I don’t understand how you can watch politicians lie about what they’ll do and/or carefully pick battles that don’t change anything day in and day out year after year, and yet seem to believe that an extremely establishment politician would have made any concessions that would be meaningful at all, when any meaningful change would not only threaten his wealth and power, but his freedom and possibly life.
It’s like staring at a giant cement wall and knowing you need to get to the other side, but thinking it’s a victory when the guy who has his entire existence tied into keeping it standing agrees to let you paint some particularly snappy graffiti on it.
I don’t understand how you can watch politicians lie about what they’ll do and/or carefully pick battles that don’t change anything day in and day out year after year, and yet seem to believe that an extremely establishment politician would have made any concessions that would be meaningful at all,
I don't believe McCarthy has any convictions. I do think he is wedded to the establishment, as you say. Which is why this was necessary to force him to establish a new Church Committee.
As Thomas Sowell said: racists may prefer their own race to other races, but they prefer themselves to other people all the same. So they may act in their own interests in a way that is not 'racist'. The same is true for KM. Because as wedded as he is to the establishment, he prefers himself to the rest of the establishment, and will gladly screw over the FBI to make himself speaker.
when any meaningful change would not only threaten his wealth and power, but his freedom and possibly life.
Of this I have to disabuse you. Any change will necessarily require allying with parts of the current elite to overthrow some other part of the elite, and they will need certain assurances.
It's never clean cut like: group A bad, group B good. Group B overthrows group A. Everyone lives happily ever after.
It’s like staring at a giant cement wall and knowing you need to get to the other side, but thinking it’s a victory when the guy who has his entire existence tied into keeping it standing agrees to let you paint some particularly snappy graffiti on it.
How did the radical left accomplish the total domination that it has today? How did propositions that had 0% support become universal?
While I agree with you that we will likely lose, to say that it is impossible to win is defeatist.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to win, I’m saying it’s impossible to win within the system by using system members, because they have too much to lose. The left was able to use the system because it could pay people and corrupt them within the system. Unfortunately, because it corrupted the system itself and (almost) everyone within it, one cannot now bargain that system into being non-corrupt, because there is no non-corrupt incentive that you can offer, because what one is trying to incentivize is the destruction of corruption. The point of my analogy with the man whose existence is tied to the concrete wall is that he will never—because he can never—willingly agree to anything that really endangers the wall.
Kevin McCarthy ^can never* agree to anything that he earnestly believes could destroy him. If he agrees to something, that can only mean that he believes it is harmless to him or that it is the least harmful out of several harmful options with no alternatives. Having a speaker other than him and lessening his personal gravy train is bad for him, but not an existential threat. Therefore, the fact that he agreed to “concessions” must also mean that none of these concessions are threatening, and as Trump’s term and the aftermath demonstrates, anything less than ripping out the roots of corruption is, at this point, swiftly undone.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to win, I’m saying it’s impossible to win within the system by using system members, because they have too much to lose.
Got it. I'd say this is exactly 180 degrees wrong. Revolutions, for lack of a better word, occur when you manage to split the ruling group. No revolution has ever succeeded against a united ruling group (incl. security forces), no matter how bad the circumstances were: not in 1930s USSR, not in Great Leap Forward China, not in Venezuela during the collapse.
Kevin McCarthy ^can never* agree to anything that he earnestly believes could destroy him.
They don't think that far ahead. Right now, he had to choose between a Church Committee (and some other concessions) and not being speaker, or having to throw in his lot with the Democrats. Clearly, he chose the first option.
'Destroy him' is overstated, but even if he believed that this would lead to the end of corruption in the future, it will probably not affect him.
Therefore, the fact that he agreed to “concessions” must also mean that none of these concessions are threatening, and as Trump’s term and the aftermath demonstrates, anything less than ripping out the roots of corruption is, at this point, swiftly undone.
Let's talk about the art of the possible though. I'd like to "rip out the root of corruption" as well, but it's simply not going to happen.
Only half of the time?
You're in a very generous mood today/
If I'm right about nothing else, I am right that it's good to vote for McCarthy after extracting concessions.
I don’t understand how you can watch politicians lie about what they’ll do and/or carefully pick battles that don’t change anything day in and day out year after year, and yet seem to believe that an extremely establishment politician would have made any concessions that would be meaningful at all, when any meaningful change would not only threaten his wealth and power, but his freedom and possibly life.
It’s like staring at a giant cement wall and knowing you need to get to the other side, but thinking it’s a victory when the guy who has his entire existence tied into keeping it standing agrees to let you paint some particularly snappy graffiti on it.
I don't believe McCarthy has any convictions. I do think he is wedded to the establishment, as you say. Which is why this was necessary to force him to establish a new Church Committee.
As Thomas Sowell said: racists may prefer their own race to other races, but they prefer themselves to other people all the same. So they may act in their own interests in a way that is not 'racist'. The same is true for KM. Because as wedded as he is to the establishment, he prefers himself to the rest of the establishment, and will gladly screw over the FBI to make himself speaker.
Of this I have to disabuse you. Any change will necessarily require allying with parts of the current elite to overthrow some other part of the elite, and they will need certain assurances.
It's never clean cut like: group A bad, group B good. Group B overthrows group A. Everyone lives happily ever after.
How did the radical left accomplish the total domination that it has today? How did propositions that had 0% support become universal?
While I agree with you that we will likely lose, to say that it is impossible to win is defeatist.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to win, I’m saying it’s impossible to win within the system by using system members, because they have too much to lose. The left was able to use the system because it could pay people and corrupt them within the system. Unfortunately, because it corrupted the system itself and (almost) everyone within it, one cannot now bargain that system into being non-corrupt, because there is no non-corrupt incentive that you can offer, because what one is trying to incentivize is the destruction of corruption. The point of my analogy with the man whose existence is tied to the concrete wall is that he will never—because he can never—willingly agree to anything that really endangers the wall.
Kevin McCarthy ^can never* agree to anything that he earnestly believes could destroy him. If he agrees to something, that can only mean that he believes it is harmless to him or that it is the least harmful out of several harmful options with no alternatives. Having a speaker other than him and lessening his personal gravy train is bad for him, but not an existential threat. Therefore, the fact that he agreed to “concessions” must also mean that none of these concessions are threatening, and as Trump’s term and the aftermath demonstrates, anything less than ripping out the roots of corruption is, at this point, swiftly undone.
Got it. I'd say this is exactly 180 degrees wrong. Revolutions, for lack of a better word, occur when you manage to split the ruling group. No revolution has ever succeeded against a united ruling group (incl. security forces), no matter how bad the circumstances were: not in 1930s USSR, not in Great Leap Forward China, not in Venezuela during the collapse.
They don't think that far ahead. Right now, he had to choose between a Church Committee (and some other concessions) and not being speaker, or having to throw in his lot with the Democrats. Clearly, he chose the first option.
'Destroy him' is overstated, but even if he believed that this would lead to the end of corruption in the future, it will probably not affect him.
Let's talk about the art of the possible though. I'd like to "rip out the root of corruption" as well, but it's simply not going to happen.