Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Back to my pessimism, though. The seminal tweet that can't be improved on:
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...679492?lang=en
This seems to me to explain it succinctly. In the future, you get the choice of bloodthirsty capitalists or bloodthirsty racists, but you gotta choose one. Nowhere in this movement is a vibrant left or really any sort of coherent defense of of the total package of Enlightenment values that can challenge either. The left and defenders of the Enlightenment gestalt seemingly unable to build any sort of meaningful way out of having to compromise with one. You see the debate all the time in the American left about the direct of the Democrats.
The understandable, big fear about specifically the Trumpian style -- I think why he rankles the left just so much -- is that he constitutes the idea of a sort of triangulation or a hybrid between the two poles in the future. The grand deplorable capitalist compromise. I think that's why some of you are understandably pushing back on simplicitus's optimism, because of the idea Trump sits atop a movement that represents both.
Frankly imo he seems too incompetent to pull it off. Right now the administration is a total clown show and deeply unpopular and the Republicans aren't doing much beyond Trump's Twitter Trolls. But obviously, the future of the modern right-wing movement may be a better organized, more competent and effectual compromise between the two as a second best ideal for both sides. That finance capitalism needs bloodthirsty racist idiots as the democratic buttress to allow them to do business without pesky leftist regulations and tax schemes, and the bloodthirsty racists need the finance capitalist elites to get access to money and power. The result is the mediocre white continues their life as a normal schlubs, anxious about how to pay for this and that and the forces of capitalism and the elites have to rub shoulders and do business with the boorish morons and their representatives like Trump. But they each get something.
It is a systematic problem that can be solved but is unlikely to be solved. Most congressmen have to spend a awful lot of time to raise money for elections. The barrier you have to cross to win elections is to collect enough money to finance your campaign. The people who can effort to take out their check book and spend $5000 (the average for donations) is the group we would label as the 1%. So mostly white male business owners and executives who have political preferences who aren't hard to guess. Less tax, less regulation, more subventions for business.
So no matter what you ideology is, as a politician you have to represent the needs of those who pay for your reelection. This is the reason why business interest comes before the will of the voters almost every time and certain problems remain unsolved. Gun regulation or fixing the prison system do have huge public support, yet no politician touches it.
It´s perfectly legal corruption.