After reading the anti-Americana rants from the squad, Brit Hume commented tonight what I learned here a few weeks ago. The left cannot point to a country where their plans for us have succeeded. With all of our faults through history, no other country has matched our record of progress. Yet, the left does have the ideal system identified, but they can’t admit what it is in public.
I have come to the conclusion that the left’s ideal system is practiced by Communist China. They have the modified communist system that has yet to collapse under its own weight like the Soviet Union. They can silence anyone who opposes them, which is a big plus for the left wing cause. They have established that system on our college campuses, and they are working toward that goal in the news media, Hollywood and in the public school system.
Yes, for the left, Communist China has the ideal system.
So I’ve got a slightly different direction on this I want to explore. I think we can all agree that 1 party authoritarian regimes, left or right leaning, are really bad news for the people under it. The question is, of they’re so bad, how do they keep popping up? What’s their cause? They don’t come out of nowhere. It seems to me that the common link for all socialist/communist regimes is that they are predicated on inequality in the prior system. When you concentrate enough wealth and resources at the top, those left out will eventually tire of it, and the more resources that are at the top, the larger the bottom faction grows.
Below is a quote from Chomsky’s The Common Good:
So if you take the Aristotelian view, that means you can preserve the system by lifting the poor out of poverty making them less likely to support rebellion. Failing to invest in your people, you could reduce their ability to control the government. The “minority of the opulent” was used in justification for the creation of the Senate, which makes sense in the context of their original appointing rather than electing. Additionally, there have been studies showing we live in a definitional oligarchy, as public policy correlates more strongly with the opinion of the wealthy than of the country as a whole.
Reducing democracy can work for a time, but I don’t see it as a long term protection against rebellion. Ultimately, you’re going to have to start reducing poverty to prevent that outcome. There is no “system” to emulate perfectly, we must make our own way of reducing poverty. A great place to begin would be universal healthcare and better social safety nets to protect people from falling into poverty and give them a hand getting out. It’s still America, just an America that tries to help its people in the ways we see countries around the world helping their citizens.
How about prividing opportunities for a decent education? That’s the main ticket out of poverty. The trouble is the vast majority of inner city schools are bad, and the teachers unions are more interested in themselves than the kids. The Democrats have one party rule in those cities and get their money and support from the teachers unions. So there is no support for fixing the system.
The solutions to poverty are education and self initiative with the help of the government. It is not, “You get everything for nothing because you are entitled to it.” If you give the people something for nothing, they will consume it or tear it up and expect more.
“Systemic racism” and “critical race theory” say that you are a victim and are entitled to everything for nothing. They offer only hate and division, not solutions.
But self initiative and hard work are “racist concepts” so the left can turn the page and take charge using lies and demagoguery. That sells much better although it always fails.
Sure, but you’re not putting that into full context; Madison is talking about what the Senate is for vs the House:
The House being the thing that represents the other Order of Men, the pure Democratic body there to represent the interests of the less wealthy majority.
The Senate in practice is a check against Mob rule (or any other form of Populism); the thing that was well known even by that time to fell Democracies, whether it was the Greeks, the Romans, or the later states in now-Italy.
The Senate, not the Government.
The goal in Government is to force consensus by having each interest represented, and set against each other. Neither can act unilaterally.
The Senate’s other goal was to set the States against the Federal Government; stagnating power as a way to further encourage checks against centralizing civil power. But we reduced that role when we made Senators direct vote offices, rather than having them be representatives of State Legislatures. Senators now are more like super-House members, more likely swayed by populism.
Same to the reduction of Senate rules that needed super majorities to pass things, and in their place, allow 51% majorities to approve basically anything they consider. Same to the decline of the filibuster.
And I have to fault your prose here, and by extension, Chomsky’s
Representative Democracy is already a reduction of Democracy vs Direct Democracy. This was done
for game theoretic reasons which we know Direct Democracies suffer.
It’s not “can work for a time” it’s that Republics which have intentional checks against populism last longer than Democracies that don’t.
All comparisons should be based on actual track records; not those made in a vacuum.
The only long lasting rebellion we’ve suffered came from landowners worried that the value of their property (slaves) was being injured beyond recoverability.
America has had a continual Government since the 18th century; we’re one of the oldest in the world at this point; showing that the Founders had a very clear-eyed view of human factors, of how power propagates, and how it needed to be constrained.
On human societal timescales, we’re an outlier of success.
To the extent that we’ve created financial insecurity, it has nothing to do with people not “Sharing wealth”, and everything to do with how we’ve distorted Home and Healthcare markets which disproportionally hurt those not in the position to benefit.
Same to the healthcare industry. The problem in the 1930s is that it was “too cheap” according to providers, and so newly established AMA boards ran out the ubiquitous form of Lodge practice medicine that made it cheap.
We have a troubling constellation of regulations that have installed preferences into our laws, rather than best practices. Then we throw public money at building those preferences to non-sustainable excess which hurts people just joining our economy.
I think perhaps you misunderstand the point, especially with rebellion. What I’m trying to get at is that authoritarian regimes such as one party socialist/communist parties don’t develop for no reason. To enact these types of revolutions, you need the people on your side. I’m stating that if a country has wronged its people enough to get overthrown, it’s a failure of the former system.
So what options are left? You either make living in the country better for enough people that revolution never gains popular support, or I suppose there’s a less palatable option of going extreme authoritarian and crushing rebellion. However, I’d say if went with option 2 we’ve lost our identity as a nation and failed anyway.
@Sendgop, I ALMOST brought up access to education and do believe it’s important, but I was afraid of inadvertently steering the conversation to theories of indoctrination. For primary schools, we probably need to up funding across the board at the state and federal levels while decoupling local funding and local property taxes.
Most revolutions occur during times of relative prosperity, something described within the J-curve hypothesis. France is far more at risk of revolution (again) than we are under that understanding.
2 You’re stacking the deck, tabling that it’s either wealth distribution, or authoritarianism.
Except, I can unravel that by asking “how did we get here?”
The issues provoking insecurity in the U.S. are not mysterious, and they’re not natural. Rather, they’re policy choices that can be reversed.
Federal grant spending is what has caused dysfunction just the same as Federal grants have caused dysfunction in housing and road construction. It becomes deleterious rent-seeking where the institutions on the ground do what they can to get that money , even if the actions or the project don’t actually serve anyone.
To suggest that we can fix this problem by spending even more, sounds highly dubious.
More likely, you need to unravel how that money has been spent. Ergo, want to fix teacher wage stagnation? One thing we could do is address the staffing surge in non-teaching positions
which have demonstrated no ability to improve outcomes.
But curiously enough, more than a few of those were likely were a requirement on a grant proposal somewhere.
Except you’re straw-manning me by saying I want wealth distribution. I’m advocating for improving the standard of living of the majority. If that’s by reversing current policies, so be it. The follow up to that is, will reversing and policies raise enough people out of poverty quickly enough? If right wing pundits are to be believed, communism is already knocking on the door.
Long term, it doesn’t really matter to me what approach we take as long as it has meaningful results. As for the J-curve hypothesis, it’s a neat idea I hadn’t heard of before. Essentially it seems to be saying revolution is caused by subversion of expectations, like an economic depression after years of growth, leads to it. In that regard aren’t we primed pretty well for it? Even if it’s not always true, America prides itself on explosive growth and wealth. Obviously that can’t last forever, so aren’t we setting ourselves up for failure with the boom-bust economy we’ve cultivated?
I don’t quite remember how old you said you were (or if you have said in the past) but having been born in the 90’s, it’s been strange to hear stories of American prosperity while living though several depressions and crashes. Tangent side note, feel free to ignore - my gut says another housing bubble is going to go in the next few years. The aggression and rising prices I’ve been hearing about from friends buying homes is just kinda sketchy.
The problem is indicators of economic mobility, affordable healthcare, and housing that isn’t just a box in the sky.
But most people do have healthcare through their employers, there’s a minority who for one reason or another isn’t fully involved in that system, and are left vulnerable because of it.
Equally most people have housing; we are not South Korea whose hitting truly crisis levels @ ~58%, but nor are we like Singapore scoring well over 90%.
Not the worst, but we could be better.
…China reports a home ownership rate of 88% — **** you, you lying pieces of ****.
1.Yes. Changing to the right policies would lower housing and healthcare prices immediately. Lower prices = more access, especially if that’s tide to any kind of supply increase.
Most people are not in poverty, so who are we talking about? And what are we talking about?
Is this poverty reduction? Or is this fortifying the middle class? The latter would make more sense if we’re speaking to a “majority” of some kind.
Equally, is this about reducing inequality? Or is this about improving mobility? Removing barriers to wealth accumulation by lower classes, is not the same as giving people wealth.
Well yes, that’s what a hyper-focus on equity gets you. The tendency of people who lead organizations calling for equity to also proclaim ties or sympathy to Marxism doesn’t help.
Remember the runner-up mayor candidate who got Bernie’s endorsement in Portland? Bingo.
Nor does the DSA having candidates in high office, which has an annoying habit of calling for solidarity with Venezuela. And death to capitalism. And calling each other “comrade”.
If they don’t want the parallel to communism, they don’t seem to be trying very hard to avoid it.
I don’t see our economy crashing anytime soon, it already did that. Ask me again during or right before the next recession.
Oh hey, another unnatural thing we do to ourselves. There’s something that can fix or at least moderate that tendency in the works, but I don’t pay quite enough attention to know if that’s soon. It’ll be when they actually start doing more of those other useful things they keep promising and are no longer acting like penny stocks.
I’ve never said. Cwolf once guessed, he wasn’t far off.
Sure could, anyone who thinks Glass-steagall, or whatever Dodd–Frank was supposed to do could prevent it, missed what the underlying drivers were in 2008. Which are still here.
We still subsidize housing in not-useful ways, we still have over-valued areas from over restrictive land use laws. We still have broad expectations that housing prices will go up, which makes real estate a “safe” investment for people looking to grow their wealth.
It’ll happen again. Just hard to say if it’ll be worse, or if we’ll be just savvy enough not grow it to 2008 levels.