So what form does the resistance take?

There is a simple way to fix the social rift in American Society: significant raises in wealth of the no, low and medium income bracket, which constitutes the vast majority: xenophobia and intolerance are exacerbated by fear of loss of status and wealth. If I'm doing better I worry less about other people doing well, too. Only if I see my situation stagnate or worse will I feel outraged at others seemingly succeed.

Representatives need to start doing what's in their title: work for their constituents, not against them.
partisan politics has always been a trick to avoid having to do anything at all but work to get reelected and rich in the process.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
It seems to me that in his increasing dementia he has latched on to Dutarte's power of shooting drug users without evidence of anything.
Click to expand...

Louden Wilde said:
No, I'm not happy about it* - I don't know how you infer that. But I do think it's the best course and at this point I would advocate for it. Yes there will be some violence. But violence is inevitable - and already happening. The right is not preaching unity, and eager to impose more of their values/regulations on the whole country. With a break-up I'd bet you get some states with reduced violence (due to tighter gun regulations). Divorce can be ugly, but better than a loveless/fundamentally incompatible marriage.

ETA - If anything, I'm annoyed that people are ignoring the obvious/clinging to false hope - i.e. sunken cost fallacy
Click to expand...
I am not so convenced the US is beyond saving....
and I am nos so convinced throwing the COnsitution out the window is a great idea.
In fact some of your comments concern me because it indicates that the hard left is just as determined to force their values on people as the hard right.
The great virtue of the COnstiuion is that is says there are certain things government cannot do.
And if you talking about breaking up the US you are talking about Civil War..make no illusions about that.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
There is a simple way to fix the social rift in American Society: significant raises in wealth of the no, low and medium income bracket, which constitutes the vast majority: xenophobia and intolerance are exacerbated by fear of loss of status and wealth. If I'm doing better I worry less about other people doing well, too. Only if I see my situation stagnate or worse will I feel outraged at others seemingly succeed.

Representatives need to start doing what's in their title: work for their constituents, not against them.
partisan politics has always been a trick to avoid having to do anything at all but work to get reelected and rich in the process.
Click to expand...
It's a good and simple idea - but very difficult to execute. My understanding is that the income gap between the wealthiest and most of the working class has been widening, and that the new tax schemes will continue to favor the wealthy. For the very wealthy, their worth is a way of keeping score- more is never enough. They'll fight such plans
 
not difficult at all. just enforce Monopoly and Consumer Protection Regulation, make sure Unions have full protection and tax income progressively; might be a very good idea to tax spending progressively, too.
Fund the IRS and focus on the Rich.
Single payer healthcare.
Free education.

All these are policies that have widespread support in the US is you ask them in a non-partisan context and manner.
Representatives from all Parties should be in favor of these.
One billionaire doesn't have more votes than one houseless person.
 
Louden Wilde said:
No, I'm not happy about it* - I don't know how you infer that. But I do think it's the best course and at this point I would advocate for it. Yes there will be some violence. But violence is inevitable - and already happening. The right is not preaching unity, and eager to impose more of their values/regulations on the whole country. With a break-up I'd bet you get some states with reduced violence (due to tighter gun regulations). Divorce can be ugly, but better than a loveless/fundamentally incompatible marriage.

ETA - If anything, I'm annoyed that people are ignoring the obvious/clinging to false hope - i.e. sunken cost fallacy
Click to expand...
The last time it happened was in 1861. And we all know how well that turned out.
 
dudalb said:
I am not so convenced the US is beyond saving....
and I am nos so convinced throwing the COnsitution out the window is a great idea.
In fact some of your comments concern me because it indicates that the hard left is just as determined to force their values on people as the hard right.
The great virtue of the COnstiuion is that is says there are certain things government cannot do.
And if you talking about breaking up the US you are talking about Civil War..make no illusions about that.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
The last time it happened was in 1861. And we all know how well that turned out.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
The last time it happened was in 1861. And we all know how well that turned out.
Click to expand...
It's a different scenario if the states (mostly) agree to dissolve the union (compared to one group of states seceding). Knowing the consequences of the civil war should help minimize violence. A slower, measured approach should help. The important first is realizing that the status quo is not working - two groups trying to impose different world views on each other.

As for the constitution - yes, there's good stuff in there, but it is of course flawed (senate, electoral college) and open to interpretation (e.g. 2nd amendment) . Note that the (current) right continually references it to assert that the US is not a democracy.
 
Louden Wilde said:
It's a different scenario if the states (mostly) agree to dissolve the union (compared to one group of states seceding). Knowing the consequences of the civil war should help minimize violence. A slower, measured approach should help. The important first is realizing that the status quo is not working - two groups trying to impose different world views on each other.
Click to expand...
The Civil War was a north-south conflict. The current ideological conflict is largely an urban-rural split. Salt Lake City isn't red, and Wyoming County, NY isn't blue.

I don't know how you can have a peaceful divorce given that demographic reality. What you're advocating for is something like the partition. You'll need forced relocation to make that work, with all the attendant violence. And then you'll just have the same problem cropping up again in short order. Cosmopolitan values are associated with cities for a reason.
 
mumblethrax said:
The Civil War was a north-south conflict. The current ideological conflict is largely an urban-rural split. Salt Lake City isn't red, and Wyoming County, NY isn't blue.
Click to expand...
Which is why I'm not sure if a civil war, as such, will happen. At the very least, I don't quite see how it would play out. An escalating cycle of violence? Absolutely, I'm terrified of that. Maybe it could even get bad enough that it could feel like a state of civil war. But states seceding? I'm not sure if I'm seeing that.
 
mumblethrax said:
The Civil War was a north-south conflict. The current ideological conflict is largely an urban-rural split. Salt Lake City isn't red, and Wyoming County, NY isn't blue.

I don't know how you can have a peaceful divorce given that demographic reality. What you're advocating for is something like the partition. You'll need forced relocation to make that work, with all the attendant violence. And then you'll just have the same problem cropping up again in short order. Cosmopolitan values are associated with cities for a reason.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm well aware of that (particularly having lived in both rural and urban areas in several areas of the country and having spent time in many more). It will certainly be difficult and there will be conflict. I suspect there will be a fair amount of voluntary relocation and (longer term) some state/area realignments. But the only way a current divorce makes sense is at the state level. The fact that it will not be painless - but there are many signs things are getting worse with the current configuration. How bad does it have to get before people admit the obvious?
 
Louden Wilde said:
But the only way a current divorce makes sense is at the state level. The fact that it will not be painless - but there are many signs things are getting worse with the current configuration.
Click to expand...
Ok, but then we have to conclude that divorce doesn't make sense at all. It just won't resolve the underlying conflict.

How bad does it have to get before people admit the obvious?
Click to expand...
Really, really bad. States (international sense) don't give up territory easily.
 
mumblethrax said:
Ok, but then we have to conclude that divorce doesn't make sense at all. It just won't resolve the underlying conflict.


Really, really bad. States (international sense) don't give up territory easily.
Click to expand...
Divorce does make sense - it won't resolve the underlying conflicts, but it will result in greater autonomy and less of states/locales trying to impose their values/laws on others.

It will get (much) worse - there will be more political violence (think how much we've had in the last 2 years - the MN dem, Josh Shapiro attack, Trump attempts, Charlie Kirk), mass shootings, next pandemic/ vaccine battles, impending economic crash, natural disasters and response to them, etc. These stressors will exacerbate the differences. Also note that many people - particularly (but not exclusively) on the right do not want unity (rather they want to rule/impose their beliefs on others).
 
Last edited:
Louden Wilde said:
Divorce does make sense - it won't resolve the underlying conflicts, but it will result in greater autonomy and less of states/locales trying to impose their values/laws on others.
Click to expand...
By what mechanism? Utah is currently constrained in what it can impose on SLC by federal law. Absent that law, I expect greater, not lesser imposition.

It will get (much) worse - there will be more political violence (think how much we've had in the last 2 years - the MN dem, Josh Shapiro attack, Trump attempts, Charlie Kirk), mass shootings, next pandemic/ vaccine battles, impending economic crash, natural disasters and response to them, etc. Many people - particularly (but not exclusively) on the right do not want unity.
Click to expand...
Well, how much we've had in the past two years is "almost none." It would take a massive surge before political violence is even detectable in homicide rates. A country that can grow accustomed school shootings can also grow accustomed to political violence.

The kind of thing that leads to massive loss of territory is total collapse of an economic or political system. Maybe we'll get there, but it's not something I'm going wish upon the country.
 
mumblethrax said:
By what mechanism? Utah is currently constrained in what it can impose on SLC by federal law. Absent that law, I expect greater, not lesser imposition.


Well, how much we've had in the past two years is "almost none." It would take a massive surge before political violence is even detectable in homicide rates. A country that can grow accustomed school shootings can also grow accustomed to political violence.

The kind of thing that leads to massive loss of territory is total collapse of an economic or political system. Maybe we'll get there, but it's not something I'm going wish upon the country.
Click to expand...
Re: mechanism - this will have to be something many states agree on (splitting up the union). Some states will be more stable than others.

No I wasn't suggesting the political violence has had an effect on homicide rates, but more than enough to agitate and further divide people. Have you been listening to the news in the last week?

Sure we'll get somewhat numb to it, but it will continue to make animus for the "other side" stronger.

Our political system and economy are already in danger. Neither are going to get better with two sides that cannot work together. It's difficult to sketch out a plausible scenario where things get better and its telling that no one has tried in this thread.

*Forgot to add tariffs and the erosion of trust with our allies as stressors in the last post. Also disagreements on aid for Israeli-Palestine conflict and Ukraine-Russia conflict. Climate change/Environmental degradation remediation. I'm sure there are other major ones I'm missing
 
The stupid people want to break everything because they don't believe it's good, or necessary.

Then, once the survivors amongst the stupid have learned we had things for a reason, we can build them again.

Hopefully the next versions will include improvements, efficiencies, and safeguards to prevent another cycle of this happening later.

Sometimes you have to let the kid bounce off the windshield before they understand the point of seatbelts.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The stupid people want to break everything because they don't believe it's good, or necessary.

Then, once the survivors amongst the stupid have learned we had things for a reason, we can build them again.

Hopefully the next versions will include improvements, efficiencies, and safeguards to prevent another cycle of this happening later.

Sometimes you have to let the kid bounce off the windshield before they understand the point of seatbelts.
Click to expand...
The fundamental problem is that we're (as a species) clever enough to destroy easily, but still driven by the same hard-wired behaviors as other mammals (e.g. to hoard resources) - and these are exacerbated when we deal with those that are not genetically and/or culturally similar to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom