On a personal note, the elevation of Juneteenth made me realize that this is the first new federal holiday of my adult life. A lot of the rhythms of modern everyday life seem set in stone. The 40-hour work week, minimum wage, weekends, federal holidays, systemic racism, constitutional amendments, the list goes on.
So one of my favorite analogies about a society sliding into authoritarianism is cooking a lobster. You toss a lobster into a boiling pot, he usually climbs out You put the lobster in a room temperature pot and slowly heat it up to boiling he doesn’t notice the boiling till it’s too late.
I for one don’t see the future in such stark terms. I see it more as today’s political crisis. Our history is filled with crises like this that are mere footnotes. Example include Jackson and the Bank of the US or the teapot dome scandals. Or even more apt may be the election of 1876, where the corrupt bargain between political parties settles to contentious election and resulted in the end of effective post civil war reconstruction. All of these moments seemed a threat to the system. But the system goes on. The history we need to compare to would be something like France or the UK, where the system changes, at some points dramatically over time but the polity remains relatively stable.
As far and the senate though, it’s changed before, it will change again. We’ve only been electing senators directly for a little over 100 years. A previous wave of progressivism caused that change. The thing to keep in mind is people are weary to give away representation. A reformed senate would most like give more representatives to California and less to Maine. How do you sell that politically?
So, perhaps I mis-sold myself a bit. I wasn't trying to say that we're already an authoritarian state - although, I do often hold that a faction led by Southern elites has at various points established de-facto authoritarian sub-states.
I was more trying to say, before we've actually had any collapse, it's pretty clear that the GOP has locked in on the pursuit of power and convinced itself that the entire left needs to be permanently locked out of power.
The difference between them and myself as a leftist, is that I'm not saying the right is wholly incompetent or needs to be locked out of power, merely that their instincts need to be harnessed and redirected by the system, just like those of leftists do. All I want is a 5-6 party democracy that makes it harder for any party to seize control, but isn't too fractured to be stable, and allows enough degrees of freedom for large standing majorities on any given issue to see progress.
The GOP isn't trying to design something like that. They're not trying to make leftist politics work better for America. They're just trying to screw the left.
You’re right they are trying to screw to left, because they see the left as trying to screw America. Both parties have an immense amount of distrust of the other. Both see themselves as morally correct. Don’t lie to yourself thinking that many on the left wouldn’t burn down the system before turning it over to the conservatives.
Politicians and people in general are usually self interested to varying degrees, which makes it hard to vote against what they PERCEIVE as against their interests. The perception is important. For example in Missouri the voters supported an amendment against right to work, supported Medicare expansion and approved medical marijuana. All three are to varying degrees left or center-left policies. So why does that same state have a Republican supermajority in the general assembly? Are conservatives just better at gaming the system?
Too often the left likes to paint itself as the arbiter of the moral high ground. Often this is accurate. Sometimes People don’t want to listen to the morally pure tell everyone what they do wrong. Sometimes they want someone to emphasize with their less than good characteristics. Sometimes you catch more flies with vinegar than honey.
"Don’t lie to yourself thinking that many on the left wouldn’t burn down the system before turning it over to the conservatives."
Ehh.. That's not really what I see from within most of the left. By contrast, my evaluation of the right is really just going off of what I remember from "inside the movement" as recently as... *checks notes*... 2008. And they've only gotten worse since then.
"So why does that same state have a Republican supermajority in the general assembly?"
Term limits had a lot to do with it.
But Missouri was always a heavily right-leaning state to begin with. The much-ballyhooed "bellwether era" was mostly a product of the fact that both major parties were right-leaning on social issues for much of the 20th century. When the left left social conservatism behind, it's no surprise that Missouri, like West Virginia, broke red.
"Too often the left likes to paint itself as the arbiter of the moral high ground. Often this is accurate. [...] Sometimes you catch more flies with vinegar than honey."
I think you're describing a symptom of zero-sum politics. It's a politics of either-or, where you either dominate or be dominated. Get rid of zero-sum elections, and you'll see less of this.
Take the recent mayoral primary in STL, for instance. A broad consensus emerged around two centers. Both sought the approval of a majority of voters, and received it. There was no rancor or hatred; both candidates were eminently agreeable with each other. This is successful positive-sum politics, right here in our (technically, front) yard!
So one of my favorite analogies about a society sliding into authoritarianism is cooking a lobster. You toss a lobster into a boiling pot, he usually climbs out You put the lobster in a room temperature pot and slowly heat it up to boiling he doesn’t notice the boiling till it’s too late.
I for one don’t see the future in such stark terms. I see it more as today’s political crisis. Our history is filled with crises like this that are mere footnotes. Example include Jackson and the Bank of the US or the teapot dome scandals. Or even more apt may be the election of 1876, where the corrupt bargain between political parties settles to contentious election and resulted in the end of effective post civil war reconstruction. All of these moments seemed a threat to the system. But the system goes on. The history we need to compare to would be something like France or the UK, where the system changes, at some points dramatically over time but the polity remains relatively stable.
As far and the senate though, it’s changed before, it will change again. We’ve only been electing senators directly for a little over 100 years. A previous wave of progressivism caused that change. The thing to keep in mind is people are weary to give away representation. A reformed senate would most like give more representatives to California and less to Maine. How do you sell that politically?
So, perhaps I mis-sold myself a bit. I wasn't trying to say that we're already an authoritarian state - although, I do often hold that a faction led by Southern elites has at various points established de-facto authoritarian sub-states.
I was more trying to say, before we've actually had any collapse, it's pretty clear that the GOP has locked in on the pursuit of power and convinced itself that the entire left needs to be permanently locked out of power.
The difference between them and myself as a leftist, is that I'm not saying the right is wholly incompetent or needs to be locked out of power, merely that their instincts need to be harnessed and redirected by the system, just like those of leftists do. All I want is a 5-6 party democracy that makes it harder for any party to seize control, but isn't too fractured to be stable, and allows enough degrees of freedom for large standing majorities on any given issue to see progress.
The GOP isn't trying to design something like that. They're not trying to make leftist politics work better for America. They're just trying to screw the left.
You’re right they are trying to screw to left, because they see the left as trying to screw America. Both parties have an immense amount of distrust of the other. Both see themselves as morally correct. Don’t lie to yourself thinking that many on the left wouldn’t burn down the system before turning it over to the conservatives.
Politicians and people in general are usually self interested to varying degrees, which makes it hard to vote against what they PERCEIVE as against their interests. The perception is important. For example in Missouri the voters supported an amendment against right to work, supported Medicare expansion and approved medical marijuana. All three are to varying degrees left or center-left policies. So why does that same state have a Republican supermajority in the general assembly? Are conservatives just better at gaming the system?
Too often the left likes to paint itself as the arbiter of the moral high ground. Often this is accurate. Sometimes People don’t want to listen to the morally pure tell everyone what they do wrong. Sometimes they want someone to emphasize with their less than good characteristics. Sometimes you catch more flies with vinegar than honey.
"Don’t lie to yourself thinking that many on the left wouldn’t burn down the system before turning it over to the conservatives."
Ehh.. That's not really what I see from within most of the left. By contrast, my evaluation of the right is really just going off of what I remember from "inside the movement" as recently as... *checks notes*... 2008. And they've only gotten worse since then.
"So why does that same state have a Republican supermajority in the general assembly?"
Term limits had a lot to do with it.
But Missouri was always a heavily right-leaning state to begin with. The much-ballyhooed "bellwether era" was mostly a product of the fact that both major parties were right-leaning on social issues for much of the 20th century. When the left left social conservatism behind, it's no surprise that Missouri, like West Virginia, broke red.
"Too often the left likes to paint itself as the arbiter of the moral high ground. Often this is accurate. [...] Sometimes you catch more flies with vinegar than honey."
I think you're describing a symptom of zero-sum politics. It's a politics of either-or, where you either dominate or be dominated. Get rid of zero-sum elections, and you'll see less of this.
Take the recent mayoral primary in STL, for instance. A broad consensus emerged around two centers. Both sought the approval of a majority of voters, and received it. There was no rancor or hatred; both candidates were eminently agreeable with each other. This is successful positive-sum politics, right here in our (technically, front) yard!