This reads to me like a lot of empty words and wishful thinking. Awkwardly, much of it is a tepid technocratic way of communicating some of the same messages that MAGA relies on. The whole point of MAGA is to ‘reform’ the system. EVERYBODY agrees that reform is necessary, it’s the specifics of what and how that are in such violent dispute.
The multiple references to immigration in this piece avoid specific policy recommendations, yet seem to suggest a degree of openness to increased levels of it, which is a non-starter in today’s political environment.
Today’s political right is a somewhat uneasy coalition of people who are primarily united around their feeling that current institutions are no longer adequately serving their interests, and their belief that its the people on the left who are the radicals. Whatever the relative level of validity or contrivance of these two starting points, it has resulted in a strong reactionary movement, eager to weaken or even destroy institutions (and people), without any shared vision for the replacement.
I really don’t know how to repair the political and social landscape, and I’m increasingly worried that it will collapse into chaos or autocracy. What I do fervently believe is that the path towards a less contentious future lies not in positions on specific policy areas, but on a renewed recognition each of our individual circumstances are more likely to be better under a cooperative approach. History shows over and over again that the people who successfully burn systems down end up even worse off.
Life is inherently ambiguous. When too high a percentage of the population demands certainty, the result is widespread human suffering. I’m not sure there is any way people infected by a reactionary fever can learn this lesson, other than through experience.
The other commonality on the reactionary right (and much of the radical left) is a stunning level of naïveté about the degree to which all other forms of government sooner or later bite their supporters in the ass. Perhaps that is the underlying message of this essay, but it won’t be obvious to most readers.
Liberal Democracy has taken itself for granted for way too long, thus failing to educate a populous as to why such an awkward and clumsy system is desirable.
Congress should have dealt with immigration decades ago. But it would have taken political courage, and in the meantime, the US economy benefited from a large pool of cheap labor, willing to do lousy jobs that citizens didn’t want
to do. We also benefited from trained medical professionals and engineers that we drained from struggling economies that need people like that.
As a result, we ended up with an embarrassingly large body of people who are culturally but not legally American. And along with Europe, we ended up with a cultural backlash from half the population.
That backlash arguably could have been prevented, but instead, nativist concerns were
ignored.
Anybody is welcome to try to argue that America should accept more immigration, but if they expect to be elected, they are going to need an extremely persuasive argument. I cant imagine how someone could do that right noe.
It might be hard to be elected, but how do you ever get change? By starting. Many changes in our laws have happened because a few people started and persisted.
> It is hard to imagine any politician today talking about immigration as effusively as Ronald Reagan’s farewell speech, but they should. And this includes no longer cowering under the premise that anti-immigration sentiment is a fixed reality, rather than leading the charge to change public opinion.
Most politicians cannot change public opinion and should not try. Even Donald Trump probably doesn't change minds as much as he (1) is the Republican president, whom right-wing media automatically supports no matter what he says (2) instills enough fear that wealthy non-Republicans mute their criticism. And while I do think he has influence beyond just these two points, I think that's largely because too many newspeople are repeating what he says without adding necessary context like "that's untrue" and "actually, the opposite is true".
I propose that the work of changing minds falls upon everyone else, especially the new "influencer class". Politicians, however, must reflect constituents' opinions if they want to be elected.
This is an interesting take on how liberalism is positioned in today’s political climate. The call to stay active and engaged makes the discussion especially relevant. I think informed civic participation depends on access to reliable public information, including resources related to https://wakecountycourtss.org conversations like this are useful because they encourage people to think critically about their role in public life.
The discussion raises an interesting point about how political labels can shift as public attitudes change. I think looking at broader public records can also help provide useful context for discussions involving public policy and government. For those researching related information, https://oklahoma-arrests.org can be a useful reference for reviewing publicly available records. Overall, the post offers plenty to consider about the changing political landscape.
The author makes it sound like liberals (Democrats) are merely faced with a strategic problem -- a simple choice of policies that "work." He points out that their policies have led to higher costs and less freedom, and calls on them to embrace freedom, free-markets and free-speech as if this is the obvious, responsible thing to do. And then he goes on to say that they need to be principled.
But.... what are the principles guiding the liberals? Does the author think it's just a strategic oversight that liberals are consistently anti-free-market, pro-welfare state, pro-nationalized health care, anti-free speech, pro-regulation, pro-tax-the-rich (and everyone else for that matter)?
Yes, liberals have a problem. It's their ideas. No amount of wishy-washy "dignity for all" and anti-"corporate capture" nonsense is going to bring about change. What the liberals need to embrace is real freedom, individual rights and capitalism. Those liberals who actually believe in the rights of the individual, rather than collectivism, redistribution and egalitarianism, need to speak up and denounce the anti-liberty forces on both sides. And not in the name of some pragmatic, political calculous -- people can smell that a mile aways -- but because it's right.
The argument about political power shifting from outsider movements to established institutions is interesting. A key part of any political discussion is having access to reliable public information and verifiable records. For anyone researching https://arestsorg.com checking accurate sources can help provide useful context. Clear evidence and informed discussion make debates like this more meaningful.
This reads to me like a lot of empty words and wishful thinking. Awkwardly, much of it is a tepid technocratic way of communicating some of the same messages that MAGA relies on. The whole point of MAGA is to ‘reform’ the system. EVERYBODY agrees that reform is necessary, it’s the specifics of what and how that are in such violent dispute.
The multiple references to immigration in this piece avoid specific policy recommendations, yet seem to suggest a degree of openness to increased levels of it, which is a non-starter in today’s political environment.
Today’s political right is a somewhat uneasy coalition of people who are primarily united around their feeling that current institutions are no longer adequately serving their interests, and their belief that its the people on the left who are the radicals. Whatever the relative level of validity or contrivance of these two starting points, it has resulted in a strong reactionary movement, eager to weaken or even destroy institutions (and people), without any shared vision for the replacement.
I really don’t know how to repair the political and social landscape, and I’m increasingly worried that it will collapse into chaos or autocracy. What I do fervently believe is that the path towards a less contentious future lies not in positions on specific policy areas, but on a renewed recognition each of our individual circumstances are more likely to be better under a cooperative approach. History shows over and over again that the people who successfully burn systems down end up even worse off.
Life is inherently ambiguous. When too high a percentage of the population demands certainty, the result is widespread human suffering. I’m not sure there is any way people infected by a reactionary fever can learn this lesson, other than through experience.
The other commonality on the reactionary right (and much of the radical left) is a stunning level of naïveté about the degree to which all other forms of government sooner or later bite their supporters in the ass. Perhaps that is the underlying message of this essay, but it won’t be obvious to most readers.
Liberal Democracy has taken itself for granted for way too long, thus failing to educate a populous as to why such an awkward and clumsy system is desirable.
You argue that openness to increased levels of immigration "is a non-starter in today's political environment." You may well be right.
But the way to deal with a non-starter is to start. If a few people push for this, it might not happen. If no one pushes for this, it will not happen.
Congress should have dealt with immigration decades ago. But it would have taken political courage, and in the meantime, the US economy benefited from a large pool of cheap labor, willing to do lousy jobs that citizens didn’t want
to do. We also benefited from trained medical professionals and engineers that we drained from struggling economies that need people like that.
As a result, we ended up with an embarrassingly large body of people who are culturally but not legally American. And along with Europe, we ended up with a cultural backlash from half the population.
That backlash arguably could have been prevented, but instead, nativist concerns were
ignored.
Anybody is welcome to try to argue that America should accept more immigration, but if they expect to be elected, they are going to need an extremely persuasive argument. I cant imagine how someone could do that right noe.
It might be hard to be elected, but how do you ever get change? By starting. Many changes in our laws have happened because a few people started and persisted.
> It is hard to imagine any politician today talking about immigration as effusively as Ronald Reagan’s farewell speech, but they should. And this includes no longer cowering under the premise that anti-immigration sentiment is a fixed reality, rather than leading the charge to change public opinion.
Most politicians cannot change public opinion and should not try. Even Donald Trump probably doesn't change minds as much as he (1) is the Republican president, whom right-wing media automatically supports no matter what he says (2) instills enough fear that wealthy non-Republicans mute their criticism. And while I do think he has influence beyond just these two points, I think that's largely because too many newspeople are repeating what he says without adding necessary context like "that's untrue" and "actually, the opposite is true".
I propose that the work of changing minds falls upon everyone else, especially the new "influencer class". Politicians, however, must reflect constituents' opinions if they want to be elected.
This is an interesting take on how liberalism is positioned in today’s political climate. The call to stay active and engaged makes the discussion especially relevant. I think informed civic participation depends on access to reliable public information, including resources related to https://wakecountycourtss.org conversations like this are useful because they encourage people to think critically about their role in public life.
Excellent, rousing article!
The discussion raises an interesting point about how political labels can shift as public attitudes change. I think looking at broader public records can also help provide useful context for discussions involving public policy and government. For those researching related information, https://oklahoma-arrests.org can be a useful reference for reviewing publicly available records. Overall, the post offers plenty to consider about the changing political landscape.
The author makes it sound like liberals (Democrats) are merely faced with a strategic problem -- a simple choice of policies that "work." He points out that their policies have led to higher costs and less freedom, and calls on them to embrace freedom, free-markets and free-speech as if this is the obvious, responsible thing to do. And then he goes on to say that they need to be principled.
But.... what are the principles guiding the liberals? Does the author think it's just a strategic oversight that liberals are consistently anti-free-market, pro-welfare state, pro-nationalized health care, anti-free speech, pro-regulation, pro-tax-the-rich (and everyone else for that matter)?
Yes, liberals have a problem. It's their ideas. No amount of wishy-washy "dignity for all" and anti-"corporate capture" nonsense is going to bring about change. What the liberals need to embrace is real freedom, individual rights and capitalism. Those liberals who actually believe in the rights of the individual, rather than collectivism, redistribution and egalitarianism, need to speak up and denounce the anti-liberty forces on both sides. And not in the name of some pragmatic, political calculous -- people can smell that a mile aways -- but because it's right.
The argument about political power shifting from outsider movements to established institutions is interesting. A key part of any political discussion is having access to reliable public information and verifiable records. For anyone researching https://arestsorg.com checking accurate sources can help provide useful context. Clear evidence and informed discussion make debates like this more meaningful.
I guess you folks are addicted to low-contrast background and font. Why would you want to make reading more laborious?