I can’t pretend to know. I have no loyalty to either party or their orthodoxies. Based on polling, I suspect that puts me in a majority or at least a plurality of Americans.
Moderates' failure at governance and politics is just as bad as leftists'.
Moderates have not proven any ability to govern inside the party, not even crafting compromise proposals on any of the issues of the day. How can people who don't exercise real leadership inside a party be expected to lead the country? If you can't manage factions inside your party how are you going to manage Congress?
A key difference in the presidential primaries will be the filibuster. The one leftists were attacking for the last two decades but have now hypocritically embraced.
If moderates decide to defend the filibuster but then continue on their leftward drift, they will essentially be promising the country more deadlock. Deadlock favors the right structurally (given the current neoliberal status quo) and politically (given that further deterioration of the economy favors the far right -as is being seen in every single Western country-).
A moderate with actual leadership would call on a repeat of the Biden-Sanders negotiations and try to unite the party behind something that can lead to actual policy progress for the whole party and country.
Instead not a single one of the so called moderate potential presidential candidates is calling for any sort of moderation on absolutely a single one of the issues that contributed to costing the party elections in 2016 and 2024.
Due to short term polling, moderates have basically conceded that the left is right on immigration, tariffs, Gaza, Venezuela and Iran (and implicitly on transgender issues).
The main difference between moderates and the left nowadays is on issues that are not in the public eye as much anymore like climate change/energy and crypto/AI and that are unlikely to be major differentiators in the primaries.
The 2028 election will again be about affordability and the primaries will again be about electability.
Democrats can easily win unless there is some sort of economic miracle before then.
But the political environment and philosophy they will have continued nurturing until then is simply bad for democracy.
"It is a peculiar Western aberration to believe that, 'under the skin', other people all believe as we do'", heard by chance in a Thomas Sowell lecture, has made more and more sense for me in the last two decades. As US messaging went from the FDR's confidence inspiring "All we have to fear, is fear itself" to fear inducing, first of Soviet nuclear power, then environmental destruction to the all purpose "Climate Change", in fulfillment of H. L. Mencken's ""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)" and fear became operating doctrine. Constant heightened threat creates tunnel vision, reducing options and the blind coalescing around leaders with the most effective profiled messaging, including that "the other guy" is also the enemy.
The resilient societies, able to accommodate great diversity on the individual basis of "freedom of thought", yet able to unite in common purpose, become monochrome target-able blocs with no flexibility, prone to disintegration by the Heterodox, who are to be cast out into darkness. Our fear of the unknown which leads to projecting our own image in default where we have no actual knowledge ("They can't possibly think that!") has serious consequences when large scale immigration brings cohesive, non-heterodox groups that "really do think that".
Perhaps lateral thinking, imagination and some knowledge of history would help. I don't know, but hope.
Or...Another example of Democrat heterodoxy on the cultural front would be someone who accepts any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen. There is a radical disconnect between what Democrats say they believe and what they universally vote for.
In my opinion, Trump worship is mainly a myth. Voters make the same calculations every election. I like this. I do not like this. They run the numbers and vote for the person with the most policies with which they agree, or for the person whose polices they dislike, the least.
The legend of Trump Zombies completely discounts the historical Biden Presidency. The worst public health response in US history, of debatable legality. A purposefully dissolved Border, with 10 million unvetted new arrivals, without a single extra bedroom to house them or a single extra MD to treat their healthcare needs.
50 year high inflation spurred by unwarranted Covid panic and trillions flushed on Green fantasies, even European Socialists no longer believe. The subsidies and unprecedented regulations mainly enriched Dem donors , while killing American living standards for all but the wealthy. They also stifled American choice in everything from stoves to schools. The latter, suddenly teaching child transgenderism and the plague of universal White racism and Western culture, rather than Reading and Math.
We are in this situation, because the nation elected someone they assumed would be a moderate caretaker, but who governed as the most Progressive President in US history. Had Biden campaigned on allowing 10 million unvetted people to walk across the border, sans valid asylum claims, would he still have won? Had Joe mentioned he would seek to control more aspects of American life than ever before in US history, would he still have prevailed?
Without Biden there is no Trump 2.0. Trump is a term limited reaction to a Progressive Presidential Con of historical epic proportions.
And the next administration will be a reaction to Trump. The logic of all you said applies in reverse also - just substitute overreach Trump policies with those you call out from Biden.
From an outsider's perspective (Canadian), the USA has a very entertaining but ineffective government. Canada should be so lucky. Our last 10 years has been totally devastating.
In many ways, the US electoral system seems not particularly important due to the intentional checks and balances, as well as the importance of the President mainly picking which aspects of current law to embrace. Further, the 'greying' of the congress, senate and presidency make it far less an agency of change.
There's a simple reason why party orthodoxy and the office-holders of each party are less diverse than the voters who identify and lean in their direction - electoral system. As Unite America points out, due to gerrymandered "safe districts" and partisan primaries (along with other ways in which the two-parties have conspired to lock out any new political rivals), the 7% of voters who participate in selecting the winning candidates in safe primaries choose 87% of the House. So, regardless of which party has a majority, that majority is made up of sad sacks who are completely beholden to the orthodoxy of the true believers.
Worse, because the minority is made up almost entirely of those beholden to true believers on the other end of the spectrum, there is no hope of a critical mass of wannabe moderates joining together on almost any issue to do the real work of "art of the possible" compromise (where, say, we all agree on a solution that gives neither side a dominating "win" over the opposition heathens, but is clearly better than the status quo).
The result is either (1) divided government and complete grid lock or (2) a trifecta (but tiny) majority that always oversteps its "mandate," setting the stage for buyer's remorse (in the few swing districts that determine the majority) and an electoral reset in the next cycle to divided government or a trifecta for the other side.
We seem to be nearing the end of this madness. Either we will reform elections to give the majority of voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum a voice, or we will ride this cycle to collapse.
Nothing is collapsing. Our electoral system is brilliant in its' protection of small and rural states, of which the US has many.
Remember wealthy Founding Fathers risked their lives and wealth to win a Revolution, and then willingly handed the reins to farmers and farriers. To that end, they designed an electoral system that can only be amended with 2/3rds the House and Senate and 3/4ths of States.
Dems will spontaneously elect Trump to a 3rd term as a Democrat, and pigs will fly, before that happens.
Thing is, what if you do NOT disagree with President Trump? On anything? If I were President, I'd look just like him, except gray and about five inches shorter.
Interesting. How would you describe the underlying world view that informs your position on any specific thing? For Trump, I think it is - "goodness in the world is defined by what is good for Trump wealth and adulation." I assume you are not motivated by that per se, so what are the foundational beliefs that would drive your presidency?
Simpler. America First. What's good for America is what I support. So far, I haven['t found one policy or area that isn't good for America.
Oh, and I should have mentioned this. Yesterday a poll came out showing the Congressional Ds had a lower approval than ISIS . . . but good news! A new poll today shows that Ds are slightly ahead of the Iranian mullahs!
Yes, D's have horrible approval. But all of them, including Trump, have negative approval. That is proof enough that the system itself is broken. Fix the way that we elect people and you will end up with public policy that is neither Trumpian nor hard leftist. Fail to reform the system and we are well on the way to the end of the American experiment. There's a place for "America First" ideals as Trump claims to understand them, but his version and implementation would not win in a healthy environment of political and philosophical debate.
See, I totally disagree. In 2016 I correctly predicted Trump's victory in OCTOBER in my book, "How Trump WON" (past tense), I predicted exactly the EV margin (I said 300---it was 304). I followed up with 2024 with EXACTLY the final with my JUNE prediction of 312 EVs and +1.5% popular vote. My point is that the general media/understanding ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS underestimates Trump's strength (not Rs, who trail him by about 5 points. Without vote fraud and illegals, Trump would have won 2020 as well. I think anyone not understanding this as a party---which Ds still do not---is begging for more defeat. Don't get me wrong, the House is so tight that 5 seats will swing it. But if Trump is on the ballot, totally different story.
You believe there were a lot of non citizens voting in 2020? Regardless, 50% of the popular vote given weak alternatives is not a show of deep support for the candidate or the party.
I may not agree with all of Larry's thoughts, but he is right far more than Dems who seem to have only 2 main policies. Open borders and the destruction of the West.
To be fair, Open Borders is mostly a reaction to the Dem inability to keep Americans in Blue States. We are not a Republic by accident. States compete for residents and the last decade or two, the traffic only moves one way, Blue to Red. Without mass migration, the 2030 Reapportionment may have well rendered Dems a permanent minority Party.
There is one stat that most clearly demonstrates the Dem problem, better than all the rest. In 2000 Texas was suppose to overtake CA in population in around 2100. It is now assumed Texas will be the largest US state around 2050.
CA has beautiful coastlines and one of the world's most temperate climates. Texas has bugs so large they need Air Traffic Control around DFW, lousy temps 6 months of the year, and a variety of snakes that rivals Australia. Yet Americans will not stop migrating from their Blue Utopias, to America's version of Hell, with responsible governance.
We can agree that electing more Dems of the ilk that survive safe Dem primaries is not the solution. My point is that the same is true in relation to Republicans.
Congressional Ds do have a very low approval rating. But...that dismal rating is not automatically good news for the GOP. A significant percentage of people who disapprove of Congressional Democrats do so because they believe those Ds are not far enough Left. In the end, they'll vote for the Ds they disapprove of over any Republican.
100%. And that, in fact, is really, really good news for Rs.
I jokingly say that Rs could actually campaign on this: "We are lazy, occasionally corrupt, and often inept. But we don't want to kill you. Ds actually want to kill you and your family." Believe me there are MANY who won't say this out loud but deep down are coming to believe that in general Ds want them dead.
As this essay correctly notes, both major parties enforce orthodoxy: the Wokester Left controls the Democratic party, and Trump worshipers control the Republican party. Even minor dissent is ruthlessly suppressed.
But there's a simple reason why that suppression succeeds: the enforcers show up in primary elections in numbers hugely disproportionate to their percentage of eligible voters. If you want to win a general election, you first have to convince your party's enforcers to support you in the primaries. It's theoretically possible for moderates/centrists to take control of one or both major parties, but people like that are not (collectively speaking) devoted to spending large amounts of time and effort on political matters and vote in primaries at low rates.
> “ heterodoxy mostly indicates someone who says, “I disagree with Donald Trump.””
Almost. It’s “are you on the side of the people, or the side of intellectual elites.” The people summoned Trump, not the other way around. Remember when Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy all wanted more h1b visas? That got shouted down and Trump made h1bs more expensive. Or remember when Trump tried to make the base pro-vax? He gave up (I’m vaccinated).
Note that all the Never Trumpers, such as the Bulwark crowd, are cheerleading every progressive wishlist from (trans)gender ideology to NGOs (we learned during the USAID debates that Kristol has done quite well by government-funded NGOs) to open borders. As Trump put it, “It’s not me they hate, it’s you. I’m just in the way.”
I assume you are referring to COVID vaccines (as opposed to measles or something else?). My wife and I got the two Pfizer shots back in the spring of 2021. But nothing after that, COVID-wise. Does that make us "vaccinated"? or do you need to take a new COVID shot each year (or some other frequency, IDK) to be "vaccinated"? Asking sincerely.
I was just forestalling a leftist talking point. I really don’t care how May Covid vaccinations or boosters (or not) someone gets. You definitely shouldn’t get fired for not taking them, at least if you have a positive antibody test.
" I really don’t care how May Covid vaccinations or boosters (or not) someone gets."
I don't either. I just wondered what you meant by "I'm vaccinated" - since I suspect the forever-COVIDERs (aka, Cray-Cray Lorenz) would require a booster shot every 6 months or so to qualify for that statement.
No doubt aspects of what Trump tapped into were majority views, but you'd be hard pressed to find majorities supporting almost any specific implementation of those views (because - like most politicians - he was happy to say whatever to get the power; once in power, the agenda is his own and that of those who will help keep him in power).
The only reason "the people" had to signal things Trump was positioned to take advantage of is the broken legislative branch. And that problem has everything to do with the most partisan and ideological fraction of the electorate effectively choosing 9 out of 10 representatives in "safe" primaries. The "poeple" have no voice there, but can still make themselves heard in a presidential election, even if that leads to being hypnotized by a pied piper of self-interest.
Using sortition as a punch line was maybe not Buckley's most prescient moment. I think a lot of people are coming around to the idea that maybe we really should be governed by a medium-sized group chosen at random--they would be much more likely to actually talk to one another than our current crop of legislators.
"I always voted at my party's call; and I never thought of thinking for myself at all. I thought so little, they rewarded me by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy." WS Gilbert in 1878 and still dead-on today.
Speaking as a Brit looking in I don't think the flaws in your electoral system is an absence of proportional representation. Rather I think they are: political gerrymandering of congressional districts, no campaign spending limits, state winner takes all electoral college votes, out of sync elections for president, senate and the house and mass participation in primaries. Combined these give too much power to extremists in the parties and too few competitive races and the bizarre spectacle of candidates winning the Presidency without a plurality of the popular vote. Also the House should be able to override the senate as the House of Commons can override the House of Lords.
Gerrymandering, coupled with the primary system (especially in closed primaries, where only partisans vote) is possibly the biggest reason for the division in the US and the fact that we're a nation of moderates run by extremists.
The gist (I did an entire podcast with more detail for anyone interested) is that the system incentivizes extremism - gerrymandering means that most members of the House are in safe districts, which means they are more likely to lose in the primary than the general. Thus, their incentive is to run to the left/right to avoid being challenged from the flanks.
Wish independents would to pick a party and become involved enough to help centrist candidates to win primaries. With their help hopefully we would have better candidates in each party than the current mostly extreme right and left choices.
This analysis does a fair job of examining approximately half of the people of the USA. That would be the half that has some loyalty to one of the parties.
But that ignores the half of the USA that has no loyalty to either party. How about an analysis of us?
I can’t pretend to know. I have no loyalty to either party or their orthodoxies. Based on polling, I suspect that puts me in a majority or at least a plurality of Americans.
Moderates' failure at governance and politics is just as bad as leftists'.
Moderates have not proven any ability to govern inside the party, not even crafting compromise proposals on any of the issues of the day. How can people who don't exercise real leadership inside a party be expected to lead the country? If you can't manage factions inside your party how are you going to manage Congress?
A key difference in the presidential primaries will be the filibuster. The one leftists were attacking for the last two decades but have now hypocritically embraced.
If moderates decide to defend the filibuster but then continue on their leftward drift, they will essentially be promising the country more deadlock. Deadlock favors the right structurally (given the current neoliberal status quo) and politically (given that further deterioration of the economy favors the far right -as is being seen in every single Western country-).
A moderate with actual leadership would call on a repeat of the Biden-Sanders negotiations and try to unite the party behind something that can lead to actual policy progress for the whole party and country.
Instead not a single one of the so called moderate potential presidential candidates is calling for any sort of moderation on absolutely a single one of the issues that contributed to costing the party elections in 2016 and 2024.
Due to short term polling, moderates have basically conceded that the left is right on immigration, tariffs, Gaza, Venezuela and Iran (and implicitly on transgender issues).
The main difference between moderates and the left nowadays is on issues that are not in the public eye as much anymore like climate change/energy and crypto/AI and that are unlikely to be major differentiators in the primaries.
The 2028 election will again be about affordability and the primaries will again be about electability.
Democrats can easily win unless there is some sort of economic miracle before then.
But the political environment and philosophy they will have continued nurturing until then is simply bad for democracy.
"It is a peculiar Western aberration to believe that, 'under the skin', other people all believe as we do'", heard by chance in a Thomas Sowell lecture, has made more and more sense for me in the last two decades. As US messaging went from the FDR's confidence inspiring "All we have to fear, is fear itself" to fear inducing, first of Soviet nuclear power, then environmental destruction to the all purpose "Climate Change", in fulfillment of H. L. Mencken's ""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)" and fear became operating doctrine. Constant heightened threat creates tunnel vision, reducing options and the blind coalescing around leaders with the most effective profiled messaging, including that "the other guy" is also the enemy.
The resilient societies, able to accommodate great diversity on the individual basis of "freedom of thought", yet able to unite in common purpose, become monochrome target-able blocs with no flexibility, prone to disintegration by the Heterodox, who are to be cast out into darkness. Our fear of the unknown which leads to projecting our own image in default where we have no actual knowledge ("They can't possibly think that!") has serious consequences when large scale immigration brings cohesive, non-heterodox groups that "really do think that".
Perhaps lateral thinking, imagination and some knowledge of history would help. I don't know, but hope.
Or...Another example of Democrat heterodoxy on the cultural front would be someone who accepts any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Ain't gonna happen. There is a radical disconnect between what Democrats say they believe and what they universally vote for.
In my opinion, Trump worship is mainly a myth. Voters make the same calculations every election. I like this. I do not like this. They run the numbers and vote for the person with the most policies with which they agree, or for the person whose polices they dislike, the least.
The legend of Trump Zombies completely discounts the historical Biden Presidency. The worst public health response in US history, of debatable legality. A purposefully dissolved Border, with 10 million unvetted new arrivals, without a single extra bedroom to house them or a single extra MD to treat their healthcare needs.
50 year high inflation spurred by unwarranted Covid panic and trillions flushed on Green fantasies, even European Socialists no longer believe. The subsidies and unprecedented regulations mainly enriched Dem donors , while killing American living standards for all but the wealthy. They also stifled American choice in everything from stoves to schools. The latter, suddenly teaching child transgenderism and the plague of universal White racism and Western culture, rather than Reading and Math.
We are in this situation, because the nation elected someone they assumed would be a moderate caretaker, but who governed as the most Progressive President in US history. Had Biden campaigned on allowing 10 million unvetted people to walk across the border, sans valid asylum claims, would he still have won? Had Joe mentioned he would seek to control more aspects of American life than ever before in US history, would he still have prevailed?
Without Biden there is no Trump 2.0. Trump is a term limited reaction to a Progressive Presidential Con of historical epic proportions.
And the next administration will be a reaction to Trump. The logic of all you said applies in reverse also - just substitute overreach Trump policies with those you call out from Biden.
From an outsider's perspective (Canadian), the USA has a very entertaining but ineffective government. Canada should be so lucky. Our last 10 years has been totally devastating.
In many ways, the US electoral system seems not particularly important due to the intentional checks and balances, as well as the importance of the President mainly picking which aspects of current law to embrace. Further, the 'greying' of the congress, senate and presidency make it far less an agency of change.
There's a simple reason why party orthodoxy and the office-holders of each party are less diverse than the voters who identify and lean in their direction - electoral system. As Unite America points out, due to gerrymandered "safe districts" and partisan primaries (along with other ways in which the two-parties have conspired to lock out any new political rivals), the 7% of voters who participate in selecting the winning candidates in safe primaries choose 87% of the House. So, regardless of which party has a majority, that majority is made up of sad sacks who are completely beholden to the orthodoxy of the true believers.
Worse, because the minority is made up almost entirely of those beholden to true believers on the other end of the spectrum, there is no hope of a critical mass of wannabe moderates joining together on almost any issue to do the real work of "art of the possible" compromise (where, say, we all agree on a solution that gives neither side a dominating "win" over the opposition heathens, but is clearly better than the status quo).
The result is either (1) divided government and complete grid lock or (2) a trifecta (but tiny) majority that always oversteps its "mandate," setting the stage for buyer's remorse (in the few swing districts that determine the majority) and an electoral reset in the next cycle to divided government or a trifecta for the other side.
We seem to be nearing the end of this madness. Either we will reform elections to give the majority of voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum a voice, or we will ride this cycle to collapse.
Nothing is collapsing. Our electoral system is brilliant in its' protection of small and rural states, of which the US has many.
Remember wealthy Founding Fathers risked their lives and wealth to win a Revolution, and then willingly handed the reins to farmers and farriers. To that end, they designed an electoral system that can only be amended with 2/3rds the House and Senate and 3/4ths of States.
Dems will spontaneously elect Trump to a 3rd term as a Democrat, and pigs will fly, before that happens.
Thing is, what if you do NOT disagree with President Trump? On anything? If I were President, I'd look just like him, except gray and about five inches shorter.
Interesting. How would you describe the underlying world view that informs your position on any specific thing? For Trump, I think it is - "goodness in the world is defined by what is good for Trump wealth and adulation." I assume you are not motivated by that per se, so what are the foundational beliefs that would drive your presidency?
What was Biden's underlying world view?
Simpler. America First. What's good for America is what I support. So far, I haven['t found one policy or area that isn't good for America.
Oh, and I should have mentioned this. Yesterday a poll came out showing the Congressional Ds had a lower approval than ISIS . . . but good news! A new poll today shows that Ds are slightly ahead of the Iranian mullahs!
Yes, D's have horrible approval. But all of them, including Trump, have negative approval. That is proof enough that the system itself is broken. Fix the way that we elect people and you will end up with public policy that is neither Trumpian nor hard leftist. Fail to reform the system and we are well on the way to the end of the American experiment. There's a place for "America First" ideals as Trump claims to understand them, but his version and implementation would not win in a healthy environment of political and philosophical debate.
See, I totally disagree. In 2016 I correctly predicted Trump's victory in OCTOBER in my book, "How Trump WON" (past tense), I predicted exactly the EV margin (I said 300---it was 304). I followed up with 2024 with EXACTLY the final with my JUNE prediction of 312 EVs and +1.5% popular vote. My point is that the general media/understanding ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS underestimates Trump's strength (not Rs, who trail him by about 5 points. Without vote fraud and illegals, Trump would have won 2020 as well. I think anyone not understanding this as a party---which Ds still do not---is begging for more defeat. Don't get me wrong, the House is so tight that 5 seats will swing it. But if Trump is on the ballot, totally different story.
You believe there were a lot of non citizens voting in 2020? Regardless, 50% of the popular vote given weak alternatives is not a show of deep support for the candidate or the party.
I may not agree with all of Larry's thoughts, but he is right far more than Dems who seem to have only 2 main policies. Open borders and the destruction of the West.
To be fair, Open Borders is mostly a reaction to the Dem inability to keep Americans in Blue States. We are not a Republic by accident. States compete for residents and the last decade or two, the traffic only moves one way, Blue to Red. Without mass migration, the 2030 Reapportionment may have well rendered Dems a permanent minority Party.
There is one stat that most clearly demonstrates the Dem problem, better than all the rest. In 2000 Texas was suppose to overtake CA in population in around 2100. It is now assumed Texas will be the largest US state around 2050.
CA has beautiful coastlines and one of the world's most temperate climates. Texas has bugs so large they need Air Traffic Control around DFW, lousy temps 6 months of the year, and a variety of snakes that rivals Australia. Yet Americans will not stop migrating from their Blue Utopias, to America's version of Hell, with responsible governance.
We can agree that electing more Dems of the ilk that survive safe Dem primaries is not the solution. My point is that the same is true in relation to Republicans.
Congressional Ds do have a very low approval rating. But...that dismal rating is not automatically good news for the GOP. A significant percentage of people who disapprove of Congressional Democrats do so because they believe those Ds are not far enough Left. In the end, they'll vote for the Ds they disapprove of over any Republican.
100%. And that, in fact, is really, really good news for Rs.
I jokingly say that Rs could actually campaign on this: "We are lazy, occasionally corrupt, and often inept. But we don't want to kill you. Ds actually want to kill you and your family." Believe me there are MANY who won't say this out loud but deep down are coming to believe that in general Ds want them dead.
Just a by-product of unprincipled media serving up caricatures of both sides that fire up emotional responses and therefore attention and profit.
I finally feel seen as a heterodox voter with no one to vote for anymore. Give me the DINOS and RINOS.
HINO!
As this essay correctly notes, both major parties enforce orthodoxy: the Wokester Left controls the Democratic party, and Trump worshipers control the Republican party. Even minor dissent is ruthlessly suppressed.
But there's a simple reason why that suppression succeeds: the enforcers show up in primary elections in numbers hugely disproportionate to their percentage of eligible voters. If you want to win a general election, you first have to convince your party's enforcers to support you in the primaries. It's theoretically possible for moderates/centrists to take control of one or both major parties, but people like that are not (collectively speaking) devoted to spending large amounts of time and effort on political matters and vote in primaries at low rates.
Exactly. I would have just responded to this instead of my own response if I'd seen it first
> “ heterodoxy mostly indicates someone who says, “I disagree with Donald Trump.””
Almost. It’s “are you on the side of the people, or the side of intellectual elites.” The people summoned Trump, not the other way around. Remember when Trump, Musk and Ramaswamy all wanted more h1b visas? That got shouted down and Trump made h1bs more expensive. Or remember when Trump tried to make the base pro-vax? He gave up (I’m vaccinated).
Note that all the Never Trumpers, such as the Bulwark crowd, are cheerleading every progressive wishlist from (trans)gender ideology to NGOs (we learned during the USAID debates that Kristol has done quite well by government-funded NGOs) to open borders. As Trump put it, “It’s not me they hate, it’s you. I’m just in the way.”
"I'm vaccinated"
I assume you are referring to COVID vaccines (as opposed to measles or something else?). My wife and I got the two Pfizer shots back in the spring of 2021. But nothing after that, COVID-wise. Does that make us "vaccinated"? or do you need to take a new COVID shot each year (or some other frequency, IDK) to be "vaccinated"? Asking sincerely.
I was just forestalling a leftist talking point. I really don’t care how May Covid vaccinations or boosters (or not) someone gets. You definitely shouldn’t get fired for not taking them, at least if you have a positive antibody test.
" I really don’t care how May Covid vaccinations or boosters (or not) someone gets."
I don't either. I just wondered what you meant by "I'm vaccinated" - since I suspect the forever-COVIDERs (aka, Cray-Cray Lorenz) would require a booster shot every 6 months or so to qualify for that statement.
No doubt aspects of what Trump tapped into were majority views, but you'd be hard pressed to find majorities supporting almost any specific implementation of those views (because - like most politicians - he was happy to say whatever to get the power; once in power, the agenda is his own and that of those who will help keep him in power).
The only reason "the people" had to signal things Trump was positioned to take advantage of is the broken legislative branch. And that problem has everything to do with the most partisan and ideological fraction of the electorate effectively choosing 9 out of 10 representatives in "safe" primaries. The "poeple" have no voice there, but can still make themselves heard in a presidential election, even if that leads to being hypnotized by a pied piper of self-interest.
"The peope"? C'mon we all fear and hate "the people."
“I’d rather be ruled by the first 500 names in the Cambridge phone book than the faculty of Harvard.” - WF Buckley
Using sortition as a punch line was maybe not Buckley's most prescient moment. I think a lot of people are coming around to the idea that maybe we really should be governed by a medium-sized group chosen at random--they would be much more likely to actually talk to one another than our current crop of legislators.
"I always voted at my party's call; and I never thought of thinking for myself at all. I thought so little, they rewarded me by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navy." WS Gilbert in 1878 and still dead-on today.
Speaking as a Brit looking in I don't think the flaws in your electoral system is an absence of proportional representation. Rather I think they are: political gerrymandering of congressional districts, no campaign spending limits, state winner takes all electoral college votes, out of sync elections for president, senate and the house and mass participation in primaries. Combined these give too much power to extremists in the parties and too few competitive races and the bizarre spectacle of candidates winning the Presidency without a plurality of the popular vote. Also the House should be able to override the senate as the House of Commons can override the House of Lords.
Dead on correct.
Gerrymandering, coupled with the primary system (especially in closed primaries, where only partisans vote) is possibly the biggest reason for the division in the US and the fact that we're a nation of moderates run by extremists.
The gist (I did an entire podcast with more detail for anyone interested) is that the system incentivizes extremism - gerrymandering means that most members of the House are in safe districts, which means they are more likely to lose in the primary than the general. Thus, their incentive is to run to the left/right to avoid being challenged from the flanks.
Wish independents would to pick a party and become involved enough to help centrist candidates to win primaries. With their help hopefully we would have better candidates in each party than the current mostly extreme right and left choices.
This analysis does a fair job of examining approximately half of the people of the USA. That would be the half that has some loyalty to one of the parties.
But that ignores the half of the USA that has no loyalty to either party. How about an analysis of us?
Orwell had some interesting things to say about this and tribal thinking: https://orwell.substack.com/p/every-nationalist-is-haunted-by-the?r=4q7zlk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web