuse to insist capitalism has to be all or nothing. To insist that if we take profit out of life-or-death matters then the next thing you know we'll all have matching government haircuts and uniform scrubs, is disingenuous to the extreme, but we fall all over ourselves trying to disprove it..
The "mistake" of the mainstream dems (mistake in quotes because it is applied with the benefit of the doubt) was in believing that conservatives actually wanted the outcomes they claimed to want. Dems believed conservatives would work with them if they could get to a result that lay somewhere within the scope of what they could find tolerable.
This was never going to be the case, as conservatives don't actually want any of the things they talk about. They just want wealth and power. So dems compromised themselves making a good faith argument to a bad faith premise.
As i said, "mistake" gives the benefit of the doubt. Wealthy people are wealthy people first and foremost. To me it seems like the past 30 years have been "capitalism with patriarchy and white supremacy" vs "capitalism with ladies."
"Capitalism with ladies" is the lesser of two evils, by far (freedom from forced birth is still a pretty good deal), but neither party wants equality.
|
Actually, my assertion was that the Horseshoe Model failed to accept that the Right Anarchist and Left Anarchist extremists had very little ideological difference. I maintain that it is a full circle.
Looking at the public response to those tiny factions is one of many variables that can give one an idea of the current and possibly predict the political heading. I am referring to very small changes occurring in those extremist parties. Sometimes, it can be difficult to find the data needed for this analysis.
A possibility that I see happening would be that the Right wing momentum continue leading us fully into Fascism. The Constitutional checks and balances have not, thus far, kept this regime in check. However, The House needs a chance to do it's work. The Founding Fathers could not have anticipated a regime like Trump's getting into office. So far, the Checks and Balances have not held him back. He removed transgender persons from serving by Tweet. The environment is at risk by Executive Orders. Now they have Roe v Wade in the crosshairs. Not to mention all else he's done.
If we are to escape the path we are following, we need a strong no-nonsense, statesman/stateswoman; however, thus far there's no one who fits my definition of a candidate for President who can reverse our course abruptly. I believe this individual needs to have a great deal of experience in terms of government (or executive) leadership, and be someone other countries can relate to. |
