On Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 12:12:19 AM UTC+2 Brent Meeker wrote:
He's political crank, but he can get things done. So did many tyrants. It's part of their marketing to make them appear like "doers". We all know they pay smarter folks and bask in the sunlight of the credit. He also gets things like this done: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/elon-musk-million-dollar-petition.html?unlocked_article_code=1.T04.aMef.yBFuCl3CqdB1&smid=url-share Just like I said some weeks ago, I don't think Kamala has the emotional appeal of Obama or Clinton, when they ran. Plus, she has the baggage of currently holding office. Democrats are in wishful thinking mode if they think she can overcome this. With the polls so close and the richest "guy who gets things done in the world" finding "workarounds" to financially incentivize people to vote. Now a few notes on some of the "pseudo issues": While Democrats in the U.S. are often criticized for their inability to help the middle class, this narrative is not entirely accurate. While it may seem that neither party is making substantial progress, much of the failure to enact middle-class-focused policies stems from Republican obstructionism in Congress. For instance, attempts to raise the federal minimum wage, such as the **2021 Raise the Wage Act**, were blocked by Republican opposition despite widespread support. Similarly, efforts to expand access to healthcare through **the Affordable Care Act (2010)** were met with fierce resistance, with numerous attempts to repeal the law by Republican legislators. Democrats have also pushed for policies like the **Build Back Better Plan (2021)**, which proposed significant investments in education, childcare, and green energy jobs—programs that would benefit the middle class—but it was largely dismantled by bipartisan opposition, particularly from centrist and right-leaning factions in Congress. This leads to a vicious cycle: both parties appear to fail at addressing middle-class needs, but closer scrutiny reveals that Democratic initiatives are often stymied by Republican opposition. From a surface perspective, it seems like inaction, but beneath that surface, Democratic efforts to provide economic relief and promote social welfare have been repeatedly blocked. The rise of **anti-woke ideology** compounds these issues. "Anti-wokeness" is a loosely defined reactionary stance against perceived excesses of progressive politics, especially in areas like race, gender, and identity. Proponents often decry the supposed dominance of "woke culture" in public life, seeing it as a form of ideological imposition. However, this ideology suffers from its own contradictions: while it attacks what it perceives as the ideological dogma of "wokeness," it fails to critically reflect on its own ideological foundations. In truth, there is scant academic research supporting "anti-woke" claims, which are often emotionally charged rather than evidence-based. The arguments of anti-woke proponents rest heavily on criticizing "cancel culture" and identity politics, but they rarely engage in the same deconstructive analysis of their own positions. As a result, anti-wokeness functions more as a discursive tool for ideological dominance—ironically replicating the very dynamics it purports to oppose. This oversight points to the naivety in the "anti-woke" stance, which fails to recognize that all ideological positions seek discursive dominance, a fact well-documented since the works of **Chomsky** and **Foucault**. By ignoring their own ideological bias, anti-woke proponents perpetuate the same kind of dominance they claim to resist. Moreover, the focus on cultural issues like "wokeness" often serves as a distraction from more significant economic and social problems, such as wealth inequality and the lack of progress for the middle class—an issue that both populists and anti-woke advocates conveniently sidestep. In the case of immigration, anti-immigrant rhetoric similarly relies on a nostalgic and unrealistic vision of cultural purity in a pre-globalized world. Such arguments ignore the fact that modern technological progress, from smartphones to medical advancements, has been driven by globalization and immigration. If anti-immigration proponents truly sought to avoid the benefits of globalization, they would need to live by their own ideology, buying only locally produced goods made by "pure anti-globalized families or companies." This reveals the impracticality and contradictions in their position. The desire for a pre-globalized society is a mirage; globalization has shaped the modern world, and rejecting it outright would entail regressing technologically and economically. In sum, while Democrats face legitimate criticism for their failure to deliver certain promises, the deeper issue lies in Republican obstructionism, which blocks progressive policies aimed at benefiting the middle class. Meanwhile, the rise of anti-woke and anti-immigration ideologies often serves as a distraction, offering simplistic solutions to complex issues and masking underlying economic inequalities. Anti-wokeness, in particular, mirrors the ideological dominance it seeks to deconstruct, while anti-immigration stances ignore the realities of a globalized world. When critically examined, these populist movements offer little in terms of practical solutions for the middle class or broader society, whereas the preservation of democracy—even with its flaws—remains a better option. Probability of higher living standards for the non-wealthy in a republican setting is zero. Probability of such with democrats isn't high, as described above, but at least it is higher than zero. If people got more organized, and fought more for their interests by furthering politicians/politics that would implement the appropriate policies, such a higher than zero number could even be multiplied. One thing is clear: it doesn't matter. The emotional appeal of "anti-wokeness" and people siding with the wealthy crooked stink dicks are immune to any discussion. And democrats further this by painting wishful thinking scenarios themselves; as if they could get those policies realized. A bit more honesty here over the years would've helped, especially with an incumbent holding office in the current administration. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/be50ca37-1da2-459e-b0bf-e0281c80533dn%40googlegroups.com.
