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.
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.