The problem of modern politics is that both sides are thinking that the other side is morally evil, while their side is morally right. The problem with this is because there is no middle ground possible, no compromise. And politics is all about compromise. So that means that the government stops serving to the people because it is in permanent lock.
Problem is that I genuinely do struggle to think of an issue that I think the right-wing are correct on. It’s not mere tribalism, it’s not “other team bad”. It is a fundamental difference in values, and worldview.
I had an honest to God reasonable discussion with a very conservative Christian man. We talked and I told him about the major problems I see today (this was before the current demonization of LGBT). Each one, like gun violence, I asked what proposed solutions the right-wing had and he conceded that every position they had was reactionary to a proposed solution by the left. I basically told the guy that I’ll vote for the group that has some kind of solution, even a less than ideal solution.
I have a lot of respect for that guy. I don’t think his position has changed but his willingness to hear me out was refreshing.
Here’s how I see it and forgive me if it’s totally off:
In the US, the part of the Right which was all about “making a better country through making life better for businesses” (the ones you could say wanted a better country just like the lefties, but disagreed on the importance of broadly sharing the benefits of it) has won, decades ago even: both the Republicans and the Democract absolutelly and unequestinably came to believe that “doing what’s best for business” - not for society, not for people, for business - is the right way to manage the country.
What you have now is the breaking down of that political thinking monopoly, because it didn’t actually deliver on its promises, especially the “when the tide rises all boats rise with it” promise (the “for the greater good” promise of that ideology, something the Traditional Left might understand even if it disagrees with the methods).
This breakdown is shaping both the Right in the US and what is seen there as Left: the Right is falling back to good old Fascist tropes - religiosity, racism, ultra-nationalism to quite a rabid level, whilst what passes for “Left” there is actually a newly built ideology, based on the moral side of neoliberalism - i.e. moral liberalism - with almost no links to the traditional Left of worker movements and the fight against wealth inequality, and which does not follow of the “the greatest good for the greatest number” ideology but rather the “people should be free to do what they want” ideology, so an ideology which is totally compatible with things like there being people accumulating obscene amounts of wealth, which the ideology of the Traditional Left is most definitelly not compatible with.
So the public face of the Right in the US are basically Fascists (with all the traditional illiberal values of that) whilst the public face of the “Left” in the US is not a Left in the Traditional sense but rather a whole new ideology created around the moral part of neoliberalism (which is by nature liberal in all things) hence said “Left”, whilst completelly compatible with things like The Low Regulation Free Market, and Wealth Inequality, is antithetical to the moral illiberal values taken from Fascism which are held by the current Right in the US.
So yeah, the only fighting going on between what people think is Left and Right in the US is between absolutellyt totally and complete opposite sides on the moral domain (liberalism vs religious and racist illiberalism), with a negligible or even non existent dispute of how to best manage the country for the greater good, so there is no “same general goals different methods” area were Left and Right might find common ground.
Things are more subtle elsewhere, at least in Europe, though neoliberalism has also conquerer the entire mainstream “center” (whether they called themselves “Left” or “Right”) in most countries, but most countries have voting systems which are not or at least not as much rigged for maintaing a Power Duopoly as the one in the US, so there usually still are more traditional left voices in the ideological field, plus the rebirth of Fascism is happenning from the fringes rather than right in the middle of one of the two Power Duopoly parties (though if you look at countries with very similar voting systems to the US one, like Britain, they’re showing almost exactly the political transformation: Fascism taking over one of the Power Duopoly parties and the “Left” being taken over by a brand new ideology created from the moral side of neoliberalism, still siding with the Economic thinking of neoliberalsim and which ignores wealth inequality.
I don’t need explanations. I’ve spoken to a lot of conservatives, about a lot of topics. It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that we value different things. That we see the world differently.
Very abstractly, conservatives tend (and individuals are different so may tend more or less) to believe that hierarchy is natural, and unavoidable. That hierarchy simply is the way the world is. Progressives on the other hand tend to be more egalitarian, all are created equal and hierarchies are usually unjust and should be dismantled.
It’s why there is such a consistent division of beliefs. Why people, if they hold some conservative or progressive values, tend to also hold other beliefs of the same categorisation. Where when new issues come up, we can predict with good accuracy who is going to take what stance, by answering the question: Does this move power up, or down, the hierarchy? Does this reinforce the hierarchy, or does it weaken the hierarchy?
It also explains seemingly contradictory conservative beliefs. It explains why the right-wing, who at their fringes host white-supremacists and who are represented in government by people who talk about “Jewish space lasers”, are now supporting Israel and accusing people of antisemitism. Because Israel is higher in the hierarchy than Palestine. Their claims to care about antisemitism are laughably flimsy in context, they are lies propped up in front of the real belief.
Interestingly you can believe that hierarchy is natural and still be a leftist, because coercive hierarchies (such as capitalist or the state) that the left is against prevent these natural hierarchies from emerging. The problem with the right is that they have a model of society in their mind and think that any divergence isn’t natural and must be fixed (by either capitalism or the state). While the left understands that there is no reason some people can’t be in power and so want’s to equalize the playing field.
Human beings aren’t made equally and there will always be some hierarchy in human society. Leftists just want to give everyone the opportunity to rise up the ranks instead of just the “right” people. That is why everyone must be treated equally you don’t know where they exist in the hierarchy.
Technically there isn’t a single social hierarchy. But multiple overlapping ones. Some people are better in some things and other are better in other things. Saying that everyone is equal is too simplified. Society is more complex than that.
But as a generalization (especially when compared to the right) it is correct.
I believe fundamentally, psychologically the main reason that makes conservative a conservative is a believe that we, as society, can not make things better, and quite likely will make things worse. This is why they are “conserving”. It works - don’t change, don’t breaks. Hierarchy works, so we keep it - type of things.
Or could it be that we see policy enacted which tangibly DOES in fact make our lives worse, our community run down, and our family less safe? Why is it that in the 50s you could leave your front door unlocked without fear of someone stealing your stuff or harming your family? The country has gotten significantly more progressive since then. Would you feel safe doing that now? In big cities (overwhelming progressive) people are advised to leave their car windows down so that anyone trying to break in won’t shatter the window. In those same cities homeless encampments, open drug use, and relieving oneself in the streets has become the accepted norm. Call me crazy, but I liked it better the way it was before.
Not all change is good, and not all conservation is bad. That seems to be a sentiment we’ve lost sight of.
Not gonna engage about these topics because this is psychological position of whether society becomes better or not and whether we can improve society. I often see that conservatives focus on one or two points and ignore the forest behind the trees. Are there examples of bad laws? Sure. Does it prove anything except for the need of better governance? No. But since it is psychological position, there is no way to convince conservative to become liberal (and the other way around) in a couple of posts. It is like discussing validity of religion - pointless.
I’d like to make a nuanced correction to your statement. You state that conservatives believe that hierarchy is natural and unavoidable, and progressives believe in equality. As someone who considers themselves a right leaning centrist, I think you’re missing an important distinction. I believe that good people and evil people exist. I believe that hard working people and lazy people exist. I believe that kind people and selfish people exist. You can never have true equality in a progressive sense so long as those two sides exist. The evil, selfish, and lazy people will ALWAYS prey on the good, kind, hard working. It isn’t that we fundamentally disagree with what progressives want, it’s that we think they have an unrealistic utopian view. Sort of like how a child will say they wish for world peace. It’s sweet and well intentioned, but misses the reality of the world. As a native Californian, I can tell you that many of these progressive policies you want have led to increased violence, property crimes, and a general reduction in quality of life across the board, not just for the people at the top, but for literally everyone.
You haven’t actually corrected anything I’ve said. In fact you have reinforced it.
You’re a conservative. You believe that there are different types of people, an us and a them, and that those differences are innate to people are. And so you don’t believe equality is possible, so the hierarchy must exist, and thus you want to make sure that your group of people is higher up than the groups of people you disparage as lazy, selfish, and evil.
That is a fundamental difference in values.
As a native Californian, I can tell you that many of these progressive policies you want have led to increased violence, property crimes, and a general reduction in quality of life across the board, not just for the people at the top, but for literally everyone.
And I think your political literacy is poor, and barely surface level. The conditions you speak of are not due to nebulous “progressive” policies, but to the vast wealth inequality your country as a whole, but California particularly, suffers from. California has progressive policies, but still does not address many of the worst of the issues.
You are suffering from the hierarchy. Because the people lower on that hierarchy are aggrieved with their living conditions, and thus cause unrest. The system is not working for them, so they do not respect the system in turn.
The difference between progressives and conservatives is that we disagree on what to do about that. Progressives want to flatten the hierarchy so that the disparity is smaller and the grievance is addressed, so that the system works for those people too, so those people can live full lives, and thus they have little motivation to destroy a system that takes care of them. Progressives believe that true peace comes from justice.
Conservatives instead want to maintain and increase the oppression on those lower down the hierarchy, so that they know their place. Conservative peace is enforced by beating the aggrieved down until they stop complaining.
Spoken like an elitist liberal. You’d fit right in in California.
You remind me of someone I once read about. They too believed in progressive ideals. They decided to hitchhike from Italy to the middle east in an attempt to share their message of love and peace. Three weeks into the trip they were raped, murdered, and left in a ditch. But I guess you’re right, evil people don’t exist, it’s just those damn aggrieved saps at the bottom who don’t respect the system.
You’re right, there are certainly people who have been downtrodden by the world and become cold and callous, but there are also people simply born cruel. I’ve seen downtrodden people act with tremendous kindness/morality, and I’ve seen successful people act with tremendous evil/immorality. For you to pretend that bad behavior is simply a result of “the system” is idiotic and out of touch with reality.
And I think your political literacy is poor, and barely surface level. The conditions you speak of are not due to nebulous “progressive” policies, but to the vast wealth inequality your country as a whole, but California particularly, suffers from. California has progressive policies, but still does not address many of the worst of the issues.
What do you suppose led to the vast inequality? I’ll give you a hint, it was elitist thinking and liberal policies. California is one of the most progressive states in the country. It’s been that way basically my entire life. We charge more for everything (taxes, healthcare, energy, housing, etc) so that we can fund our progressive agenda. As a result our middle class has evaporated. Now we have only the poor and the insanely wealthy. Our progressive leaders know this, so they pander to the poor, giving them benefits to keep voting them in, and cut deals with the rich. They don’t want to stigmatize anyone so they’ve stopped enforcing many basic laws. The rich aren’t terribly impacted, they live in gated communities and have armed security. Instead it’s everyone else who suffers. You acknowledge California has progressive policies that don’t address the problems, yet you simultaneously dismiss them being the cause of the problems. What is your answer then? Let me guess… communism? That seems to be the answer everyone on Lemmy espouses.
Secondly, what do you mean elitist? I’m literally suggesting the the dismantling of the hierarchy. My entire point of view is that concepts of elitism are inherently wrong. That criticism does not even make sense, it’s a meaningless insult.
You remind me of someone I once read about. They too believed in progressive ideals. They decided to hitchhike from Italy to the middle east in an attempt to share their message of love and peace. Three weeks into the trip they were raped, murdered, and left in a ditch. But I guess you’re right, evil people don’t exist, it’s just those damn aggrieved saps at the bottom who don’t respect the system. You’re right, there are certainly people who have been downtrodden by the world and become cold and callous, but there are also people simply born cruel. I’ve seen downtrodden people act with tremendous kindness/morality, and I’ve seen successful people act with tremendous evil/immorality. For you to pretend that bad behavior is simply a result of “the system” is idiotic and out of touch with reality.
Please try read what I wrote, instead of just imagining my position.
I never said that people don’t do bad things, and I never said that all unrest or violence would end, I never said that every person would become an upstanding member of society. But people are a product of their environment. People who have decent lives, who live in more equitable societies, have less motivation to attack those societies.
Don’t fold me into your ridiculous black-and-white pattern of thinking.
What do you suppose led to the vast inequality?
Capitalism.
California is one of the most progressive states in the country. It’s been that way basically my entire life.
And is still capitalist, and still rather conservative on key issues, because your whole country is quite conservative at the federal level.
California is more progressive than much of the US, that doesn’t make them actually progressive in a broader sense.
Now we have only the poor and the insanely wealthy.
Gee whiz, it’s almost as if they aren’t at all as progressive as you think they are :)
You’re not supposed to compromise before negotiations have even began… I will never understand why Democrats and “centrists” can stay alive with literally no spine.
Quite often it isn’t, or those fighting for the middle ground rather than taking the correct side out of a principle for compromise end up making the situation worse, rather than just fixing it.
If you look at History, human progress happens in cycles made up of long periods of consolidation with shorter periods of disruption in between.
You actually see something similar inside companies.
If all you had was those who favour the incremental building on top of the way things are, i.e. consolidators, i.e. conservatives, you would end up in a dead-end of stagnation followed by collapse since we never found a perfect “way things are” that will work forever - all static systems accumulate problems over time due to their own imperfections and/or are unable to adapt to changing conditions, so naturally fail, not a question of “if” only a question of “when” and “how”.
If all you had was those who favour change, i.e. disruptors, i.e. revolutionaries (not necessarilly of the Left), massive amounts of effort, energy and even pain would be constantly wasted in permanent change with little being actually build even on top of the best of ideas - this is also a path for collapse because there is no such thing as building for the Future under ethernal change.
You could say the “middle ground”, “steady as she goes” solution is better during most of the progress cycle but at the end of the cycle it’s just maintaing the system as is, the accumulated problems being painful and becoming ever worse with not chance at improving because the system in place has never managed to overcome those long-running accumulating problems because it has no solution for them and never will. At such a stage “steady as she goes” politics is pretty much “full steam ahead and don’t mind the fog or the icebergs” and we all know how that ends.
(Funnily the captain of the Titanic chose to risk it is because that ship was said to be unsinkable, which has massive parallels with what we are told - and most believe - about the resilience of the political and economic system that has been dominant in the last 50 years).
I would say we’ve reached a point were the accumulation of problems from the dominant ideology of the last 4-5 decades is becoming too much and now is not the time for “more of the same” but rather it’s the time for change, which will happen whether we want to or not. The question is: will it be controlled change done before the problems become too much or will it be the natural chaotic kind as societal tensions are violently released (societal collapse, revolution, war, iron fist dictatorships and so on)?
Mind you, afterwards, the time for “consolidation” will come again, its just that how much will we be able to save of the positive things built during the last period of consolidation will depend on how much change and changers are embraced now and in the near future vs how much it will just be imposed on us by the unsustainable tensions of the last systems resulting in uncontrolled change.
And the problem of modern US politics is that the middle ground is already what is called “left”. Biden would be seen as right-wing in Europe. If they keep finding a “middle ground” they’ll just shift the Overton Window more and more.
The problem of modern politics is that both sides are thinking that the other side is morally evil, while their side is morally right. The problem with this is because there is no middle ground possible, no compromise. And politics is all about compromise. So that means that the government stops serving to the people because it is in permanent lock.
Problem is that I genuinely do struggle to think of an issue that I think the right-wing are correct on. It’s not mere tribalism, it’s not “other team bad”. It is a fundamental difference in values, and worldview.
I had an honest to God reasonable discussion with a very conservative Christian man. We talked and I told him about the major problems I see today (this was before the current demonization of LGBT). Each one, like gun violence, I asked what proposed solutions the right-wing had and he conceded that every position they had was reactionary to a proposed solution by the left. I basically told the guy that I’ll vote for the group that has some kind of solution, even a less than ideal solution.
I have a lot of respect for that guy. I don’t think his position has changed but his willingness to hear me out was refreshing.
It’s because the liberals already support any effective conservative policy, and it’s more important to oppose liberals at all cost
Here’s how I see it and forgive me if it’s totally off:
In the US, the part of the Right which was all about “making a better country through making life better for businesses” (the ones you could say wanted a better country just like the lefties, but disagreed on the importance of broadly sharing the benefits of it) has won, decades ago even: both the Republicans and the Democract absolutelly and unequestinably came to believe that “doing what’s best for business” - not for society, not for people, for business - is the right way to manage the country.
What you have now is the breaking down of that political thinking monopoly, because it didn’t actually deliver on its promises, especially the “when the tide rises all boats rise with it” promise (the “for the greater good” promise of that ideology, something the Traditional Left might understand even if it disagrees with the methods).
This breakdown is shaping both the Right in the US and what is seen there as Left: the Right is falling back to good old Fascist tropes - religiosity, racism, ultra-nationalism to quite a rabid level, whilst what passes for “Left” there is actually a newly built ideology, based on the moral side of neoliberalism - i.e. moral liberalism - with almost no links to the traditional Left of worker movements and the fight against wealth inequality, and which does not follow of the “the greatest good for the greatest number” ideology but rather the “people should be free to do what they want” ideology, so an ideology which is totally compatible with things like there being people accumulating obscene amounts of wealth, which the ideology of the Traditional Left is most definitelly not compatible with.
So the public face of the Right in the US are basically Fascists (with all the traditional illiberal values of that) whilst the public face of the “Left” in the US is not a Left in the Traditional sense but rather a whole new ideology created around the moral part of neoliberalism (which is by nature liberal in all things) hence said “Left”, whilst completelly compatible with things like The Low Regulation Free Market, and Wealth Inequality, is antithetical to the moral illiberal values taken from Fascism which are held by the current Right in the US.
So yeah, the only fighting going on between what people think is Left and Right in the US is between absolutellyt totally and complete opposite sides on the moral domain (liberalism vs religious and racist illiberalism), with a negligible or even non existent dispute of how to best manage the country for the greater good, so there is no “same general goals different methods” area were Left and Right might find common ground.
Things are more subtle elsewhere, at least in Europe, though neoliberalism has also conquerer the entire mainstream “center” (whether they called themselves “Left” or “Right”) in most countries, but most countries have voting systems which are not or at least not as much rigged for maintaing a Power Duopoly as the one in the US, so there usually still are more traditional left voices in the ideological field, plus the rebirth of Fascism is happenning from the fringes rather than right in the middle of one of the two Power Duopoly parties (though if you look at countries with very similar voting systems to the US one, like Britain, they’re showing almost exactly the political transformation: Fascism taking over one of the Power Duopoly parties and the “Left” being taken over by a brand new ideology created from the moral side of neoliberalism, still siding with the Economic thinking of neoliberalsim and which ignores wealth inequality.
While I am not right, I do spend some time how it can be. So, pick a topic, I might be able to explain it.
I don’t need explanations. I’ve spoken to a lot of conservatives, about a lot of topics. It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that we value different things. That we see the world differently.
Very abstractly, conservatives tend (and individuals are different so may tend more or less) to believe that hierarchy is natural, and unavoidable. That hierarchy simply is the way the world is. Progressives on the other hand tend to be more egalitarian, all are created equal and hierarchies are usually unjust and should be dismantled.
It’s why there is such a consistent division of beliefs. Why people, if they hold some conservative or progressive values, tend to also hold other beliefs of the same categorisation. Where when new issues come up, we can predict with good accuracy who is going to take what stance, by answering the question: Does this move power up, or down, the hierarchy? Does this reinforce the hierarchy, or does it weaken the hierarchy?
It also explains seemingly contradictory conservative beliefs. It explains why the right-wing, who at their fringes host white-supremacists and who are represented in government by people who talk about “Jewish space lasers”, are now supporting Israel and accusing people of antisemitism. Because Israel is higher in the hierarchy than Palestine. Their claims to care about antisemitism are laughably flimsy in context, they are lies propped up in front of the real belief.
Interestingly you can believe that hierarchy is natural and still be a leftist, because coercive hierarchies (such as capitalist or the state) that the left is against prevent these natural hierarchies from emerging. The problem with the right is that they have a model of society in their mind and think that any divergence isn’t natural and must be fixed (by either capitalism or the state). While the left understands that there is no reason some people can’t be in power and so want’s to equalize the playing field.
Human beings aren’t made equally and there will always be some hierarchy in human society. Leftists just want to give everyone the opportunity to rise up the ranks instead of just the “right” people. That is why everyone must be treated equally you don’t know where they exist in the hierarchy.
Technically there isn’t a single social hierarchy. But multiple overlapping ones. Some people are better in some things and other are better in other things. Saying that everyone is equal is too simplified. Society is more complex than that.
But as a generalization (especially when compared to the right) it is correct.
I believe fundamentally, psychologically the main reason that makes conservative a conservative is a believe that we, as society, can not make things better, and quite likely will make things worse. This is why they are “conserving”. It works - don’t change, don’t breaks. Hierarchy works, so we keep it - type of things.
Or could it be that we see policy enacted which tangibly DOES in fact make our lives worse, our community run down, and our family less safe? Why is it that in the 50s you could leave your front door unlocked without fear of someone stealing your stuff or harming your family? The country has gotten significantly more progressive since then. Would you feel safe doing that now? In big cities (overwhelming progressive) people are advised to leave their car windows down so that anyone trying to break in won’t shatter the window. In those same cities homeless encampments, open drug use, and relieving oneself in the streets has become the accepted norm. Call me crazy, but I liked it better the way it was before.
Not all change is good, and not all conservation is bad. That seems to be a sentiment we’ve lost sight of.
You are just proving what I said.
Cool, thanks for engaging with my points and not giving a lazy response. Appreciate you.
Not gonna engage about these topics because this is psychological position of whether society becomes better or not and whether we can improve society. I often see that conservatives focus on one or two points and ignore the forest behind the trees. Are there examples of bad laws? Sure. Does it prove anything except for the need of better governance? No. But since it is psychological position, there is no way to convince conservative to become liberal (and the other way around) in a couple of posts. It is like discussing validity of religion - pointless.
I’d like to make a nuanced correction to your statement. You state that conservatives believe that hierarchy is natural and unavoidable, and progressives believe in equality. As someone who considers themselves a right leaning centrist, I think you’re missing an important distinction. I believe that good people and evil people exist. I believe that hard working people and lazy people exist. I believe that kind people and selfish people exist. You can never have true equality in a progressive sense so long as those two sides exist. The evil, selfish, and lazy people will ALWAYS prey on the good, kind, hard working. It isn’t that we fundamentally disagree with what progressives want, it’s that we think they have an unrealistic utopian view. Sort of like how a child will say they wish for world peace. It’s sweet and well intentioned, but misses the reality of the world. As a native Californian, I can tell you that many of these progressive policies you want have led to increased violence, property crimes, and a general reduction in quality of life across the board, not just for the people at the top, but for literally everyone.
You haven’t actually corrected anything I’ve said. In fact you have reinforced it.
You’re a conservative. You believe that there are different types of people, an us and a them, and that those differences are innate to people are. And so you don’t believe equality is possible, so the hierarchy must exist, and thus you want to make sure that your group of people is higher up than the groups of people you disparage as lazy, selfish, and evil.
That is a fundamental difference in values.
And I think your political literacy is poor, and barely surface level. The conditions you speak of are not due to nebulous “progressive” policies, but to the vast wealth inequality your country as a whole, but California particularly, suffers from. California has progressive policies, but still does not address many of the worst of the issues.
You are suffering from the hierarchy. Because the people lower on that hierarchy are aggrieved with their living conditions, and thus cause unrest. The system is not working for them, so they do not respect the system in turn.
The difference between progressives and conservatives is that we disagree on what to do about that. Progressives want to flatten the hierarchy so that the disparity is smaller and the grievance is addressed, so that the system works for those people too, so those people can live full lives, and thus they have little motivation to destroy a system that takes care of them. Progressives believe that true peace comes from justice.
Conservatives instead want to maintain and increase the oppression on those lower down the hierarchy, so that they know their place. Conservative peace is enforced by beating the aggrieved down until they stop complaining.
Spoken like an elitist liberal. You’d fit right in in California.
You remind me of someone I once read about. They too believed in progressive ideals. They decided to hitchhike from Italy to the middle east in an attempt to share their message of love and peace. Three weeks into the trip they were raped, murdered, and left in a ditch. But I guess you’re right, evil people don’t exist, it’s just those damn aggrieved saps at the bottom who don’t respect the system.
You’re right, there are certainly people who have been downtrodden by the world and become cold and callous, but there are also people simply born cruel. I’ve seen downtrodden people act with tremendous kindness/morality, and I’ve seen successful people act with tremendous evil/immorality. For you to pretend that bad behavior is simply a result of “the system” is idiotic and out of touch with reality.
What do you suppose led to the vast inequality? I’ll give you a hint, it was elitist thinking and liberal policies. California is one of the most progressive states in the country. It’s been that way basically my entire life. We charge more for everything (taxes, healthcare, energy, housing, etc) so that we can fund our progressive agenda. As a result our middle class has evaporated. Now we have only the poor and the insanely wealthy. Our progressive leaders know this, so they pander to the poor, giving them benefits to keep voting them in, and cut deals with the rich. They don’t want to stigmatize anyone so they’ve stopped enforcing many basic laws. The rich aren’t terribly impacted, they live in gated communities and have armed security. Instead it’s everyone else who suffers. You acknowledge California has progressive policies that don’t address the problems, yet you simultaneously dismiss them being the cause of the problems. What is your answer then? Let me guess… communism? That seems to be the answer everyone on Lemmy espouses.
Firstly, I’m not a liberal.
Secondly, what do you mean elitist? I’m literally suggesting the the dismantling of the hierarchy. My entire point of view is that concepts of elitism are inherently wrong. That criticism does not even make sense, it’s a meaningless insult.
Please try read what I wrote, instead of just imagining my position.
I never said that people don’t do bad things, and I never said that all unrest or violence would end, I never said that every person would become an upstanding member of society. But people are a product of their environment. People who have decent lives, who live in more equitable societies, have less motivation to attack those societies.
Don’t fold me into your ridiculous black-and-white pattern of thinking.
Capitalism.
And is still capitalist, and still rather conservative on key issues, because your whole country is quite conservative at the federal level.
California is more progressive than much of the US, that doesn’t make them actually progressive in a broader sense.
Gee whiz, it’s almost as if they aren’t at all as progressive as you think they are :)
Compromise and finding a middle ground is absolutely worthless unless the middle ground is the superior stance, which it rarely is.
Quite often middle ground solution is better stance than current situation.
You’re not supposed to compromise before negotiations have even began… I will never understand why Democrats and “centrists” can stay alive with literally no spine.
If it’s a good idea, STAND YOUR FUCKING GROUND!!
Quite often it isn’t, or those fighting for the middle ground rather than taking the correct side out of a principle for compromise end up making the situation worse, rather than just fixing it.
If you look at History, human progress happens in cycles made up of long periods of consolidation with shorter periods of disruption in between.
You actually see something similar inside companies.
If all you had was those who favour the incremental building on top of the way things are, i.e. consolidators, i.e. conservatives, you would end up in a dead-end of stagnation followed by collapse since we never found a perfect “way things are” that will work forever - all static systems accumulate problems over time due to their own imperfections and/or are unable to adapt to changing conditions, so naturally fail, not a question of “if” only a question of “when” and “how”.
If all you had was those who favour change, i.e. disruptors, i.e. revolutionaries (not necessarilly of the Left), massive amounts of effort, energy and even pain would be constantly wasted in permanent change with little being actually build even on top of the best of ideas - this is also a path for collapse because there is no such thing as building for the Future under ethernal change.
You could say the “middle ground”, “steady as she goes” solution is better during most of the progress cycle but at the end of the cycle it’s just maintaing the system as is, the accumulated problems being painful and becoming ever worse with not chance at improving because the system in place has never managed to overcome those long-running accumulating problems because it has no solution for them and never will. At such a stage “steady as she goes” politics is pretty much “full steam ahead and don’t mind the fog or the icebergs” and we all know how that ends.
(Funnily the captain of the Titanic chose to risk it is because that ship was said to be unsinkable, which has massive parallels with what we are told - and most believe - about the resilience of the political and economic system that has been dominant in the last 50 years).
I would say we’ve reached a point were the accumulation of problems from the dominant ideology of the last 4-5 decades is becoming too much and now is not the time for “more of the same” but rather it’s the time for change, which will happen whether we want to or not. The question is: will it be controlled change done before the problems become too much or will it be the natural chaotic kind as societal tensions are violently released (societal collapse, revolution, war, iron fist dictatorships and so on)?
Mind you, afterwards, the time for “consolidation” will come again, its just that how much will we be able to save of the positive things built during the last period of consolidation will depend on how much change and changers are embraced now and in the near future vs how much it will just be imposed on us by the unsustainable tensions of the last systems resulting in uncontrolled change.
And the problem of modern US politics is that the middle ground is already what is called “left”. Biden would be seen as right-wing in Europe. If they keep finding a “middle ground” they’ll just shift the Overton Window more and more.