3 ms·

There's a big difference between claiming to want something, and actually wanting it. The primary goals of most politicians are staying in power and self-enrich

by crote 1y ago

There's a big difference between claiming to want something, and actually wanting it. The primary goals of most politicians are staying in power and self-enrichment, which in practice means doing whatever corporate America wants and handing out tax cuts (Republican) or subsidies (Democrats) to the rich. All the other stuff they claim to care about? That's literally only done to get more votes, most of them really could not care less about it. Outlawing abortion, mass deportation of immigrants, killing foreign imports? Great to claim on election rallies to motivate your voter base, but it was never meant to be achieved. It's far more efficient to milk a "the Democrats want to murder babies" tag line for a few decades than to actually ban abortion and have to deal with the fallout when their voters see women they know dying because they can't get the healthcare they need. Claiming to do something about immigration is more efficient than actually doing it and losing all support from the companies relying on immigrant labor. Claiming to be tough on China is far better than losing votes due to tariffs making all prices skyrocket. Traditionally the Republicans wanted to get in power, do nothing, and blame the Democrats for their failures. Trump screwed this up by actually doing the stuff he claimed he was going to do, and it's either going to end in an electoral bloodbath for the Republicans or a fascist theocratic dictatorship.

thrance 1y ago
I generally agree with your analysis but it ignores the switch that happens to every failing democracy: when populism ceases to be a tool and becomes the actual goal. It's difficult to imagine how those tariffs benefit the oligarchs behind Trump and the GOP. They also seem very much ready to actually ban abortion federally this time, and carry out massive deportations. No matter how destructive to the country and their image these policies could be. And here's pure speculation on my part: when you listen to interviews of the current administration it's like they don't even try to make what they do look good, or defend themselves. They are acting with the same shamelessness you would see in Russia, meaning they probably don't fear the next election day that much. As for the democrats, they're basically controlled opposition at this point. The geriatric establishment only cares about retaining enough donor money, and will absolutely not put up a fight against the republicans.
BobbyTables2 1y ago
Many elected leaders on both sides have made significant campaign promises without trying to keep them. Even Obama once talked about not renewing the Patriot Act… Yet it keeps getting renewed… (One could simply do nothing and let it expire!) In a darkly humorous sense, Trump embodies one civic ideal better than others before…
- mjevans 1y ago
  They could start with a bill that requires any politically charged bill title to be renamed to something boring, yet truthful and still relatively concise instead. It's really difficult to 'vote against patriot...' it's a lot less difficult to not vote for the 'spy on Americans, everyone is a potential terrorist' act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act Though there are some general ideas within that wide-reaching legislation that deserve a review and carefully constructed process, rather than a slip-shod 'fix it fix it fix it' now knee jerk law.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > They could start with a bill that requires any politically charged bill title to be renamed to something boring, yet truthful and still relatively concise instead. Well, even if it wasn’t Constitutiionally impossible for Congress to bind itself in the future this way, it would be impossible to enforce such a subjective rule. (And e en if you could enforce such a rule on formal names, it wouldn't stop informal names with emotional appeal from being popularly used, regardless of the formal name.)
  - BobbyTables2 1y ago
    The sad thing is nobody has to vote against it… They could simply play golf that day or meet with their constituents.

by crote 1y ago

thrance 1y ago

I generally agree with your analysis but it ignores the switch that happens to every failing democracy: when populism ceases to be a tool and becomes the actual goal. It's difficult to imagine how those tariffs benefit the oligarchs behind Trump and the GOP. They also seem very much ready to actually ban abortion federally this time, and carry out massive deportations. No matter how destructive to the country and their image these policies could be. And here's pure speculation on my part: when you listen to interviews of the current administration it's like they don't even try to make what they do look good, or defend themselves. They are acting with the same shamelessness you would see in Russia, meaning they probably don't fear the next election day that much. As for the democrats, they're basically controlled opposition at this point. The geriatric establishment only cares about retaining enough donor money, and will absolutely not put up a fight against the republicans.

BobbyTables2 1y ago

Many elected leaders on both sides have made significant campaign promises without trying to keep them. Even Obama once talked about not renewing the Patriot Act… Yet it keeps getting renewed… (One could simply do nothing and let it expire!) In a darkly humorous sense, Trump embodies one civic ideal better than others before…

mjevans 1y ago
They could start with a bill that requires any politically charged bill title to be renamed to something boring, yet truthful and still relatively concise instead. It's really difficult to 'vote against patriot...' it's a lot less difficult to not vote for the 'spy on Americans, everyone is a potential terrorist' act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act Though there are some general ideas within that wide-reaching legislation that deserve a review and carefully constructed process, rather than a slip-shod 'fix it fix it fix it' now knee jerk law.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > They could start with a bill that requires any politically charged bill title to be renamed to something boring, yet truthful and still relatively concise instead. Well, even if it wasn’t Constitutiionally impossible for Congress to bind itself in the future this way, it would be impossible to enforce such a subjective rule. (And e en if you could enforce such a rule on formal names, it wouldn't stop informal names with emotional appeal from being popularly used, regardless of the formal name.)
- BobbyTables2 1y ago
  The sad thing is nobody has to vote against it… They could simply play golf that day or meet with their constituents.