4 ms·
>That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence. Of course. The vast majority of America needs "sound bites" of info. W
by vlan0 2y ago
>That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence.
Of course. The vast majority of America needs "sound bites" of info. Wish this wasn't the case. But it's worked for decades.
>Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means.
You're not wrong. But there is a happy medium. Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting. Those are dangerous. They are not in the interest of all American people. They benefit the few.
And we cannot have hypocrites at every level. The insider trading that occurs due to politician privilege is insane. But not Bernie, his actions match his words. He lives by his principles. That cannot be said for many politicians.
>Bernie's ideas are very dangerous, because he offers simplistic, pat solutions to risks that are fundamental to politics itself (at the expense of the much more nuanced safeguards we've developed over the ages)
Is that's how things have played our for the folks in Vermont? I grew up in that area. I've watched his policies shape the landscape for decades. But his policies aren't why he's a great candidate.
While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy. These principles drive his entire political career, and they shape his policy proposals, but they also make him stand out in a political landscape where many politicians change their stance based on what's politically expedient or donor-friendly.
Bernie's character and consistency are arguably just as important as his policies in defining who he is as a politician.
>while proposing to make the political state far more central to people's immediate lives and livelihoods than it has ever been before.
This is a concern of mine as well. It's the ultimate balancing act. Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
- Gormo 2y ago> Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting. And this is part of the problem. Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation. > While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy. But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power. > Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it." Absolutely correct. And the problem here is that "insisting on someone's doing something" is the fundamental nature of the political state, while "establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it" is the task of a dynamic and pluralistic civil society, in all its forms. The more we allow the assertion of political power to solve problems that ought rightly be solved by bottom-up activity in civil society, the more we set ourselves up to be the victims of abuse (especially as the well-intentioned people who created the system of political dependence are superseded first by indifferent functionaries, and then by corrupt powermongers).
- vlan0 2y ago>But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power. I hear what you are saying. But again, his policies have had measurable benefits to his constituents in Vermont. With a track record going back decades. I understand you might not have first hand experience with this as I did. But to discredit years of his work saying it's all talk is a little tongue in cheek. At the end of the day I think we both know it'll always be an attempt to pick the "least evil."
- vlan0 2y agoI want to thank you for the discourse. This is a refreshing conversation on a very nuanced topic. I don't often encounter folks that can hold these opposing thoughts. Understanding how grey the world is. Cheers!
- Gormo 2y agoLikewise! At least there are still some venues online where partisan sloganeering hasn't totally overwhelmed discourse.
- pseudalopex 2y ago> Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation. Everyone who disagrees with me is gullible and misinformed.
- Gormo 2y agoOn this particular topic, yes, absolutely. Just read the ruling.