Exactly. Every ideology is authoritarian.
This:
And this:
The polarization of our people by party is a manipulation that allows corruption to flourish.
Given that the corrupt control both military and industry, I’m not sure what, if anything, can be done. But still believe in America? Yes! We are a robust and innovative people with a great deal of well-resourced land. We just need to work out this little problem of our government being for itself rather than the people, by itself rather than the people, and of itself rather than the people.
@Andrewgen_Receptors list is how that happens, but how do we get it implemented? I dunno.
1 Like
If you did nothing else but this, I’d be very happy.
Along these lines, we have used judicial system to enforce cultural change. Not prosecuting drug related crimes (which has led to decriminalizing), rioters, corrupt politicians, illegal immigration, etc. while we prosecute parents who prevent child gender change, standing ones ground (2A related), violating covid restrictions, etc.
The judicial system is intentionally very slow or incredibly fast and swift. I’ve witnessed and been apart of intentionally very slow. The result was alleged continue to live life for years while pending charges continue to be rescheduled.
Although I don’t like the headline, this is an example of what I’m talking about. Neither party has a solution, or has the courage to even consider a real solution, to a problem they have both contributed to. On the one hand, you can blame the left for telling women to have careers and not “settle” for being stay at home mothers but then you have the so called party of family values that thinks school prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and being prolife are the foundation for those values. What about paid maternity leave? What about a cost of living that is too high for one wage earner to support a family? People who aren’t on welfare can’t afford to have kids or if they do have kids, raise them without leaving them with strangers for much of the day.
Why is parenting governments responsibility to manage?
It’s the right thing to do, but is allowing Government to enforce really the right path? Even if Government reimburses business owners, is it my or your responsibility as a tax paying citizen to pay for another’s reproductive choice? What happened to the responsibility of “my body, my choice”?
Is it fair to compare to generations past? Imagine cutting out all the service related expenses that didn’t exist, living as prudently in general, owning one modest vehicle and living in a 1,200 sq ft, 3 bedroom ranch style with kids sharing bunks. Is it possible we feel entitled in a world that links bank accounts to phones, watches et cetera allowing us to shop and spend vacuously at the touch of a button? Why is it Governments role to manage this vs making the personal decision to play “pick up sticks” until the sun sets?
Can an argument be made that this is due to personal choice of excess?
What if the problem is feeling entitled to be cared for by a nanny state?
That’s a stretch for most people today. Have you seen the price of a 1200 sq ft ranch and a halfway reliable car?
Why do the Republicans call themselves the party of family values? Is it just words to get votes, or is there some substance there?
And the government has laws that essentially manage behavior. Regarding parenting, child support for example. The courts also have the ability to take kids away from their parents. In effect, your question is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Is allowing the government to enforce anything the right path?
If you believe in the concept of a healthy, stable and strong nation, then having a steady supply of citizens who will contribute is important.
I don’t think that’s relevant here. But, if the government outlaws abortion, as Republicans claim they want, then it takes away that choice and again, has the government meddling in reproduction.
Well, we should. We pay taxes. We obey the laws. We keep the nation functioning. All of this creates an environment where one can build wealth if he chooses to and has the ability to. When the government is giving illegals and foreigners money, housing and healthcare, why shouldn’t Americans feel entitled to something?
No, it’s about understanding the responsibility, time and effort that raising healthy children requires.
Regardless, none of this was my point. My point was Republicans claiming to be about family values but not really making an effort to follow through. You raise good questions and I’m not saying you are wrong but, if we believe Republicans, the answer to all of them is: family first.
I am Canadian. We tend to follow American history and politics closely, often with a smug detachment that is completely unmerited.
I do NOT think America is in existential danger. It has dealt with worse crises and
greater polarization throughout its history. The risk of widespread violence, major instability and civil war is under ten percent IMHO. That’s not nothing, but also does not deserve clutching pearls or prophesizing doom. (Ray Dalio, who I respect, put the chance of civil war at 30%, in part due to differences of opinion regarding China. He is a Sinophile. This is too high. The system had a stress test four years back.)
I think the founding fathers did an absolutely amazing job under difficult circumstances. Sure, in retrospect maybe deferring discussions of slavery was being overly pragmatic and the electoral college made more sense then than now. But really, the Constitution and Bill of Rights set a new and lasting global standard and the cities on the hill and shining lights remain pretty strong if recently dimmed. “If not us, who? If not now, when?”.
The fragmentation of the body politic seems largely due to failures of the mainstream media, and the unanticipated consequences of social media. But this a not a permanent predicament. The problems are (I) more extreme opinions get more clicks, money, space and attention; in practice most do not share these views in full or in practice. (2) confounding real expertise with loud mouthed pundits with some influence, charisma or verbal acumen but without relevant experience - meaning experts are not respected, though politicians have little expertise much of the time. (3) not soliciting a variety of views on a topic and addressing it using logic rather than dogma. (4) an unwillingness to try new things or adopt what has worked well at a state level, which has somewhat more freedom to try new things. (5) an imbalance between individual and community rights. (6) sensationalizing trivia, focus on political gain over doing what is best. (7) too much reporting opinion as news. (8) money dominating policy. (9) established politicians often too old - experience is good, corruption, self-interest or being out-of-touch is not good . (10) the high demands of office attract only narcissists. (11) little focus on long-term consequences. (12) forced adoptions of a “party slate” about independent issues, I.e, I am economically conservative and socially liberal like most Canadians, why should my view on the environment or whatever necessarily match whatever party espouses? I agree with some things with both main parties and disagree on some things with both main parties… A rigid “party line” saying you must believe only X about Y is both unhelpful and unrealistic.
Although I don’t agree with your diagnosis, I think your list of “cures” is very strong.
- Ranking choices has proved unpopular in Canada outside of municipal elections. But it is reasonable. The party that proposes this idea tends to lose enthusiasm for it once in power. But it would be fairer and might result in more compromise. This is unfashionable, but almost always results in better and more acceptable policy. If it means Libertarian parties have a little more influence, this might help.
- Term limits make sense and should be combined with solid corporate governance guidelines so today’s officials are not tomorrow’s unrestricted lobbyists and writers of law for money.
- Yes, including more and better enforcement of conflict of interest legislation. This should certainly apply to the US Supreme Court that has accepted gifts which seem overly generous.
- In Canada this is the case and citizen donations are capped at a low amount (on the order of $1000). This is wise. The “dark money” of any PAC is not likely in your interest.
- Canadians have lots of faith in “Elections Canada”, a non-partisan institution that takes districting, vote counting and running elections out of the hands of partisan officials. Better technology might help but the independence and respect of a neutral body are more important. Reducing politics in the justice system, military, buying and distributing resources, or many other places would be helpful - irregardless of what party you prefer.
- Omnibus bills are horribly undemocratic, plus good policy has usually been fairly debated and analyzed. But delay and obstructionism also needs redress. I like the idea, but other issues like filibustering and an inability to discuss or compromise also need to be added.
Both major parties represent vested interests and share some (but not equal) blame for current dysfunction. But if you think I am going to discuss individual politicians or specific parties than you missed my first sentence about being Canadian! I do like some libertarian views (outside of health and a few other issues, less government is usually better) and think your “solutions” make a lot of sense. Surely they would increase fairness, confidence in the system and reduce abuses. Not a complete list. You gotta start somewhere.
If not America, then who? As long as most countries use or respect the greenback than the US will have economic dominance. Military dominance is not automatic but the list of competition is very small. The US never did ignore self-interest in foreign policy but often did a better job than most countries which did the same. The old liberal founding values still matter and the world is much better off if the US espouses them, even if imperfect or incomplete. The US still does. It still will.
America choosing a Republic over a monarchy has often enriched and enlightened the world. “…If you can keep it,” as Franklin famously warned. You can. You will.
2 Likes
I think a lot of phrases are thrown around without qualification. Everyone interprets them through their own lenses and feels like they’ve been represented.
To me family values are being responsible enough to make the decisions and sacrifices necessary to support a family, sans government intervention.
Which is bullshit beyond the point of protection from apparent harm from another. This doesn’t nullify, but bolsters my view.
This isn’t the first time I’ve picked up a socialist bend in your posts. To each their own but I don’t value nation over individual responsibility.
It’s the other side of the coin. If you are taking the responsibility of choice via abortion in to your own hands and your hands only, you can own the alternative without my help too. Your body, your choice. Your choice, your responsibility.
You diverted from the context. Back to socialism as I read your post. You want taxes to offset your life. I want taxes reduced so I can keep more of my own money and make decisions around it. I also feel like if I’m going to be subsidizing lives directly I should be entitled to some chores/labor. No free rides and our current system disproportionately gives to people who don’t give back. Nothing here says strong nation to me.
In no way do you see an excessive increase in optional spending habits over yesteryears, with an accompanying attitude of entitlement?
Can you define what family values are and why the GOP is responsible for administering them?
It’s more of a fascist bend. That is, if one thinks having a sense of civic duty and belief in preserving a culture as fascist, as some do.
No nation, no one to protect the rights of individuals.
No. I want them to provide a tangible benefit to my life and my fellow tax payers’ lives, not to freeloaders. Also, where I live the electric company has added a fee, essentially a tax, to make up for all of the people who didn’t pay their bills during Covid, when the state said they couldn’t have their power cut off for nonpayment. The company didn’t eat it. The state didn’t eat it. The people like me, who paid their bills all along are eating it. I shouldn’t feel entitled to something?
I should add that I have a tenant who, even though she was working, didn’t pay rent during Covid because she didn’t have to. I’m still owed six months worth. I don’t think wanting the government to occasionally use lube is too much to ask for.
I see inflation that outpaces wages.
The question is flawed. The GOP has claimed that responsibility so you should ask them that. You could also ask Trump to define MAGA while you’re at it.
To give you an idea of the time that I was brought up, I graduated high school in 1966. All the families in my neighborhood and a very large percentage of the kids I went to school with lived in 1,000 to 1,200 sq ft, 3 bedroom, 1 bath homes. No one had central heat and air. Most families had a kerosine space heater. A few had window air conditioners.
The only air conditioning that I experienced was in department and grocery stores. No elementary or high school that I attended had air conditioning. Homes and school buildings were designed and build that could develop a draft to cool the inside. Not a single person complained that I ever heard. It was just the way we all lived. Homes built like that would be much cheaper to not only build but use less power to live in.
Most families had a single car throughout the 1950’s, and gradually more families got a second car. My house had a single carport. There were a few homes that had a single car garage.
My point is that most everyone has many more “must haves” than any person I knew in those days. All these “must haves” cost more money.
BTW, my dad got factory AC in his 1964 Buick Invicta. But I did miss making hand airplanes out the window.
3 Likes
I agree but it’s almost impossible to have a career without an internet connection or cellphone today.
I live with my family of five in a modest 1500 sq ft ranch (no basement) that’s 30 years old on a small plot. I bought it 7 years ago but would struggle to buy it for what I could sell it for today, especially if it was my first home and I didn’t have any equity from a previous sale to bring in.
Comparing the cost of a median home in the 1950s as a multiple of average salary to 2024 shows the stark difference. It’s not that there is just more stuff…inflation, especially in the housing market, has seriously outpaced wage increases meaning that a larger percentage of most people’s income must go to simple housing compared to 1950s 1960s
On average homes have gone up by 121% since 1960 and wages only by 29%.
Something is clearly broken.
1 Like
And so has the median square footage of all new construction.
But what developer is willing to build 1,200 sq ft homes on their (opportunity) acreage?
So the average has gone up. Doesn’t change that the two states of the economy are not comparable to each other. It’s still an “average“ home and people still need a roof.
To say there isn’t a problem or that it’s the same as it used to be except people are just spending more is stupid.
I am not saying home prices are not a problem, but the consumer is an active participant in the problem. The consumer is demanding much more than what is truly needed.
Can you name many people who could satisfactorily live in a house without AC and drive a car without AC along with a 19” black and white TV with 2 or 3 channels and nothing on air between 1:00am and 6:00 am except “snow”?
Not safe to do in many areas of the country.
This is just “back in my day we walked to school uphill both ways in the snow”.
2 Likes
Are those places that were not inhabited before AC was invented?
Exactly my point as well, with great illustrations.
I grew up a little later, and in Texas AC was common and I am pretty sure it had been for a while, but even comparing my childhood to kids now has a similar tone( as I’m a parent and seeing the changes).
I remember having a bike and a few one-time purchase toys like a football, basketball, fishing pole et cetera.
I’d leave the house, find my friends in the usual spots (no cell phones to coordinate) and we’d figure out what to do for the day then go home to 3 tv channels in my case, homework and bed.
Now everything is a subscription model of some sort, requires a fee or membership of some sort and has a recurring revenue model built in be the entertainment analog or digital (largely unheard of). This is true for adult life too.
Go play cowboys and Indians with a stick for a pretend gun while mom takes the family car to get groceries after dad gets home from work and I’m sure something resembling the “good old days” can be had, if you pick the right neighborhood for budget.
I heard that from my dad when I started complaining about some situation that I felt burdened by.
My position is that there are far too many “must haves” by consumers.
Average temperatures have gone up significantly.
What was the life expectancy then?
Wet bulb temperature point is being reached in more and more places.
2 Likes