I think you’re equating socioeconomic status with political alignment

I’m not, necessarily. I think a person can be unhappy and discontented even if they aren’t of low socioeconomic status. I think you can be unhappy even if you are doing relatively ok economically. I think that because that’s my exact situation. I’m not poor or trapped in an abusive job, yet I am very dissatisfied with the status quo.

I definitely think the centrist middle is going to become more and more hollowed out as more people break from the middle into the progressive or conservative camps. That being said, while I don’t think any of the three groups represents a majority of Americans, I do think centrists still have a plurality, though I think they will soon be overtaken by one of the other groups. Unfortunately, I think more centrists are likely to break conservative than progressive. I think more Americans are likely to have a negative reaction to the possibility of radical change than a positive one. But perhaps that depends on the changes being proposed. One thing I am very confident of is if the proposed changes are socialist, even if only in name, I think a majority of Americans will have a negative reaction to them.

I think American politics today can be broken down as follows:

There are three main groups in America today: revolutionaries (we’ll call them progressives), reactionaries (we’ll call them conservatives), and the supporters of the status quo (we’ll call them centrists).

The centrists are people who are generally doing well, are generally happy and content, and therefore don’t want things to change significantly. They might be willing to accept relatively minor changes, but only if the changes don’t negatively impact them in any meaningful way.

Progressives are people who are generally unhappy and discontent. They don’t feel that things are working for them, so they want to radically change things, in the hopes of making society more like their hypothetical or theoretical ideal.

Conservatives are generally a reaction to progressives. Like progressives, conservatives aren’t entirely content with the status quo, but they generally blame progressives for any problems. They believe it was progressives who created the problems when they tried to make radical changes, and conservatives therefore think the best way to solve the problems is to roll back any of the changes and to just generally go back to a better, more stable, more traditional past.

Progressives hate the centrists, for their opposition to the radical changes they propose, changes that progressives view as absolutely necessary. Progressives feel that the centrists lack empathy, as they are unable to see, or don’t care, that progressives are very unhappy and discontented, and may even be suffering.

The centrists see progressives as overly idealistic malcontents who are simply blind to how good they have it and to all the status quo has given them. The centrists also resent the progressives for asking them to make sacrifices. The centrists believe they earned their success, and there’s no reason to punish them for it, and that progressives are just “sore losers.”

Conservatives absolutely hate progressives, with a murderous rage. They hate that progressives want to radically change things, and they hate that progressives reject tradition and established hierarchies/hegemony. conservatives are infuriated that progressives won’t show deference to traditional authority, and even dare, in some cases, to call for the destruction of said authority.

Conservatives don’t necessarily like the centrists either, but any problems they have with the centrists comes down to any willingness they may have to work with progressives. For instance, if the centrists are ever willing to listen to or compromise with progressives, conservatives view that as total capitulation to the progressives, and/or the status quo being completely co-opted or infiltrated by progressives.

Conservatives now believe that the status quo has been taken over by progressives, and thus they make no distinction between the centrists and progressives, viewing both as the enemy. Therefore, it has become necessary for the centrists to ally with progressives (as much as they might hate that thought) against conservatives. However, the alliance is restricted only to opposing conservatives, and does nothing to change the centrists’ general opposition to the aims and ambitions of progressives. For this reason, progressives are reluctant to form an alliance with the centrists, since they believe the centrists are asking for the progressives’ help without offering anything in return. The centrists argue that they don’t have to offer anything to the progressives, and that the progressives should help the centrists because it is also in their interest to see the conservatives defeated.

Pass a law that medical decisions are between a patient and a doctor.

They tried passing a law to make abortion legal in all 50 states. It was called the Women’s Health Protection Act. It was defeated in the Senate, twice. I’m sure they’ll keep trying, but even if they succeed the law will be challenged and I think it’s likely the current supreme court would overturn it. Plus, laws passed by one Congress can be repealed by another Congress. The only way to guarantee abortion rights in all 50 states would be to amend the constitution.

Ok, that’s fair. That is a kind of compromise. So, you’re saying you agree that breaking up is the best option? I mean, you just absolutely refuse to give a definitive answer, so I feel I need to clarify.

Have we completely given up on not having federal fascism already?

Not necessarily, but you won’t tell me how you plan to stop the fascists? Are you going to fight them or try to compromise with them?

If you think having a fascist federal government, in which abortion is illegal for all, is between than some states having abortion rights and some states not, that’s your opinion, I’m just saying I disagree with it.

What you call rambling, is actually context.

You literally edited my words to change what I said. The FULL sentence I wrote was:

I think it’s better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states, then to have a strong federal government that gets taken over by fascists, for instance.

You’re just being deliberately dishonest.

You folks keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that a decision automatically becomes morally right when it is made at the state level instead of the federal level. I never said that restricting abortion access was right or good.

I really would like an answer from someone about how you all would make abortion legal in all 50 states. Please, my all means tell me. If that is the only acceptable option to you, how do you think it can be accomplished?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I literally did not.

WOW, I love that you’re argument in favor of states rights is “sure women in all these states completely lost their bodily autonomy, but I’m not a woman so I think it’s the way to go!”

Well, I certainly didn’t write that. At all. In fact, it seems you didn’t read what I wrote at all. The only way to guarantee abortion rights for all women in all 50 states is a constitutional amendment, an amendment that is very unlikely to pass. So, what do you propose?

In an interview on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Roberts added that Republicans are “in the process of taking this country back.”

The way I see it, we have three options: we fight it out, and the winner gets to run the country according to their ideals and vision. Or, we try to compromise. Personally, I think this option is unlikely to work. There comes a point where compromise becomes impractical, if not impossible. The third option is we split up, and go our separate ways. Personally, I prefer the third option, and I think it’s already happening.

Take abortion, for instance. The overturning of Roe v Wade didn’t make abortion illegal throughout the whole country, it simply returned the matter to the states. In order to either make abortion completely legal in all 50 states, or to ban abortion completely in all 50 states, it would require a constitutional amendment. But, constitutional amendments have to be ratified by at least 38 of the 50 states. Since abortion is currently fully legal in I believe 28 states, and fully illegal in 14 states, neither constitutional amendment seems likely to happen. So, the matter will likely be handled on a state by state basis for the foreseeable future. I think a lot of matters will be primarily handled by the states going forward, as the federal government becomes more and more dysfunctional and unable to legislate.

But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think it’s better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states, then to have a strong federal government that gets taken over by fascists, for instance. And that’s the thing, as long as the federal government remains the highest power and authority, there will always be groups fighting each other for control of it.

Edit: let me clarify the three options. Option 1, a winner take all fight between liberals and conservatives for total control of America. Option 2, compromise. Option 3, break up. I support option 3 because I don’t believe compromise is possible and because I think a winner take all fight for total control is risky (liberals could lose) and it would probably cause a lot of harm. Some of you want to fight it out, I get that, I’m just saying I don’t think it’s the best option. People tend to focus on the negative aspects of breaking up, specifically that conservative states will have more autonomy to enact their harmful policies in their states, and that’s true, but liberals will also have more autonomy to enact their policies in their states. In a break up scenario, much of the US will not only remain liberal but be free to become even more liberal. However, in a winner take all fight for supremacy, if the liberals lose, no parts of the US would be liberal.

what we’re seeing isn’t being “unhappy with the status quo”. It’s believing in fairy tales. It’s believing in conspiracy theories.

I think when people become unhappy with the status quo, they are more likely to believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theories, especially if those messages are coming from a seemingly strong leader promising a return to glory. I don’t think it would be a terrible thing if Democrats tried harder to look strong and promise that they’re going to make America great, only without the conspiracy theories and scapegoats. I think a lot of people really need to hear that message, and if the “good guys” aren’t willing to offer that message, someone with less than honorable intentions will.

I would like to clarify that I am not in favor of assassination attempts, but I’m just not convinced that simply playing the game by the rules is the most effective method for defeating fascism. That being said, I don’t claim to know what is, necessarily. However, it seems to me that, in most cases, defeating fascism has required using at least some violence.

He was polling at +15 against DJT and the DNC chose “middle path” pragmatism to their loss.

Yeah, they did lose, but then they did essentially the exact same thing in 2020 and won, so I remain unconvinced. I’ll concede that idealistic candidates can win some elections, but I don’t think it’s nearly as many as you’re claiming.

If you have data showing that moderation is winning elections (left or right), happy to discuss.

Well, there’s the fact that Clinton won the primaries in 2016, and that Biden won the primaries (over Bernie), and the general, in 2020. If Congress or state legislatures have become more progressive, I’m not aware of it.

The rules may be different for Democrats and Republicans, but those are the ones by which this game must be played. If Trump is to be defeated, it can only be by honestly adhering to norms and principles that Trump has long since torn down. The Democrats must make the case to voters that the election is a choice between these norms, and permanent rule by an explicitly fascist political party.

If the best way to defeat Trump was to honestly adhere to established political norms, Hillary Clinton would have won the election in 2016. There has hardly been a more established political candidate than Clinton. Yet, she lost. I think a candidate adhering to norms matters more when the people are generally happy with the status quo, but when the people become less satisfied with the status quo, candidates adhering to norms matters less. In fact, I think as people become less satisfied with the status quo, the more they like candidates to deviate from the norm. I mean, if people aren’t very satisfied with normal, offering them more normal probably isn’t going to get you very far.

You are making the assumption that pragmatism is inherently better or more effective at capturing political power

That’s not exactly what I said, I said pragmatism is a methodology that can be used to achieve a goal. There’s no reason why you couldn’t take a pragmatic approach to achieving an idealistic goal. It’s simply a matter of finding strategies that get you nearer to your goal and disregarding strategies that get you further from your goal. Several years ago, DSA was able to have a lot of success by putting forward an idealistic vision. Yes, I agree with that. However, since then the success of that strategy has waned significantly. Perhaps selling a kind of idealistic vision for America is still an effective strategy on the far right, but I think its effectiveness has declined dramatically among centrists and moderates, as well as progressives. Maybe it’s still an effective strategy in AOC’s district specifically (although, it seems she has become less idealistic and yet remains popular in her district, as far as I know), but that doesn’t mean idealism is an effective strategy in America, generally.