I agree! There used to be a much higher tax rate for the likes of billionaires. Now they have a fit if you want to raise their taxes by a couple of dollars. I think that if billionaires threaten to leave a State or the US, because of a tax hike, after using taxpayers infrastructure and labor then they should be charged a hefty "exit" tax. Their should also be a law against them coming in and gutting companies and towns for their own greed. MAGA Republicans have already proven that they are against the working class, we don't need a bunch of super moderate Dems abetting their cause.
We have the same problem with the Labour Party, here in the UK. Once a true left-wing, union-backed party, they moved to the centre, to counter Thatcherism. But, not only have they not returned to their left-wing roots, they are now right of centre. They are doing nothing for the people they historically represented - and guess what? The people are NOT happy. And, because of that, PM Starmer has been forced to resign. But the party as a whole still does not get it!
It is absolutely obvious, to anyone outside of the Labour Party, that inequality, (and the influence of the super-rich on politics), is the problem. But they still refuse to raise taxes or do anything, meaningful, about money in politics.
And as politics continues to fracture in the UK, (with the two-party system disintegrating), Labour are rabbits in the headlights. They are losing votes to Reform on the right and The Green Party on the left. What's even more perplexing, is Labour came to power, with a massive majority, two years ago, but have have failed to implement a single radical policy that would benefit the average person. Clueless.
Even more astonishing... Because of Labour's abandonment of the left, The Green Party have marched straight into that void, and seen a massive surge in support. People want real change - that tackles real problems - and The Greens are offering that. And still... Labour tinker with minor detail, doing their best not to upset the status-quo.
Different times call for different measures. The pendulum swings back and forth and we are now at a time when the swing from one extreme is palpable. FDR came to office in a similar time. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's was a similar time. We are at another.
There are times for half measures, but this is not one of those times. Instead we must take advantage of the opportunity to move toward real solutions to real problems. We may not always agree on everything, but when we agree on 90% of the issues, squabbling over the remaining 10% is a good way of achieving nothing. Eventually the pendulum will begin to swing back. We must not waste the finite time we have.
Sorry, 60 meters from shore and 40 meters from the drowning person. The liberal centrist walks away satisfied that his actions met the drowning man more than half way. That is centrist liberal realism.
, incrementalism would be fine were it not for the billionaire fascist oligarchs who own and control everything undoing all positive change ceaselessly. Which is why full-blown revolution that completely gets rid of capitalism quickly and comprehensively is the only path that will work. Including instituting a revolutionary socialist government with the teeth to prevent capitalist restoration as long as necessary—until capitalism has been completely defeated. At which point the new revolutionary socialist democracy can establish a political, social, and economic democracy that at last lives up to the promise of our nation’s founding.
Mamdani-backed progressives (who promise to actually solve problems as he is doing) are eating the centrist's cheese in the primaries. Voters like problem solvers, and they know what you say: "The thing that Democrats, as a party, have still not yet accepted is that they have to *solve the problems.*"
Yes. The right never gives a shit whether the public thinks they’re going too far. We worry ourselves sick that they might be mean and call us the L word if we try to change things.
An honest assessment of a situation is the first step in its resolution. Those with money and those with connections have inflated an anti-democratic influence bubble. Consider Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, the Ellisons, Trump, Vance, and all their co-conspirators. They brazenly and admittedly lie, cheat, steal, bribe, and hijack whatever vehicle helps them impose their will and achieve their selfish ends. Hamilton is correct, the ill-gotten influence bubble needs to be popped, not massaged.
Your definition of a moderate is simply not accurate. You're defining a pragmatist or a realist, not a moderate. The people you are referring to would ostensibly agree with the aims of socialists but disagree on the means of getting there. That is not at all a moderate take. I am a moderate because I would not want to live in a socialist or communist utopia even if I were somehow convinced one could be created. I do not want to be equal with everyone else; I want the opportunity to excel and to win. The pursuit of excellence and the rewards of success are an essential part of the human experience. I do not agree with the aspirations of the far end of the spectrum on either side and I hold moderate stances because I believe some form of middle ground solution is generally the right answer, not because it is a triangulation between two groups who get most everything wrong. The solutions proposed by the progressive end of the Democratic Party will not work because the math does not add up. It is that simple. The only way to a better future is rapid, explosive growth. Redistribution simply will not solve the problems we care most about, nor will it bring about the better future that seems tantalizingly close if only we reach out and seize it.
The desire to develop one’s potential doesn’t require claiming one’s superiority over others. For some, the latter is the point. For them there can be no real success without creating losers. The character problem here is with the winner who thereby cultivates his sociopathy. This comment isn’t against self development. 250 years of history have brought us to a condition of dire excesses. That is the Hobbesian course in a society free from regulation. Maybe now we understand better the costs of this “Freedom “.
Honestly hard to believe someone could live in the richest country in the history of the world, where everyday people work full-time and live in their cars, and think that what we need is "rapid, explosive growth" rather than redistribution. With that said, I don't think anyone could improve on "I wouldn't take utopia if you offered it to me" as a distillation of contrarian, pious centrist-smoothbrain thinking.
Would you want to live in a society where, no matter what you did or how hard you worked, you would end up with the same outcome as everyone else? That sounds like hell to me. I work hard because I want to build a better future for myself and the people I care about - if I couldn't do that, what would be the point of working at all?
On the growth point, the only way we know to improve life for people at the bottom is to improve life for people at the top. Even someone in the bottom quintile of America usually has a better life than even the richest American in 1900. A poor person in America today is capable of doing things that simply would not have been possible for anyone at that time. I want that to be as true for people living in 2100 looking back at us. I want space factories and moon bases and supersonic planes. I want human energy consumption to be 100x what it is today. I want flying cars and cures to every cancer we can find. I want these things even if it means that it produces inequality. Inequality is the driver of growth and is generally worsened by growth. I am okay with that.
I'm with Kant and his categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
Get out there people, don't be wall-paper. Don't live in a kleptocracy. The billionaires won't help you - don't enable them to play you for "proles" and suckers.
I agree! There used to be a much higher tax rate for the likes of billionaires. Now they have a fit if you want to raise their taxes by a couple of dollars. I think that if billionaires threaten to leave a State or the US, because of a tax hike, after using taxpayers infrastructure and labor then they should be charged a hefty "exit" tax. Their should also be a law against them coming in and gutting companies and towns for their own greed. MAGA Republicans have already proven that they are against the working class, we don't need a bunch of super moderate Dems abetting their cause.
"While they imagine that picking a more modest starting point marks them as realists, it actually marks them as marks."
Excellent wordplay aside, this statement is some astute fire.
Absolutely.
We have the same problem with the Labour Party, here in the UK. Once a true left-wing, union-backed party, they moved to the centre, to counter Thatcherism. But, not only have they not returned to their left-wing roots, they are now right of centre. They are doing nothing for the people they historically represented - and guess what? The people are NOT happy. And, because of that, PM Starmer has been forced to resign. But the party as a whole still does not get it!
It is absolutely obvious, to anyone outside of the Labour Party, that inequality, (and the influence of the super-rich on politics), is the problem. But they still refuse to raise taxes or do anything, meaningful, about money in politics.
And as politics continues to fracture in the UK, (with the two-party system disintegrating), Labour are rabbits in the headlights. They are losing votes to Reform on the right and The Green Party on the left. What's even more perplexing, is Labour came to power, with a massive majority, two years ago, but have have failed to implement a single radical policy that would benefit the average person. Clueless.
Even more astonishing... Because of Labour's abandonment of the left, The Green Party have marched straight into that void, and seen a massive surge in support. People want real change - that tackles real problems - and The Greens are offering that. And still... Labour tinker with minor detail, doing their best not to upset the status-quo.
#VoteGreen
Different times call for different measures. The pendulum swings back and forth and we are now at a time when the swing from one extreme is palpable. FDR came to office in a similar time. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's was a similar time. We are at another.
There are times for half measures, but this is not one of those times. Instead we must take advantage of the opportunity to move toward real solutions to real problems. We may not always agree on everything, but when we agree on 90% of the issues, squabbling over the remaining 10% is a good way of achieving nothing. Eventually the pendulum will begin to swing back. We must not waste the finite time we have.
I am SICK of pendulum swings. Maybe we should get a different clock.
Sorry, 60 meters from shore and 40 meters from the drowning person. The liberal centrist walks away satisfied that his actions met the drowning man more than half way. That is centrist liberal realism.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair, 1935
, incrementalism would be fine were it not for the billionaire fascist oligarchs who own and control everything undoing all positive change ceaselessly. Which is why full-blown revolution that completely gets rid of capitalism quickly and comprehensively is the only path that will work. Including instituting a revolutionary socialist government with the teeth to prevent capitalist restoration as long as necessary—until capitalism has been completely defeated. At which point the new revolutionary socialist democracy can establish a political, social, and economic democracy that at last lives up to the promise of our nation’s founding.
Mamdani-backed progressives (who promise to actually solve problems as he is doing) are eating the centrist's cheese in the primaries. Voters like problem solvers, and they know what you say: "The thing that Democrats, as a party, have still not yet accepted is that they have to *solve the problems.*"
Yes. The right never gives a shit whether the public thinks they’re going too far. We worry ourselves sick that they might be mean and call us the L word if we try to change things.
Loved this. It made so much sense to me.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. Thank you so much for crystallizing this analysis so well.
An honest assessment of a situation is the first step in its resolution. Those with money and those with connections have inflated an anti-democratic influence bubble. Consider Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, the Ellisons, Trump, Vance, and all their co-conspirators. They brazenly and admittedly lie, cheat, steal, bribe, and hijack whatever vehicle helps them impose their will and achieve their selfish ends. Hamilton is correct, the ill-gotten influence bubble needs to be popped, not massaged.
Your definition of a moderate is simply not accurate. You're defining a pragmatist or a realist, not a moderate. The people you are referring to would ostensibly agree with the aims of socialists but disagree on the means of getting there. That is not at all a moderate take. I am a moderate because I would not want to live in a socialist or communist utopia even if I were somehow convinced one could be created. I do not want to be equal with everyone else; I want the opportunity to excel and to win. The pursuit of excellence and the rewards of success are an essential part of the human experience. I do not agree with the aspirations of the far end of the spectrum on either side and I hold moderate stances because I believe some form of middle ground solution is generally the right answer, not because it is a triangulation between two groups who get most everything wrong. The solutions proposed by the progressive end of the Democratic Party will not work because the math does not add up. It is that simple. The only way to a better future is rapid, explosive growth. Redistribution simply will not solve the problems we care most about, nor will it bring about the better future that seems tantalizingly close if only we reach out and seize it.
The desire to develop one’s potential doesn’t require claiming one’s superiority over others. For some, the latter is the point. For them there can be no real success without creating losers. The character problem here is with the winner who thereby cultivates his sociopathy. This comment isn’t against self development. 250 years of history have brought us to a condition of dire excesses. That is the Hobbesian course in a society free from regulation. Maybe now we understand better the costs of this “Freedom “.
Sir, this is an Arby's.
Honestly hard to believe someone could live in the richest country in the history of the world, where everyday people work full-time and live in their cars, and think that what we need is "rapid, explosive growth" rather than redistribution. With that said, I don't think anyone could improve on "I wouldn't take utopia if you offered it to me" as a distillation of contrarian, pious centrist-smoothbrain thinking.
Would you want to live in a society where, no matter what you did or how hard you worked, you would end up with the same outcome as everyone else? That sounds like hell to me. I work hard because I want to build a better future for myself and the people I care about - if I couldn't do that, what would be the point of working at all?
On the growth point, the only way we know to improve life for people at the bottom is to improve life for people at the top. Even someone in the bottom quintile of America usually has a better life than even the richest American in 1900. A poor person in America today is capable of doing things that simply would not have been possible for anyone at that time. I want that to be as true for people living in 2100 looking back at us. I want space factories and moon bases and supersonic planes. I want human energy consumption to be 100x what it is today. I want flying cars and cures to every cancer we can find. I want these things even if it means that it produces inequality. Inequality is the driver of growth and is generally worsened by growth. I am okay with that.
🤡🤡🤡
Excellent! The right will continue to move the center; being a "centrist" means you fail to fight for your principles
As usual, Hamilton, I completely, enthusiastically agree with you. Almost.
Excellent thoughts once again Hamilton.
I'm with Kant and his categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
Get out there people, don't be wall-paper. Don't live in a kleptocracy. The billionaires won't help you - don't enable them to play you for "proles" and suckers.