Even if Reagan and Carter were the same on deregulation, it would be a huge logical error to conclude that the parties were "the same." But it's even more comically wrong because it's being pointed out that the presidents were different!
The Motor Carrier Act and Staggers Rail are the only ones that come to mind? Shipping costs were high and routes were guarded and inefficient, and the railroad industry was in shutters. What else had you reckoned?
> Carter deregulated more than Raygun. Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter
Both these ignore a lot of context. Carter had to do something about stagflation. Deregulation that promotes competition and appointing Volcker to the Fed aren't directly eroding worker's rights like Reagan's solution of union busting. Reagan signed the machine gun ban as part of an amendment to pass the Firearms Owners' Protection Act that was endorsed by the NRA.
> It's almost like it's a big club that you're not a member of.
Agreed, but not in the way that you're thinking of. The "big club" is capable of understanding nuance and making dispassionate decisions (or at least their can hire people who can do that on their behalf). Regular voters react to emotional sound bites and outsource their critical thinking to those in the "big club" who superficially align with their worldview.
>"Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter"
People forget this, Reagan literally started the charter and expectations for the modern gun control movement just because of Black Panther advancements and protests in the street with firearms.
Prior to the NRA’s big push in the late seventies, gun control as a concept was uncontroversial as the first gun control laws dated back to the earliest days of the country. Reagan expanding coverage due to the Black Panthers was in line with earlier precedent (after Kennedy was assassinated, during WWII, during the Mob / prohibition era, etc.).
A bit more nuanced than that; the NRA didn’t become the hardline defender of minimal gun regs until its 1977 leadership shift. Reagan’s 1967 Mulford Act as Governor targeted the Black Panthers, and then he signed 1986 FOPA as president, which relaxed some rules but banned new machine guns. It was a broad compromise package from the start.
My focus was really the hardline individual right stance: I know people who left the NRA over that because they were sportsmen or retired military who thought it was quite reasonable to have civilian restrictions, especially mental / proficiency restrictions.
I like to jokingly argue that the primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is disagreement on whether it's more important to subsidize large corporations directly or through tax policy.
In reality I think there is a lot of daylight between the parties on social issues that do not affect current power structures.
Abortion, trans rights, women's rights, gay marriage, religion in public schools, etc: Tons of difference.
Funding genocide, subsidising the fossil fuel industry, maintaining a for-profit healthcare system, opposing ranked choice or instant run-off voting, keeping third parties out, refusing to enforce anti-trust law, refusing to raise the minimum wage, no accountability for police brutality, etc: Broad bipartisan support.
I'll resist the urge to combat some of your specific points and focus on the forest.
I think there's simply a difference between funds going towards foreign policy, and ones that basically deny you autonomy. America is highly individualistic, but that's also just human nature. Many will care more about their groceries increasing by $10 a month than a billion dollars going towards a war somewhere else.
Also helps that America hasn't experienced a war on its soil in almost 80 years now. Or technically 200 years since I don't think Hawaii was ratified yet. The idea barely registers as possible to happen.
They are the same where it counts, at least in 2024. Starting multi trillion dollar wars with no exit plan, passing spending bills full of insane pork, borrowing $2T per year - those are widely "bipartisan" issues. On these issues nothing changes irrespective of who gets elected. What little (in monetary terms) quibbling does occur, occurs over the issues that do not immediately affect most people. That is by design - it's performative, to delineate the in-group from the outsiders for each party, and pit people against each other. It's a very effective strategy, which people eagerly embrace, not realizing that people who devised this strategy are robbing them (and their children/grandchildren, if any) blind.
that is because in america a large majority of people’s entire identity is tied to one of the two political parties. there are no liberals who believe is small government and state’s rights, no conservatives who believe in woman’s rights or that america would collapse without immigrants… for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party - maaaagic… hence, saying both parties are the same will effectively offend everyone :)
The democrats made a fundamental miscalculation in the late 90s that you can simply pander to brown people and they will turn out for you. The messaging is complex because you tell different audiences different things, and the Internet makes it complicated because conservative Hispanic Catholics don’t align with the platform.
In doing that, they ceded rural America, which was devastated by NAFTA and other Clinton era policies. Giant agribusiness makes money, but the prosperous dairy operators really need regulation at the federal level to thrive. I grew up in a town that was solid rural democrat… that was gutted like a fish. 30 operating dairy farms to 1, which is a vertically integrated farm/dairy that delivers to consumers directly. The feed stores, gone. Tractor dealer, gone. The best job in town is truck driving and it’s solid trumper land.
The modern conservative narrative is really simple, and is mostly hot air. Those chicken processing plants and farms in nowhereville that need a steady supply of cheap, dumb labor with no workers comp aren’t run by democrats. Bread & circus, until the crowd demands more.
The grain market is a function of government regulation and price controls. The difference there is we scaled it up.
Ever wonder why thousands of Mexicans woke up one day and decided to walk across the desert, never to return? Well, we flooded the market with massive quantities of subsidized corn and put their farms out of business. We did the same thing domestically with other commodities in places like New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
With dairy, you had in-state production requirements and quotas that maintained a balance in price. A smallish dairy farm could support a household reasonably prosperously — there were thousands of farms in places like New York. Now you need thousands of cows to survive - that why milk is often cheaper than water in the supermarket.
But just like WalMart, it gutted a key price of the rural economy. Hell, I watched it happen on a farm I worked on, that operated since the 1600s under the Dutch. Since the early 2000s they board horses for rich people to pay their property taxes.
Republicans have always been pro-immigrant because it's inherently pro-business. They just have to do a song and dance routine for the low IQ racist cohort of their constituency to make it seem like they're tough on it. Though I will say it's been rather amusing watching people act betrayed by Elon's thoughts on H1-B visa holders. Like, how did you idiots not see this coming? He's the richest person in the world for a reason. Plus he's an immigrant.
>Republicans have always been pro-immigrant because it's inherently pro-business. They just have to do a song and dance routine for the low IQ racist cohort of their constituency to make it seem like they're tough on it.
It has consistently been about illegal immigration.
You are calling people "low IQ" and "Idiots" and you, literally in this very post, show you are falling for the same thing they fell for.
gonna leave the insults aside but just focus on it has consistently been about illegal immigration … during the last GOP rein what exactly was done to curb illegal immigration? absolutely not a damn thing. you take away covid years when we got locked up in our homes and everything was shut down and you won’t see any difference between obama’s 8 years and party that apparently is “consistent about illegal immigration”
don’t fall for that - illegal immigration is strictly election issue - republican love nothing more than exploiting illegal immigrants for personal gain (especially most vocal states like texas)
> It has consistently been about illegal immigration.
If this was true, why for decades have they been so concerned about which countries immigrants were coming from and so unsupportive of attempts to provide legal means to get the workers businesses need while opposing penalties for the businesses which hire people who can’t work legally? This situation isn’t new, there have been so many discussions for decades, but we’re still locked in the situation where businesses depend on Spanish-speaking workers but too many Americans oppose legal ways for them to work here.
I am sure for some people it’s about “illegal” immigration, and that’s certainly the messaging, but if that were actually the main case, maybe Republicans would do something to make legal immigration less awful?
My idiot grandmother, in no uncertain terms, thinks Mexicans should be deported for racist reasons. She has let the curtain slip enough times to make that obvious. I don’t think it’s bad to call outright racist people “idiots”.
Trump likely employs massive numbers of illegal immigrants in his hotel empire. He did nothing substantial about illegal immigration in his first term, he's not going to do anything substantial in his second term. He's all talk.
The way to eliminate illegal immigration is to go after the people who hire them. But Trump isn't going to put rich white people in jail.
There are doubts about Melania’s immigration status. She may have worked under the wrong visa and lied about it when filing for naturalization, which would make her an illegal immigrant as well.
the current infighting is not actually a good example… trump was bought by highest bidders which are not really republicans at all - it was just easier to win an election going to the right. the infighting is between an absolute outsider who inflitrated the party by first buying twitter to turn it into a propaganda machine and then when that wasn’t enough needed boots on the ground to ensure he gets control. you don’t ever hear DJT anymore, he now just raises his head to confirm he sides with elon… so there is really no in-fighting at all
Categorizing in terms of absolutes, such as "there are no liberals who ..." and "no conservatives who ...", is to engage in reductionism for the purpose of supporting a preconceived notion:
... for majority of people every single opinion and thought
they have just magically lines up with one political party ...
May have been a broad brush, but the spirit is true.
To be more exact: in the end the RNC/DNC comes down to votes in maybe 10 small states before candidates decide to drop out and stop wasting money on a losing battle. Those 2 candidates are what's on our ballot.
I'm in california and I don't think I ever had any say in the DNC because it's already said and done by that time from a bunch of swing states that may collectively have less represenatives than my state. There are some very good liberals I fully side with, but they don't get to be on that ballent.
EDIT: I’ll elaborate quickly why… the country is so divided these days that you can hardly engage in any conversation regarding politics across the aisle. so your only option to discuss things is with like-minded people. now when you get into like-minded group there is a herd mentality happening and serious echo chamber. here’s a personal example - one of my dearest friends on this planet used to be as liberal as they come - 100% all the way… over the years, due to various reasons like the direction of the democratic party as well as deep-end social media she turned right. it did not happen overnight, it happened over several election cycles. I have watched her be swayed to the right on issue by issue … I am educated and wise and I understood this (she is not the only one either in my “circle”) and I looked at all the issues and was like “ok, sure but she will NEVER be against abortion…” well… you know how this story ends…
I do believe that majority (I was talking in absolutes before but of course there are no absolutes) of americans are simply not smart enough to realize that two-party system made them mental slaves to those parties… finding pro-abortion republican might be as interesting as trying to find waldo :)
>> Categorizing in terms of absolutes, such as "there are no liberals who ..." and "no conservatives who ...", is to engage in reductionism ...
>> This is simply not true.
> it simply is :)
People make choices for a multitude of reasons.
Sometimes those choices are knowingly to their detriment and can be confounding to others whom are not a part of their decision process. Many times the reasoning is "sacrifice for the greater good", where "the greater good" is defined by the very people who are the harbinger of their pain. Other times, it can be as simple as; "my life sucks so everyone else's should too!"
I am sure there are many more categories which could be provided as well.
But to say:
.. for majority of people every single opinion and thought
they have just magically lines up with one political party ...
Is to be so dismissive of people as to be the height of arrogance.
Rejecting electoralism and demanding or organizing toward an alternative is not nihilism. Insisting that anything but electoralism is nihilism, might be.
> Rejecting electoralism and demanding or organizing toward an alternative is not nihilism.
I replied to this comment:
And yet people will mock you for saying that
both parties are the same.
The Democratic and Republican parties are demonstrably "not the same." This is evident in policy positions and party platforms. The assertion quoted reasonably satisfies the referenced definition:
In philosophy, nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin
nihil 'nothing') is any viewpoint, or a family of views,
that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of
human existence, namely knowledge, morality, or
meaning.
To date, the United States federal government has been defined as a representative democracy. A critical component of same is participatory elections. Therefore, I do not understand your premise of "rejecting electoralism[sic]" for "organizing toward an alternative", unless the intent is to no longer have a representative government.
What alternative to an electoral process do you have in mind? And please be specific so that I may understand.
What alternative to an electoral process do you have in mind? And please be specific so that I may understand.
more than one major political party would be a good start so that your “democracy” is more little more than “it is 2am at a bar and there are two of the ugliest people to ever roam the Earth but you are drunk and you are taking one of them home with ya…” :)
>> What alternative to an electoral process do you have in mind? And please be specific so that I may understand.
> more than one major political party would be a good start so that your “democracy” is more little more than “it is 2am at a bar and there are two of the ugliest people to ever roam the Earth but you are drunk and you are taking one of them home with ya…” :)
:-D
That's a funny, and sadly appropriate, metaphor.
Getting rid of "first past the post"[0] and the "Citizen United" SCOTUS decision[1] are key to achieve this IMHO. Both will be incredibly difficult to remediate as they combine to maximize the inertia of the status quo.
