Sentient David Brooks column Andrew Yang had some deep thoughts yesterday.
Policy? The Republican Party doesn’t have a platform and the Democrats have one they pretend about but don’t intend to actually implement. The Forward Party will bring people of diverse beliefs together to build common ground based on what people want and what works. You too.
— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) August 17, 2022
The fact is whatever policy you want the odds are this system will not deliver. And when you wonder why not, they will just shrug and point at the other party and ask you for a donation. The system is sick and needs a genuine popular movement across groups to change.
— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) August 17, 2022
At first my instinct was to point and laugh, but this thread has been bothering me more as time’s gone by. It’s such a perfect example of the faux-savvy grift style of politics. Both sides are bad, Democrats are sellout liars, we should follow the wisdom of crowds, the two-party system is a poisonous scam, etc. etc. But I’d like to focus on this part, where Yang gives the game away, right up top:
The Republican Party doesn’t have a platform
This is a lie. It is a lie that you tell when you do not want to talk about the Republican Party platform. Why doesn’t Andrew Yang want to talk about their platform of censorship, outlawing abortion and immigration, stigmatizing LGBT people, cutting social services, and raising taxes on the poor and middle class? And why lead with that? The obvious answer is, because he’s helming an operation that’s mostly just Republican ratfuckers, and saying anything bad about them would interfere with his fundraising and their plan to siphon votes away from Democrats.
“The Republican Party doesn’t have a platform.” I wonder if we’ll start seeing more of that in Savvy(tm) circles. It’s certainly got the right vibe: can’t you just see some smarmy politics-knower saying it on a montage of cable news shows? And it absolves Republicans of everything they do. They’re automatons operating on pure id; they don’t mean it; why don’t you quit whining, so we can talk about the real problem, Joe Biden.
None of this is really that noteworthy. I think his time in the spotlight might be nearing its end, anyway. But it’s all just so obvious. Is this what third-party grift has been reduced to? Fortunately nobody seems to be falling for it.
Open thread!
Shalimar
So Democrats have a platform but don’t really plan to implement any of it despite all the votes the last 20 months implementing it. Is he saying his party will basically do all the things Democrats claim to be for? Because that would be about 1000 times cooler than Andrew Yang actually is.
Amir Khalid
I wonder where Andrew Yang has been for the past few weeks.
Major Major Major Major
@Shalimar: no, his party will do “what people want and what works”, a Venn diagram whose intersection is basically just “universal background checks, first-trimester abortion rights, and legal weed.”
Cameron
Maybe Jason Willick can score an interview with him.
Redshift
@Amir Khalid:
Yeah, seems like remarkably poor timing for his obviously pre-packaged spiel.
piratedan
gotta love the fact that Brooks would rather give oxygen to these 3rd way centrist dipshits than discuss actual legislation being passed by actual legislators.
reason infinity why the NYT would better served firing the vast majority of their columnists and helping them find a job that would better acquaint themselves with real America, like maybe working at an Arby’s drive-thru
Redshift
He had a thread recently insisting that the reason we’re fighting all the time is that there are two sides, and they want to make sure the other one loses, but if we had multiple parties, then they’d have to get together and agree on things. Followed by an opinion bar chart purporting to show that a majority of voters of all stripes wanted a third party (with no attribution or even the wording of the question), followed by, basically “so let’s do that!”
Which highlighted the essential cluelessness of the position that he doesn’t need a plan for it, we just have to decide to do it. But if a majority of people already want it, then why hasn’t it just happened?
(Some other comment in the thread about collapsing democracies and authoritarianism led to a lot of people pointing out that Germany had multiple parties in 1932, and maybe he ought to read a book before making broad historical/political pronouncements.)
Wyatt Salamanca
Trumpism is an existential threat to our current political system. All it takes is a handful of 2020 election deniers to get elected as Secretary of State or Governor in a few swing states and if the vote tallies are close enough in some of those states, these Republican flat Earthers can steal the election away from Biden. Given these stakes, Andrew Yang is an incredibly irresponsible asshole to choose this moment in history to launch the Forward party. Yang and his stupid fucking Forward Party need to be swept into the trash receptacle of history where they belong.
Redshift
@piratedan: Er, true, but the metaphor here is Yang as a “sentient David Brooks column”, it’s not an actual Brooks column about Yang.
Alison Rose 💙🌻💛
@Amir Khalid: It’s tough to follow the news when you’re half a mile up your own ass.
Edmund Dantes
I mean the Republican Party has two platforms currently.
1. The do whatever trump wants platform to keep his voters in line. It was voted on at the convention and everything
2. Rick Scott’s platform that every single gop ran away from officially cause it was too on the nose as to their real wants in fairly stark language, but represents everything the party has been about since before trump.
Redshift
@Wyatt Salamanca:
Which is yet more evidence, in addition to the many Republicans involved in it, that it’s nothing more than a GOP ratfucking operation, whether Yang knows it or not.
ColoradoGuy
Interesting trajectory from the Green Party to Yang. Wonder how much foreign influence was behind them … the KGB/FSB has been quietly subsidizing fantasy-driven fringe parties (on all sides) for the last several decades, with the goal of weakening the center.
Redshift
@Edmund Dantes: Right, those are the written platforms. But there’s a clear pattern emerging from DeSantis/Abbott/Youngkin/etc. that the actual platform is banning abortion, demonizing trans and other LBGTQ+ people, voter suppression, “parental rights ” to decide what their kids are taught (the slick slogan that actually means “conservative parents get to decide what everyone is taught”), anti-vax, etc. Those are actual policies, and are being implemented much more than anything they’ve ever put in a written platform.
piratedan
@Redshift: my apologies for missing the point, time to check my reading comprehension levels I suppose… :-)
NotMax
Expecting to meet you at the NYC do this time.
Date has been chosen. Be there or be square.
;)
Redshift
@piratedan: It’s late, I figured a gentle nudge was in order. :-)
Dangerman
Yawn. What was the last group called? Third Way? This, too, shall pass, kinda like a kidney stone.
Wyatt Salamanca
@Redshift:
Prior to the founding of the Forward Party, I’d seen Christine Todd Whitman and David Jolly multiple times on MSNBC effectively prosecuting the case against Trump so I find their decision to back this third party pretty fucking infuriating. They both know better so shame on them.
Another Scott
@Redshift: Yeah, Israel’s government works really well in having more than 2 major parties that have to work together to get things done.
(groucho-roll-eyes.gif)
He’ll be talking about 2 chickens in every pot next. Can’t wait.
Actually, I can.
Anything that reduces Democratic majorities now is bad. A few percentage points here and there are hugely consequential. We need to vote the monsters out to make faster and longer-lasting progress. Yang is an obstacle and should be routed-around.
Cheers,
Scott.
Major Major Major Major
@NotMax: ugh, I’m actually in town for this one and it’s like right by me. Fine
Major Major Major Major
@Redshift: I’m not sure Yang is clever enough to realizing he’s running a con.
different-church-lady
Wasn’t it just a couple of days ago that Acosta proved it’s actually the Forward Party that doesn’t have a platform?
NotMax
Flash in the pan, destined to last about as long as did MSNBC’s ill-conceived Lean Forward motto.
mrmoshpotato
Reads.
Hahaha! I’ve read enough of this post.
moops
There is never a “right time” to start a new political party. So I’m not outraged that Yang and the gang are trying to do it now.
But this party stands for nothing. They take no positions. They risk nothing, they gain nothing, they offer nothing but “let’s take the politics out of politics”
uh, that’s not how you get things done you moron. Shut up and go find a Democratic Party activity where you can make a difference. Sorry, you will need to check your personal gigantic ego at the door if you want to actually help.
Major Major Major Major
@moops: it was too humiliating to remain a democrat after he failed at getting elected president or even to the lowly office of the mayorship of America’s most populous city.
Wyatt Salamanca
@NotMax:
Or possibly as short as CNN+ lasted.
Mike in Pasadena
Your summary of the actual Republican platform is accurate except for one thing — it is not written into a “platform” document, they don’t admit it.
Mike in Pasadena
Republicans don’t write down their platform, they simply implement it.
Ruckus
@Amir Khalid:
I going to go out on a limb here and say that he’s in the place he’s always been, his own head.
It’s a place of rather limited range, tone and volume. IOW, his boat has a rather large hole in it and has filled with a helium/light water slurpee.
a thousand flouncing lurkers (was fidelio)
I’m both impressed and envious of the bilateral diss you managed with just 11 words, M4. Both of them will need to admit their egos to the burn unit.
notjonathon
So Yang is trying to be a Kardashian–to become famous by being famous.
trollhattan
@notjonathon: Once enough people see his sparkling personality the rest is in the bag.
ian
Yang is wrong about many things, but he is not wrong about Republicans not having an official platform. This is from the RNC
The document in question says they support the America first agenda. Which is basically just calling themselves ultra-maga. But in the sense that every four years the two major political parties (and most state parties) release written documents called platforms. The Republicans did not do this. Their unofficial platform may be hate, but they did not have an official platform in the last election.
Major Major Major Major
@ian: it is accurate in a very narrow, misleading, and meaningless sense, yes. Congratulations, you have a promising future as a Washington Post fact checker.
Also I’m pretty sure what they did was reauthorize the 2016 platform.
ETA and as noted below there are many republican party organizations that do in fact have platforms like what I described.
JaySinWA
@ian: The Texas GOP does https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pd
So does Rick Scott of Florida https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/22/rick-scott-gop-agenda-0001043
It would be nice if someone tweeted out each state’s GOP platform bullets. Better if there was an overview of each in an accessible essay form.
oatler
Yang’s giving cover to a violent terrorist cadre, and “pundits” need to stop suffering them, but CREAM.
opiejeanne
@oatler: CREAM? Cash Rules Everything Around Me?
TriassicSands
I think what Yang should have said was the Republicans don’t have a platform they are willing to put in writing. And Trump’s platform and the Party’s platform are not the same. No one can expect the GOP to write “Get revenge against anyone who has wronged Dear Leader.” That’s a big part of Trump”s platform, if a platform is what one hopes to accomplish as a result of being in power. And the party doesn’t really care about getting revenge for the infinite slights from which the Orange Grievance Burger is always seething. That’s part of Trump’s platform, which also includes any number of self-enriching grifts.
Another problem with an “honest” description of the GOP’s platform is that parts of it are only appealing to the wealthy on the one hand or religious bigots on the other. It’s not a coherent plan to govern, but rather a way to gain support for things you don’t want to own publicly.
Balconesfault
There are functionally 3 Parties .. the GOP, the centrist Dems, and the Bernie worshipping far left.
oatler
@opiejeanne:
Sorry, still trying to parse the local youth slang. L.S.M.F.T.?
Mai Naem mobile
I don’t give a shit about what Andrew Yang thinks about policy. I don’t give a shit about what Elon Musk thinks about policy, nor Jeff Bezos nor Bill Gates. They’ve had success as entrepreneurs but that doesn’t necessarily translate to government. If Andrew Yang wants me to pay attention to his policy positions he needs to start at the bottom and become a seasoned elected/appointed leader in public organizations. Start as a councilman, school board or on a planning and zoning committee and move on up. Also, not everybody is capable of becoming or wants to be an entrepreneur.
Gvg
I don’t think Yang’s proposed attack completely works to the GOP advantage. If his “the GOP doesn’t have a platform” statement resonates with any voters, than it actually starts to undercut the GOP’s own power base. That makes me think he is not actually a GOP controlled rat fucker. He still could be Russian, because they want to wreck our country and are only using the GOP among others.
He is wrong about everything of course. I just want to figure out who and what are using him and what can be done. I don’t think his org will ever be a major player though. Only a few percent here and there. He isn’t perceptive enough to catch on to what people really think in order to influence many. If we weren’t so close in votes to the nihilist party, Yang would get no attention at lol.
Cameron
What exactly is the appeal of a party that stands for nothing? “Our platform is: we don’t believe in platforms – we rely on the common sense and good will of The People!” Hey, I might have a future in this shit.
eversor
Yang pays too much attention to what’s said online. Which for the longest time was a cross of laughing at the Republicans for not putting forward a platform, and complaining about the Democrats not being willing to kill the filibuster and the party centrists back stabbing The Grew New Deal and voting rights.
This makes sense if you listen to The Church Of Savvy and The Left, but it’s not the full picture. If you listen to the actual right their platform is ending Democracy and installing an authoritarian Christian theocracy combined with permanent oligarchy. And it’s out there and documented in stuff like the National Conservatism declaration or Rick Scotts plan but because the GOP formally doesn’t have one, even if their Christian power base and billionaire donors have drawn up the documents it flies under radar.
Corporate media will never point this out. They want what the donors want, and they know a theocracy is the price they need to pay to get it. But there is a fantasy that maybe there is a different way to get to corporatocracy so anybody who can come forward and say “how about all the stuff donors want, but without the ugly theocracy” is instantly going to do great.
Roger Moore
If you want to see what a real politician who has gotten frustrated by the system and decided to do something about it looks like, take a look at Arnold Schwarzenegger. For example, he realized part of the problem was gerrymandering making it nearly impossible for voters to choose representatives who genuinely represented them. Instead of just bemoaning this, he has actually done some genuine good. I don’t agree with all his solutions, but at least he has a solid grasp of what the problems are and what levers of power are available to do something about them.
Geminid
@Gvg: I used to worry about third party candidates in 2024, but not as much now. It’s true that the Green Party cost Clinton crucial votes in 2016, and the Libertarian Party probably cost her even more. I wouldn’t be surprised if Peter Thiel or someone like him used their money to steer the Libertarian party nomination to a chosen candidate like Yang. The Greens are opportunistic and could nominate former Democratic Representative Gabbard.
But Democrats seem very unified and motivated compared to 2016, while Republicans are not. So third party candidates may well siphon off more potential Republican voters as Democratic voters. There will be well funded social media campaigns to turn Democratic voters towards third parties though, and that will be a factor.
satby
@NotMax: cool, have fun! I haven’t been to NYC since tjat first meetup way back when.
Geminid
The New York 12th CD primary race between Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and attorney Suraj Patel was a topic here a few days ago. This morning Politico put up an article on the race that’s pretty good. The primary will be next Tuesday.
There is another contested primary in the NY 10th CD, which is also in Manhattan but south of the 12th. Rep. Mondaire Jones is running in that one.
This morning’s Political Playbook has a long interview with Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain.
Suzanne
He’s one of those dipshits who thinks politics is about “good ideas”. (How to judge the goodness of an idea is left unexplained.)
What kind of unobservant moran believes this?! Has he not witnessed the last six years, which has been nothing but war for social status and power, waged by those who used to have it and now have to, like, put forth effort?
rikyrah
@moops:
Wouldn’t even take a stand on ROE
Brachiator
@Cameron:
The national GOP doesn’t need to publish a platform. The red states, activated by perverse Supreme Court decisions, are little citadels of tyranny, experimenting with various forms of oppression. Meanwhile, empty slogans like MAGA and vague, but always ominous nods to the “will of the people ” can stand in for any and every right wing fantasy.
Dorothy A. Winsor
As Maine’s Paul LePaige shows us, under our system, more than two parties results in minority rule. I mean, rule that’s even more minority than usual.
Baud
@moops:
This is so universally apt it should be a rotating tag.
Suzanne
@Cameron:
I know you’re asking rhetorically, but there’s actually a lot of appeal for some people.
There’s a lot of people whose self-concept actively rejects membership. I have a bit of this myself. I am actually really uncomfortable describing myself as being a member of anything. I will say that I do things, or that I believe things. But saying that I am a member of XYZ team or group feels really…. weird. It feels like too much alignment. I mean, I am absolutely a registered Democrat, and yet, if you asked me….I would say, “I vote Democratic”. Because fundamentally, saying that I am a member of any group feels like I am then harnessed or responsible for things it does.
I realize that this is special-snowflake shit, but it is entirely honest. (And it is absolutely true in other areas of my life. I make art, but I’m not an artist. I don’t give a shit about sports teams.) Brands and groups of all sorts want tight identification and alignment — it’s a core part of capitalist culture — and rejecting it is maybe the only (meaningless) protest I have.
Yang is trying (and probably failing) to appeal to people who perceive too much of political life to feel like a team sport or a club. It’s really hard to disagree with that, at least on a surface level. There are times it feels like it’s about coalescing around people and not around values or fundamentals. It took me a while to be comfortable with wanting to be on “teams” with people who squicked me out in some way. But I came of age in a place where Republicans always, always won elections. And as a result, even though I have been as critical as anyone about Kyrsten Sinema, I am probably less inclined to vote her off the island than others here.
Frankensteinbeck
@Balconesfault:
‘Centrist’ is a meaningless word in politics today, most often used to imply all Democrats are the same as Manchin.
Cameron
@Brachiator: I was actually thinking of Yang. Republicans can be out and proud (e.g., the platform of the Texas Republican Party) and can inadvertantly spill the beans (e.g., Rick Scott’s horrifying ideas for America). They usually understand each other well enough that nothing needs be said or written, though.
Cameron
@Suzanne: I vote for Democrats, but as far as being a joiner, I prefer specific causes (of which there are millions). Stuff like getting Florida to take the Medicaid expansion, end the death penalty, etc.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@piratedan:
I’m harsh.
Baud
@Suzanne:
I agree with you, but I found this interesting.
To me it seems like the Dems are the only non-cult group in American politics. The GOP is definitely a cult, and a lot of “independent” groups end up as cults, if not a cult of personality than a cult around the idea of being independent. That’s why Yang and his new party feel comfortable not having any real policy positions.
ETA: I’m also not a big “joiner.”
Brachiator
@Geminid:
I think we should finally let go of 2016. In 2020, voters and even third party candidates clearly recognized the danger that Trump posed and leaned heavily for the Democrats if they voted at all.
For example, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson got 3.28 percent of the vote in 2016. The Libertarian candidate got 1.2 percent in 2020.
The 2024 election will have its own dynamic, and hopefully will build on current Democratic Party successes. The 2016 election has little to teach us.
Baud
@Brachiator:
Disagree. We shouldn’t fret, but the 2016 election has a lot to teach us about the nature of people and we shouldn’t forget those lessons.
Ken
I’ll alert the media.
(Always loved Gielgud in that role.)
AWOL
“Andrew? He really wasn’t born with correct Tiger Mom to guide him through the Billionaire Swamp properly, poor chap.”
Brachiator
@Baud:
I think there is more to learn from the victory of 2020 than from the close defeat of 2016. And while I acknowledge the deep residual anger at how Hillary Clinton was mistreated in 2016, she ain’t running in 2024.
SiubhanDuinne
@Ken:
That is one of my go-to retorts — so familiar and automatic that I had almost forgotten its genesis.
And yeah, nobody said it like Gielgud.
Geminid
@Suzanne: I wonder if Yang believes any of this. Andrew Yang’s strength, such as it is, is that he presents as a sincere, well intentioned fellow. Maybe he even was a few years ago but he is ambitious now. Yang may also have backers who see him as a good front man.
We can see right through the platitudes Yang is expressing, but his audience is independents. Most of them vote for Republican or Democratic candidates in the fall, but for various reasons do not identify with either. Right now Yang is trying to attract these votors.
I don’t think the Forward Party will amount to anything. It’s been a good platform for Yang to attention so far, and if the party never gets off the ground Yang can just walk away with a self-serving explaination.
Then he could adjust his rhetoric a little and run for the Libertarian nomination. I think that if someone like Peter Thiel spent enough money the right way they could steer that party’s nomination to Yang. The Libertarians consistently get on state ballots, I think in every state, so that nomination is a valuable asset. Yang would be a good vehicle for a spoiler campaign in 2024, and wealthy conservatives would put plenty of money behind one.
Baud
@Brachiator: 2016 was more than about Hillary Clinton as an individual. I don’t think you can handwave away the underlying social pathologies that enabled Trump to get elected, or ignore the ease with which bad actors can stoke and manipulate those pathologies.
Layer8Problem
@AWOL: I actually knew Yang’s mother years ago. In all my interactions and everything else I saw she was a fundamentally decent human being. I can’t speak to her or her husband’s child rearing though.
Geminid
@Brachiator: Why “let go” of any particular election? We can learn something valuable from all of them
Anyway, I was describing how I thought this next Presidential would be different from that in 2016.
artem1s
Yea, maybe. But until the growing vacuum that is left behind in the diminishing wake of the Great Grifting Orange Whale, has been completely filled with new grifters, we won’t be hearing the last of Yang and all the other GGOW wannabees.
Suzanne
@Baud:
I don’t think we’re a personality cult, certainly not in the same way the GOP is. But we certainly have our old guard and our long-timers and our interest groups. I understand that often those people are there because they’re in reliable districts. But, like, I have to admit that it can sometimes feel a bit alienating. My thing with the Dems that feels weird is that so much of our leadership is so old. I feel so much more alignment with BHO than with Joey B. Even if there’s no policy distinction. I know that’s dumb, and totally emotional, but people make decisions emotionally.
Look, people are disassociating from all kinds of groups. For the first time, last year, church attendance fell below half of the population in this country. I don’t think there’s really been a change in “belief”, because plenty of people used to go to church who didn’t really believe any of it. There’s a shift in how people feel about belonging and how they conceive of themselves in relation to groups.
Baud
@Suzanne:
The age divide is interesting because the right has no problem with it. They are unified by other attributes that overcome those types of divisions.
artem1s
@Redshift:
The US also had multiple parties in the early 1800’s and that didn’t lead to what the majority of people wanted to do about slavery either because the definition of people was so skewed.
Problem is Yang isn’t admitting what his definition of ‘people’ is. And who he’s going to allow into the inner decision making circle. His problem with the current two party system is neither one of them wants to listen to his sorry ass whinging about how great his ideas are.
Brachiator
@Baud:
2016 was brought up in the context of Andrew Yang and the possible influence of third parties. But the Democrats and the voters rejected third parties in 2020, and Bernie Sanders gave Biden support without much waffling or conditions. We learned from 2016.
Trumpism and the residue of January 6 present, I think, a different challenge. What began with the 2016 election has festered into a distinctly new political environment, especially when you take the red states into account. And I am not certain quite what to make of the various GOP candidates who cling to election conspiracy theories.
Suzanne
@Baud: Yes. The Right is more used to joining shit and peer pressure. They are fundamentally authoritarian and they have a different personality type.
Kropacetic
Therefore we’re building a party for intransigent Democrats and Republican kabuki dancers. A poll of 300 on-air media personalities shows 96% support.
Chris Johnson
@ColoradoGuy: All of this. Russian, whether Yang knows it or not. Likewise the Green Party, see Jill Stein: honestly it’s been pretty brazen in recent years, they really run with it.
Litmus test for a leftist is whether they take a hardline Russia stance on Ukraine. If they do, they are in fact just authoritarian followers and it ain’t Trump: it’s Putin, they’re nothing but Putin stans. Probably have a picture of him, shirtless, on that poor little pony.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
WankYang (edit: sorry about that) got that “I am the smartest man in the room, just ask me, in fact I demand you ask me” that Trump has, except were Trump is bluffing, Yang really believes it.Ruckus
@moops:
What would AY be without his gigantic ego?
And as you say, he has to actually want to help – pretty much anyone but AY, and he appears unable to even form the concept of anyone other than AY. He’s a nicer dump than dump is. But as low bars go, a limbo expert couldn’t get under that one.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@Chris Johnson: It is interesting how at the extreme liberals come across as being the same critter as hard right conservatives. I suppose it’s because the only way for an extremist ideology to happen is with a murderous dictatorship.
Chris Johnson
@Mike in Pasadena: Hey, if Margaret Atwood and George Orwell saved them the trouble, who can judge?
Ruckus
@piratedan:
An Arby’s drive-thru? Actual physical work and interaction with actual customers is involved doing that. That is way outside AY’s domain. (Is Arby’s still around? OK I actually checked and yes they are. Not within about 10-12 miles of me and I think I haven’t eaten there in about 30+ yrs)
MinuteMan
@Dangerman:
More like yesterday’s megadeath salsa.
artem1s
@Brachiator:
Johnson cost Hillary OH in 2016 – he drew 2x as many votes as she needed to beat TFG. The so called Green Party candidate is currently killing Nan Whaley’s chance at beating DeWine out for the governor’s seat this year. He’s fighting a corruption scandal over the First Enegy lawsuit and the MAGAts hate his guts for making them wear masks for 2 seconds back in 2020. Women are pissed at him for the heart beat bill he signed before Roe was overturned. Whaley would have an actual chance at winning if not for the fucking egotistical GP candidate.
Ruckus
@Enhanced Voting Techniques:
Extremism doesn’t suit the majority. There seems to be 2 far apart ends to human political concepts. Extreme liberal or extreme conservative. Everyone else just wants to get through the day without undue stress and disaster, especially when those are of human making. Extreme conservatives have to have a very structured world, in which any variation from their chosen paths must cause extreme pain. Extreme liberals have to have a very open world that has no laws stopping them from doing whatever the hell strikes them at any one time. Neither work very well, even for their proponents because they are way too restrictive or way too sloppy. There have to be restrictions because some people have no internal controls and can hurt a lot of people and some people have no external controls and can hurt a lot of people. (It’s up to you to decide which is which.)
We are in a phase where conservatives are losing their straitjackets they want us all to wear so that those in charge have free rein to do whatever the hell they want and extreme liberals are seeing that equality is best so they want no restrictions so they can do whatever the hell they want. Neither of their worlds work for the vast majority of humans for what at the end of the day is the same issue, they really can’t be allowed to fuck over everyone else, no matter their methodologies of getting there.
Gravenstone
Ambulatory David Brooks column… I think you afford him too much credit by attributing sentience.
livewyre
@Suzanne: Just want to belatedly register my appreciation for the distinction you’ve been drawing between coalition and cultism. Like Pelosi, I profess that one of our strengths is that we can disagree and still keep going; that it’s about what we do, not who we are, and what we’re led in doing, not who leads us.
Major Major Major Major
@Geminid: the national libertarian party has basically gone full theocratic fascist, there’s no way Yang gets their support.
Major Major Major Major
@Chris Johnson: literally, his organization is just a bunch of republicans, led by Christine Todd Whitman, how do you get “russian” from that? Russia isn’t even very good at influence ops, their shit is way more blatant, and they’re a little busy right now elsewhere.
Geminid
@Major Major Major Major: You sound like you know this for a fact. It may be so, but that Von Mises Caucus that took over might not be above the lure of money and power. And last time the Libertarians almost nominated Vermin Supreme for their presidential candidate. The candidate for Vice President was an internet comedian. They don’t turn away new members or vet them on their presidential preferences. So I’ll stand by my assertion that if someone like Thiel spent enough money the right way he could steer the Libertarian nomination to Yang.
J R in WV
@eversor:
Tell us you don’t read what you write, but without saying that…
J R in WV
@artem1s:
And exactly what ideas are those? Without defining his ideas, they are by definition amorphous and stupid. Like Wang.