I’ll vote Democrat as long as the alternative is fascism.
But fuck me, I’d love to vote for something else. And I’ll be honest, I have no idea how we get anything better.
I hear people saying to organize, but I can’t even imagine what that takes. I wonder if most Americans feel as helpless as I do in the face of this absolute bullshit.
Depends on what you mean by “much”? I’d argue the Democrats, on the whole, are liberals, not fascists.
I’d certainly prefer progressives and leftists though.
The support for Israel whole they genocide Palestine, thought… ugh. That can certainly be viewed as fascism, although where you draw the distinction between fascism and imperialism is up for debate. Not that imperialism is good either, just saying.
Yeah, I don’t buy that. Liberalism and Conservatism have different ideological foundations, philosophical traditions, and political histories.
If you don’t know the difference, that’s on you.
I have to make a lot of leaps to guess what you mean by “conservative liberal”. Do you mean a modern “social liberal economic conservative”? Aka a neoliberal?
Cuz yeah US Dems and Repubs are almost all economically neoliberal, sure. Is that what you mean?
There are no conservatives from conservatism in the US, and there never has been. There might be a few in the future, depending on how far towards monarchism the south goes when the US balkanizes, but certainly none now.
Both Republicans and Dems are neoliberals, yes, before that they were just liberals. One being for the rapid advancement of society, one being for a conservative advancement of society.
If you don’t know that, that’s on you.
But you are the perfect example of a brain fucked American that believes your politics fit anywhere else in the world, or can compare to anyone else’s political movements.
There’s a few bits in there that I find particularly salient for this discussion. First, that early Conservatism was trying to figure out how the aristocracy could maintain its position in society post-monarchy, and they eventually settled on “the market”. Second, that Conservatism has an everpresent undercurrent of “the wealthy deserve what they get, the poors are just freeloaders.” And third, that conservatives in the US say they care about measured steps and slow steady progress, but then all of a sudden they’re about swift, decisive action (usually by invading somewhere).
That final point is a big reason I tend to balk when people say that conservatism is about slow and steady progress vs revolutionary action. That’s something I grew up believing in the US, but it just never seemed accurate to how any conservatives in the US actually behaved. Virtually nothing conservatives say or do here make sense through the lens of “slow and steady” but make a lot more sense if you view it through a lens of preserving hierarchies and ensuring the people at the top stay there and those at the bottom grovel harder.
So I see these throughlines, and I have a hard time imagining that Conservatism (of the old European variety) simply had no strains here in the US. Yet, a lot of what I’m reading suggests that American conservatism is, as you said, a bit different. I haven’t looked deeply enough yet, but my initial thought is because the USA itself was instituted against monarchy, the pro-monarchy bits may not have fit, but the strict traditional hierarchy preservation certainly did.
I dunno. You have any idea how hard it is to unfuck your brain? It’s harder than you think!
Surely I’m not so “brain fucked” that I can’t learn? Help a brother out.
Edit: I love how for a supposedly leftist community, a guy asking for a lesson is down voted. The leftist infighting is real. You think I wouldn’t read what you sent?
The hard fact is that what the population votes for is what the population gets. They have completely given up their agency and just accept this impotent logic of “we’ll take whatever the most obvious/most apparently easy option is, that isn’t a Republican”. It’s a cyclical problem, the voters don’t care enough to force politicians to be good, and the politicians don’t care enough to court voters.
At the same time, “what the population votes for is what the population gets” ignores that we are often only presented with crappy options to start with.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “you get what you fight for, and if you don’t fight you get what you get.”
I… haven’t really fought for anything. I believed the right things. I voted as best I could. But that clearly didn’t stop this.
I want to protect my ego and say I’m not a coward. Is there a distinction to be made between cowardice and simply not knowing what to do? I don’t know. I just know I’m trying my best, but maybe that’s just not enough.
At the same time, “what the population votes for is what the population gets” ignores that we are often only presented with crappy options to start with.
It does not ignore that, rather it explicitly takes that into account.
The caveat to my statement would ONLY be “so long as we’re using this system.”
That about sums it up.
I’ll vote Democrat as long as the alternative is fascism.
But fuck me, I’d love to vote for something else. And I’ll be honest, I have no idea how we get anything better.
I hear people saying to organize, but I can’t even imagine what that takes. I wonder if most Americans feel as helpless as I do in the face of this absolute bullshit.
Unfortunately, much of what the Democrats represent is fascism.
Depends on what you mean by “much”? I’d argue the Democrats, on the whole, are liberals, not fascists.
I’d certainly prefer progressives and leftists though.
The support for Israel whole they genocide Palestine, thought… ugh. That can certainly be viewed as fascism, although where you draw the distinction between fascism and imperialism is up for debate. Not that imperialism is good either, just saying.
Liberals are the only people in history to vote for fascists to prevent class solidarity, and they’ve done it every time.
If you scratch a liberal, a fascist bleeds.
So conservatives are… what? Not a group of people? Or in your view, are conservatives just fascists already?
Conservative liberals have the same ideology as liberals, just the pace is different. American politics have fucked too many people’s brains.
Yeah, I don’t buy that. Liberalism and Conservatism have different ideological foundations, philosophical traditions, and political histories.
If you don’t know the difference, that’s on you.
I have to make a lot of leaps to guess what you mean by “conservative liberal”. Do you mean a modern “social liberal economic conservative”? Aka a neoliberal?
Cuz yeah US Dems and Repubs are almost all economically neoliberal, sure. Is that what you mean?
There are no conservatives from conservatism in the US, and there never has been. There might be a few in the future, depending on how far towards monarchism the south goes when the US balkanizes, but certainly none now.
Both Republicans and Dems are neoliberals, yes, before that they were just liberals. One being for the rapid advancement of society, one being for a conservative advancement of society.
If you don’t know that, that’s on you.
But you are the perfect example of a brain fucked American that believes your politics fit anywhere else in the world, or can compare to anyone else’s political movements.
Hey there. So I’m doing some reading trying to see if I’m just wrong here. I might be?
Just for context about where I learned about Conservatism, its roots, and how it functions in America now, this is really good distillation of what I’ve been learning: The Alt-Right Playbook - Endnote 3: The Origins of Conservatism.
There’s a few bits in there that I find particularly salient for this discussion. First, that early Conservatism was trying to figure out how the aristocracy could maintain its position in society post-monarchy, and they eventually settled on “the market”. Second, that Conservatism has an everpresent undercurrent of “the wealthy deserve what they get, the poors are just freeloaders.” And third, that conservatives in the US say they care about measured steps and slow steady progress, but then all of a sudden they’re about swift, decisive action (usually by invading somewhere).
That final point is a big reason I tend to balk when people say that conservatism is about slow and steady progress vs revolutionary action. That’s something I grew up believing in the US, but it just never seemed accurate to how any conservatives in the US actually behaved. Virtually nothing conservatives say or do here make sense through the lens of “slow and steady” but make a lot more sense if you view it through a lens of preserving hierarchies and ensuring the people at the top stay there and those at the bottom grovel harder.
So I see these throughlines, and I have a hard time imagining that Conservatism (of the old European variety) simply had no strains here in the US. Yet, a lot of what I’m reading suggests that American conservatism is, as you said, a bit different. I haven’t looked deeply enough yet, but my initial thought is because the USA itself was instituted against monarchy, the pro-monarchy bits may not have fit, but the strict traditional hierarchy preservation certainly did.
I dunno. You have any idea how hard it is to unfuck your brain? It’s harder than you think!
Then please, enlighten me.
Surely I’m not so “brain fucked” that I can’t learn? Help a brother out.
Edit: I love how for a supposedly leftist community, a guy asking for a lesson is down voted. The leftist infighting is real. You think I wouldn’t read what you sent?
The hard fact is that what the population votes for is what the population gets. They have completely given up their agency and just accept this impotent logic of “we’ll take whatever the most obvious/most apparently easy option is, that isn’t a Republican”. It’s a cyclical problem, the voters don’t care enough to force politicians to be good, and the politicians don’t care enough to court voters.
It really isn’t, study after study has shown that popularity has basically no effect on policy.
…the candidate the population votes for. Did you need that to say “who”?
At the same time, “what the population votes for is what the population gets” ignores that we are often only presented with crappy options to start with.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “you get what you fight for, and if you don’t fight you get what you get.”
I… haven’t really fought for anything. I believed the right things. I voted as best I could. But that clearly didn’t stop this.
I want to protect my ego and say I’m not a coward. Is there a distinction to be made between cowardice and simply not knowing what to do? I don’t know. I just know I’m trying my best, but maybe that’s just not enough.
It does not ignore that, rather it explicitly takes that into account.
The caveat to my statement would ONLY be “so long as we’re using this system.”
Please focus more on accurate logic.