3 ms·
I understand the sentiment, but why does every discussion that liberals have about the state of the world have to revolve around Donald Trump? Donald Trump was
by pessimizer 2y ago
I understand the sentiment, but why does every discussion that liberals have about the state of the world have to revolve around Donald Trump? Donald Trump was president for 4 weak years, during which his entire intelligence apparatus was sabotaging him, the administrative state was ignoring him, and people who worked in his administration were lying to him and intentionally distorting his orders, then writing op-eds about it in the NYT. Meanwhile, the same people who ran the country before him ran it during him, and he's basically appointing them again because he's a dimwit and doesn't know anyone else.
This constant casting off of blame onto celebrity enemies is insidious. It's an acknowledgement that the Western upper-middle class will never change their lifestyles or values, just spend all of their "political" time looking for scapegoats, ceremonially killing them, and patting themselves on the back for it (want a Pulitzer? A Nobel?)
That's why Trump was at first revitalizing, because he was a sacrifice that refused to die, immunizing them from the fact that their invested wealth doubled during his presidency and the one that followed. The fact that he overcame their frowny faced disapproval and their willingness to abuse the legal system has left them in complete disarray: could it be that the problem is that they've become ridiculously wealthy while working increasingly parasitic jobs, rather than that tech billionaires are assholes? You work for them.
And none of them deregulated telecommunications, none of them deregulated the banks, none of them made at-will employment the standard. They're not the reason that I had three educational tv channels as a child, and now, for the past couple decades, the only one left in PBS has been fundraising with Deepak Chopra lectures. You've all become libertarians unless your lifestyle or aesthetic is bothered in any way, then you become authoritarians. Or in other words, you're narcissists.
The outsourcing of morality to voting and donating to Democrats is over. The elevation of that private group to a moral authority based on the fact that they were vaguely nice to black people from the mid-60s to the mid-80s, and that being drilled into every school age kid, has to be overcome. The party hasn't broken with Reagan, via that likely rapist, definitely sexual harasser that they platform at every convention, one that took a break from campaigning to execute a retarded black man. You shouldn't have ever left it to them, you did it because it was easy. It's not morality if it doesn't involve sacrifice.
Also, ask yourself the question: what do you do? Are you contributing to anything net positive in the world, or are you simply a facilitator for a middleman who lives through extracting value from the defenseless? Are you double-dipping by spending the cash of the people you make social capital out of publicly whining about?
- Sol2Sol 2y agoThe issue of morality and character wasn't just raised by Democrats and the "fake news" media. It was also raised by Republicans who directly served in the administration. When your former VP, chief of staff, military leaders and scores of former cabinet officials say issues of character made him unfit for command, I think people should and ought to have taken that very seriously in both the primaries and general election. This is before you even get to his numerous legal issues both civil and criminal. It is unfortunate that so many still choose to see this through only a political lens.