3 ms·

I would add that Denmark's progressive parties would rather govern and face the responsibilities that go together with governing, and instead in many other coun

I would add that Denmark's progressive parties would rather govern and face the responsibilities that go together with governing, and instead in many other countries progressives would rather be pure, lose elections and then point their fingers, look at how bad that guy who is now in power is, etc.

bell-cot 2y ago
Yeah, sadly. A theory of mine: The ruling classes of a large & powerful country usually feel that their nation's existence and basic security are Sure Things. So - they can afford to ignore problems, screw up, line their own pockets, and hold "my ideology is better than yours" clique wars. Vs. the ruling classes of small & weak nations usually suffer from existential anxieties. "A big screw-up or few, by us, and our whole nation could easily fall into history's dead-and-gone dumpster." That feeling of being ultimately accountable leads to them act responsibly.
- Whoppertime 2y ago
  You can replace merit based systems with hiring first cousins or hiring on the basis of race, but you end up like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
drweevil 2y ago
That is clearly not the case in the US. With their repudiation of Sen. Sanders, the Democratic Party deliberately steered away from "pure" (whatever this ill-defined pejorative term may mean) and lost big. And when I say this, I mean look at what they did when they had power, not what they said--words can't put dinner on the table. Despite an electorate so hungry for change that they won with one of the most uninspiring candidates in recent memory, what they did was...nothing. Nothing to curb the moneyed interests. Nothing to help the working class. To me, the symbolic picture of this attitude was Sen. Sinema's No vote on the minimum wage increase (complete with curtsy, like a big middle finger to the working class). The result? Trump got about the same number of votes as he did in '20, but won this time, because the do-nothing Democrats got 10 million fewer. Voters didn't switch. They didn't turn out. Apathy for their uninspiring program--not "purity"--killed them.

bell-cot 2y ago

Yeah, sadly. A theory of mine: The ruling classes of a large & powerful country usually feel that their nation's existence and basic security are Sure Things. So - they can afford to ignore problems, screw up, line their own pockets, and hold "my ideology is better than yours" clique wars. Vs. the ruling classes of small & weak nations usually suffer from existential anxieties. "A big screw-up or few, by us, and our whole nation could easily fall into history's dead-and-gone dumpster." That feeling of being ultimately accountable leads to them act responsibly.

Whoppertime 2y ago
You can replace merit based systems with hiring first cousins or hiring on the basis of race, but you end up like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

drweevil 2y ago

That is clearly not the case in the US. With their repudiation of Sen. Sanders, the Democratic Party deliberately steered away from "pure" (whatever this ill-defined pejorative term may mean) and lost big. And when I say this, I mean look at what they did when they had power, not what they said--words can't put dinner on the table. Despite an electorate so hungry for change that they won with one of the most uninspiring candidates in recent memory, what they did was...nothing. Nothing to curb the moneyed interests. Nothing to help the working class. To me, the symbolic picture of this attitude was Sen. Sinema's No vote on the minimum wage increase (complete with curtsy, like a big middle finger to the working class). The result? Trump got about the same number of votes as he did in '20, but won this time, because the do-nothing Democrats got 10 million fewer. Voters didn't switch. They didn't turn out. Apathy for their uninspiring program--not "purity"--killed them.