Leather Apron Club, who makes great videos, released his election day message recently: if you're a conservative, don't vote. Basically it's a takedown of various boomer talking points for voting (civic duty, lesser of two evils, can't complain if you didn't vote, etc).
The problem is, the boomer talking points are not the reality of voting. The vote is an exercise of power that, while virtually meaningless on an individual level, advances group consensus.
"Voting for a candidate endorses 100% of their platform."
- This is simply wrong and frankly a naive statement. No need to elaborate on this, just look up Bush's term after he thought he won a "mandate" with his 2004 reelection.
"Voters are dumb cows who don't even know who's in power or how it's exercised."
- Largely true. Problem is, you will need a majority of those cows on your side to effect any meaningful political change. Voting for a cause orients them in a general direction.
"The Republican party keeps getting more liberal"
- While this is true on paper, if the only paper you read is campaign press releases, anyone paying the slightest attention to the Overton window since Trump became a national figure should be able to perceive that the right is actually moving farther right. The true liberal "softening" of the GOP was in the 2000s and early 2010s.
"Trump backed off on abortion"
- Trump gave you the repeal of Roe v. Wade, something I thought was unlikely in my lifetime. Any counterpoint to this is disingenuous.
"Trump supports Israel and he's in bed with the neocons"
- The only way to end the current wars is to make peace with the respective stronger party in each: Russia and Israel. Any suggestion that Trump has gone neocon is risible.
"Reading a book or volunteering or getting a government job is a better political action than voting"
- No. Beyond the stated purpose, voting is a measure of allegiance to a particular direction. It's arguably one of the most tenuous, but it galvanizes half the country into conflict with the deep state. Without conflict, there is no movement. Without awareness, nothing is possible.
People are designed to move in groups. Groups create change. Reading a book or whatever is predicated on the idea that intellectual power will be the primary lever at some point down the line, which approaches utopian thinking.
Vote. Use the tool at hand to take action.
I'm not entirely sure there is a pendulum. Don't some argue that it's a ratchet? Then the only way out is a collapse - though I'm not sure boycotting will achieve that.
I've argued it is a ratchet. Every single normal belief today is far left compared to even 30 years ago, even though we've been through multiple R-D cycles.
That is absolutely true. It's anyone's game once collapse occurs, the most prepared will survive. Until then the dems are gonna keep winning. Even when the repubs win, the dems advance their goals.
Didn't Bill Clinton sign a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman and oppose ending Don't Ask/Don't Tell in the military?
The Republicans removed that definition of marriage from their official party platform this year. It's been said that the Republicans are just the Democrats in slow motion, and that's largely true.
There's definitely a case to be made that we should go all in on pushing whatever crazy shit comes out of the mind of the left as fast as possible so that we can make everything fall apart and hopefully do a better job when we put it all back together.
You may have, but I didn't mean anyone here - I think Auron MacIntyre has made that argument. Of course, it is very optimistic to think that there is a pendulum.
As far as normal beliefs go, I think on economic matters it is different. The left was a lot more left-wing on economic issues. Now it's just a banker-social activist synthesis.
You think banks are rightwing. They are not, and have never been. So a socialist-banker alliance is just called liberalism.
He’s also a mental midget and better off being ignored. Him and DoM both.
Banks don't like regulation that hurts them, like Glass-Steagal or however it's spelled. Banks don't care about socialism or right-wing. Banks like what's good for banks.
I think that is a little short sighted. It may be more difficult to undo a mistake, especially given the context of government. But actions like roe show a swing, it simply takes almost a lifetime to achieve it. The trans debate is another where one might originally see a ratchet effect but it’s becoming more and more apparent it’s death throes. The was an interesting piece I posted earlier on the longhouse effect and how matriarchal submission becomes a generational game of telephone and everything becomes self referential instead of based on a static or grounding belief. This causes a system gone haywire because the only static factor is the act of submission itself. That cognitive dissonance where you must submit to be accepted but also can see clearly there’s something abjectly wrong with the thing you’re submitting to. That divergence in reality will eventually cause a collapse, one which we use the strong/good, good/weak, weak/bad, bad/strong metaphor for. So you could almost use the rachet concept if the “click” is a complete reset of the argument, but that also seems more pendulous where you have to reset the swing eventually.
I really hope you're right. I can think of reasons why you're wrong though. Roe was a pendulum, but what was unthinkable in the 1970s is now the norm, such that ultra-red states are overturning laws that are as restrictive as France's. Perhaps it was always a losing battle for pro-life.
As for transgenderism, that does seem like the forces of sanity are winning back some ground. My pessimistic nature inclines me to think that this is a temporary backlash until complete surrender. We saw the same with same-sex marriage. There was a lot of resistance in the 2000s, but then it just completely collapsed.
I wouldn’t say collapsed as much as the swing is obscuring the backswing. When you see an object in motion towards you it seems inevitable that it will eventually reach you, even if its apex falls well short of that distance the timeframe of the swing determines your perception of it.
Pretty insightful point on that analogy