ADVERTISEMENT

The single-most cynical political essay I've ever read . . . but I also think it's almost 100% accurate

Blue States are rich enough that our tax dollars subsidize the Red State voters who use the federal government to prevent us from having things we want..
Feds aren’t stopping NY or CA from instituting higher taxes in their states on their populaces and providing services they want in their states.

The Red States just thwart doing these at the federal level where there is not the restraint on spending that the state governments face.
 
Spending can be good if the spending is via the form of investment that pays dividends. Unfortunately, nobody signs on unless the dividend is votes.
I would just like it paid for. If it’s paid for I am a fan of letting each political party try what they want.

instead we get all kinds of spending and zero is paid for. Biden is well into his term and has yet to “tax the rich” yet he is well on his way to shattering all of Trumps records.
 
I blame social media and our cable news networks. We got along much better when we could wind our day down by finding out how many people got shot in your city that day, what the weather would be tomorrow, a brief 90 seconds on sports, and onto your late night show for a few laughs. Now it's 24/7 political chaos. You can't even avoid this crap on linkedin where anybody with anything between his/her ears would use to make more money.

This is for sure true. And do not underestimate how much this was exacerbated by the pandemic. I think there is reason to be slightly more optimistic than this author as the pandemic gets further in the rear view.

The pandemic drove people into isolation and online more than ever before. It literally stifled the majority of the normal interaction between Americans, where people of all voting tendencies tend to get together and coexist...bars, concerts, sports, community spaces, gyms. The pandemic literally cut off the significant portion of life that was totally apolitical, online which is almost 100% politically polarized. Things were certainly fractious since the appearance of Trump, but before the pandemic there was a reasonable position to take that it was generally a unicorn event mostly tied to the Trump phenomenon, with a shelf life. The pandemic to me gave the opportunity to institutionalize and monetize all the bad elements of the Trump movement and anti-Trump movement - the lying, grifting, grievance hustling, anti-institution rhetoric, cancellations and counter-cancellations. Sending everybody online for the better part of two years turned that up to 11.

Unfortunately, the pandemic also made the most over-the-top rhetoric about your opponents totally mainstream. Rhetoric that used to be a step too far to be mainstreamed, in the pandemic all of a sudden was blatantly on display. Namely:

- "Republicans are trying to kill people with their policies"
- "Democrats want to use and abuse state power to crush your freedom if given the chance"

That went from extreme rhetoric usually reserved for firebrands to something that now seems totally obvious on the face of it for even casual Democrats and Republicans. Obviously things are nuanced, and partisans will argue against it, but politicians basically lived up to the worst things they have been accused of for years.

Finally, the damn mask situation put everyone's view of the "other" from online to real life. Never mind that it wasn't even that accurate, as many Republicans like myself masked up consistently until the vaccine, and many liberals (even politicians) didn't like masking and didn't mask up when they thought they could get away with it. It just did not help that we ended up with everyone basically walking around like Sneetches obsessed with what everyone around us was signalling.

It's going to be pretty tough to get beyond the fault lines that were solidified during the pandemic, but I don't think it's impossible. Its one of the reasons I think it could get worse, but I don't think its INEVITABLE that it gets worse.
 
I think the sad truth is is that given the partisan divide and the current trajectory, it would/will only be a matter of time before a radical leftist populist becomes a similar "cult of personality" leader a la Trump but on the liberal side. It's not like there isn't plenty of global historical examples of that happening as well. I think the GOP just got to the full shark-jumping a little faster. :)

Maybe but the thing that I think would prevent that from happening and I say this as someone who is no radical leftist is that the left wing had a very specific ideology in mind. They got a long list of things they want to accomplish.

Modern day MAGA's list is very short. Build the wall . . . which was an idea first advanced by Trump anyways. The MAGA's don't have a list of things they want accomplished, they have a list of things they don't want accomplished and they want someone to "troll the libs"

I think that's why Trump has become a cult leader. He's not running on an agenda, he's running on a personality.

Any radical leftist politician has to run on an agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlickShagwell
This is for sure true. And do not underestimate how much this was exacerbated by the pandemic. I think there is reason to be slightly more optimistic than this author as the pandemic gets further in the rear view.

The pandemic drove people into isolation and online more than ever before. It literally stifled the majority of the normal interaction between Americans, where people of all voting tendencies tend to get together and coexist...bars, concerts, sports, community spaces, gyms. The pandemic literally cut off the significant portion of life that was totally apolitical, online which is almost 100% politically polarized. Things were certainly fractious since the appearance of Trump, but before the pandemic there was a reasonable position to take that it was generally a unicorn event mostly tied to the Trump phenomenon, with a shelf life. The pandemic to me gave the opportunity to institutionalize and monetize all the bad elements of the Trump movement and anti-Trump movement - the lying, grifting, grievance hustling, anti-institution rhetoric, cancellations and counter-cancellations. Sending everybody online for the better part of two years turned that up to 11.

Unfortunately, the pandemic also made the most over-the-top rhetoric about your opponents totally mainstream. Rhetoric that used to be a step too far to be mainstreamed, in the pandemic all of a sudden was blatantly on display. Namely:

- "Republicans are trying to kill people with their policies"
- "Democrats want to use and abuse state power to crush your freedom if given the chance"

That went from extreme rhetoric usually reserved for firebrands to something that now seems totally obvious on the face of it for even casual Democrats and Republicans. Obviously things are nuanced, and partisans will argue against it, but politicians basically lived up to the worst things they have been accused of for years.

Finally, the damn mask situation put everyone's view of the "other" from online to real life. Never mind that it wasn't even that accurate, as many Republicans like myself masked up consistently until the vaccine, and many liberals (even politicians) didn't like masking and didn't mask up when they thought they could get away with it. It just did not help that we ended up with everyone basically walking around like Sneetches obsessed with what everyone around us was signalling.

It's going to be pretty tough to get beyond the fault lines that were solidified during the pandemic, but I don't think it's impossible. Its one of the reasons I think it could get worse, but I don't think its INEVITABLE that it gets worse.

I'm hoping it gets better but I don't see an exit back to normal politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greenway4Prez
I would just like it paid for. If it’s paid for I am a fan of letting each political party try what they want.

instead we get all kinds of spending and zero is paid for. Biden is well into his term and has yet to “tax the rich” yet he is well on his way to shattering all of Trumps records.
“Tax the rich” is the mantra Dems pull out every election to pander for votes.

Back in 1980 while a student at Iowa, some woman (can’t remember her name….was running on the dem ticket for the House…she lost) came to speak at my Political Science class. Made all the usual promises of all the great things that she would do. I asked her how they would be paid for. The answer? “Tax the rich.”

I can’t believe there are idiots that still fall for this.
 
So here's the fallacy that this article and everyone that sees the country dividing into two countries, including this article. The vast majority of people neither want to live in an autonomous zone, or in a theocratic Christian monarchy.

It's a mistake of mixing up the online world (including HROT) with the actual world. Most Americans don't want to live in EITHER a socialist utopia or antebellum restoration. But because the online world thrives and monetizes polarization, and the political parties keep offering a binary choice between extremes and make people choose the one that might be a little less worse.

Even most of the Trump haters on this board don't actually want to live in a world with no gendered language allowed, police funding cut to the bone or abolished, no-bail release and reduced prosecutions, government funded abortions through nine months, permanent making, etc.

And most of the Republican voters don't want slavery stricken from textbooks or condoms made illegal or mandatory church attendance or their neighbors to be able to buy a rocket launcher.

"Hey Nole Lou, you're specifically choosing the most extreme fringes, that doesn't really represent the views of the parties."

Well, no shit, but what do you think is going to happen when the 35-40% of Californians that are Republicans leave, or the 45% of Texans that are Democrats leave those states? Just look at the city of Portland or Marjorie Taylor Greene's district if you want the answer. The vast, vast majority of people don't want to live in either political environment.
 
... and a question:

How does the author propose that the federal debt be managed? Like any divorce, money is usually the biggest sticking point.
Maybe even more importantly, how is our military split up among the various interests? Would we even want/need a national military or would we fall back to so-called state militias?

Maybe whoever demands the military has to be able to take the debt with it? They do seem to go hand-in-hand. vbg
 
So here's the fallacy that this article and everyone that sees the country dividing into two countries, including this article. The vast majority of people neither want to live in an autonomous zone, or in a theocratic Christian monarchy.

It's a mistake of mixing up the online world (including HROT) with the actual world. Most Americans don't want to live in EITHER a socialist utopia or antebellum restoration. But because the online world thrives and monetizes polarization, and the political parties keep offering a binary choice between extremes and make people choose the one that might be a little less worse.

Even most of the Trump haters on this board don't actually want to live in a world with no gendered language allowed, police funding cut to the bone or abolished, no-bail release and reduced prosecutions, government funded abortions through nine months, permanent making, etc.

And most of the Republican voters don't want slavery stricken from textbooks or condoms made illegal or mandatory church attendance or their neighbors to be able to buy a rocket launcher.

"Hey Nole Lou, you're specifically choosing the most extreme fringes, that doesn't really represent the views of the parties."

Well, no shit, but what do you think is going to happen when the 35-40% of Californians that are Republicans leave, or the 45% of Texans that are Democrats leave those states? Just look at the city of Portland or Marjorie Taylor Greene's district if you want the answer. The vast, vast majority of people don't want to live in either political environment.
True….true.
 
So here's the fallacy that this article and everyone that sees the country dividing into two countries, including this article. The vast majority of people neither want to live in an autonomous zone, or in a theocratic Christian monarchy.

It's a mistake of mixing up the online world (including HROT) with the actual world. Most Americans don't want to live in EITHER a socialist utopia or antebellum restoration. But because the online world thrives and monetizes polarization, and the political parties keep offering a binary choice between extremes and make people choose the one that might be a little less worse.

Even most of the Trump haters on this board don't actually want to live in a world with no gendered language allowed, police funding cut to the bone or abolished, no-bail release and reduced prosecutions, government funded abortions through nine months, permanent making, etc.

And most of the Republican voters don't want slavery stricken from textbooks or condoms made illegal or mandatory church attendance or their neighbors to be able to buy a rocket launcher.

"Hey Nole Lou, you're specifically choosing the most extreme fringes, that doesn't really represent the views of the parties."

Well, no shit, but what do you think is going to happen when the 35-40% of Californians that are Republicans leave, or the 45% of Texans that are Democrats leave those states? Just look at the city of Portland or Marjorie Taylor Greene's district if you want the answer. The vast, vast majority of people don't want to live in either political environment.

Hence why I say we need to start over on our whole political system to create one that is actually representative of the people's views.

Most Americans don't want to live in those situations but the politicians are not playing to most Americans they are playing to their base because they live in gerrymandered districts where 10 to 20% of the population votes in the primary for the most extreme person on the ballot and the other 80% shows up at the general election and decides "I guess they are better than the other extreme." Which for the record is done simply because every election is nationalized now. There are no more conservative democrats running in conservative areas. There are no more liberal Republicans running in liberal areas. Even if you are that, they still try to tie you up with someone in national government even if you are running for the freaking school board.

We need a system that guts gerrymandering entirely out of the equation and at the same time encourages multiple parties and multiple viewpoints into congress.

We're working in a system that was designed 200 years ago and our politicians have gamed it in every way possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee and win4jj
I'm hoping it gets better but I don't see an exit back to normal politics.

It's not going to be easy, but it's not impossible. I think its probably going to take an individual to start to pull it back, just like it took one person primarily to pull it totally off the rails.

I'm fairly certain that someone like Mark Cuban could absolutely pull a Ross Perot but actually make it work. If he was a native citizen, Elon Musk could. Obviously Elon Musk is currently in the left's crosshairs, but not for anything that actually matters to any but the Very Online. He's certainly not some reactionary Republican.

Or, a guy like Mark Cuban could probably win either party's nomination as a moderate with very careful messaging. It wouldn't be easy, but we're in a cult of personality and celebrity phase at this point. Don't forget that Trump won the nomination running on many ideas (pro-LGBT and gay marriage, protecting pre-existing conditions, anti-free trade, anti-military intervention) that were totally counter to the last several decades of Republican standards. And they were thrown off like nothing.

The Democrats did it in the past (with Clinton) and came pretty close to doing it again in the other direction with an avowed and committed socialist in Bernie Sanders.

Ultimately, with the right message and some kind of charisma, many of the "issues" are just so many details.
 
It's not going to be easy, but it's not impossible. I think its probably going to take an individual to start to pull it back, just like it took one person primarily to pull it totally off the rails.

I'm fairly certain that someone like Mark Cuban could absolutely pull a Ross Perot but actually make it work. If he was a native citizen, Elon Musk could. Obviously Elon Musk is currently in the left's crosshairs, but not for anything that actually matters to any but the Very Online. He's certainly not some reactionary Republican.

Or, a guy like Mark Cuban could probably win either party's nomination as a moderate with very careful messaging. It wouldn't be easy, but we're in a cult of personality and celebrity phase at this point. Don't forget that Trump won the nomination running on many ideas (pro-LGBT and gay marriage, protecting pre-existing conditions, anti-free trade, anti-military intervention) that were totally counter to the last several decades of Republican standards. And they were thrown off like nothing.

The Democrats did it in the past (with Clinton) and came pretty close to doing it again in the other direction with an avowed and committed socialist in Bernie Sanders.

Ultimately, with the right message and some kind of charisma, many of the "issues" are just so many details.

The problem is the moderates don't show up to vote in primaries for the most part. Especially on the right side.

On the left they still have some sway and got Biden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlickShagwell
Hence why I say we need to start over on our whole political system to create one that is actually representative of the people's views.

Most Americans don't want to live in those situations but the politicians are not playing to most Americans they are playing to their base because they live in gerrymandered districts where 10 to 20% of the population votes in the primary for the most extreme person on the ballot and the other 80% shows up at the general election and decides "I guess they are better than the other extreme." Which for the record is done simply because every election is nationalized now. There are no more conservative democrats running in conservative areas. There are no more liberal Republicans running in liberal areas. Even if you are that, they still try to tie you up with someone in national government even if you are running for the freaking school board.

We need a system that guts gerrymandering entirely out of the equation and at the same time encourages multiple parties and multiple viewpoints into congress.

We're working in a system that was designed 200 years ago and our politicians have gamed it in every way possible.

Yep, it's a tough nut to crack. And you literally can't vote for anyone who seriously wants to end gerrymandering or un-game the system or actually "drain the swamp" so to speak. The one most important factor, the rigged system, has no legitimate advocates.

Honestly, a handful of reforms would make a world of difference. Anti-gerrymandering laws that require districts to meet a minimum level of competitiveness, not that aim for a balance of seats. Much better to have a state that had districts that went 10-0 to one party in a given election and all within 5 points, than one that went 6-4 and all decided by 15 points.

And reform of the primary system. Honestly, we'd be much better off going back to the days of party elders choosing the candidates in smoke filled rooms. Obviously that's not quite possible, but the current system is relatively recent in history, we were brokering at conventions as recently as the 1970s. It's not like our primary system is constitutionally rooted or anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee
The problem is the moderates don't show up to vote in primaries for the most part. Especially on the right side.

On the left they still have some sway and got Biden.

And frankly, on the Democratic side that's thanks to minority voters. If Republicans continue to chip away minority voters, or the Democrats continue to message mainly the college educated suburban white voter, they're headed for the same thing.

And moderates don't show up because politics doesn't run their lives. It's not that bad of a thing, but the result is bad. But we're letting the angriest choose our options.
 
I’ve been thinking about this since @torbee posted this and you know what I wish the left had (and make no mistake about it, Landslide Lyndon was L-E-F-T with his Great Society programs): a modern day LBJ. No honest person would say that LBJ with one hand tied behind his back wouldn’t make Donald Trump fill his depends with one glance. LBJ could put “the treatment” (see below) on the “radicals” in the Democratic Party to get his agenda through, and maybe even appeal to old school republicans. Of course the MTG and Madison (“There’s a video of me rubbing my penis on my male cousin’s face”) Cawthorn voters are a lost cause, but LBJ could win, in my opinion.

 
Last edited:
I would just like it paid for. If it’s paid for I am a fan of letting each political party try what they want.

instead we get all kinds of spending and zero is paid for. Biden is well into his term and has yet to “tax the rich” yet he is well on his way to shattering all of Trumps records.
Put it back at the state level.
There they must fund their schemes.
 
Ideally states could govern as they chose like the flounders intended and breaking up wouldn’t be necessary.
p1507669413.jpg
 
Meh..article long, wordy, and inaccurate in some areas. I don't buy it. Too much to be lost to actually break up, and most people are not as radical as many of the posters here on HORT.
 
I’ve been thinking about this since @torbee posted this and you know what I wish the left had (and make no mistake about it, Landslide Lyndon was L-E-F-T with his Great Society programs): a modern day LBJ. No honest person would say that LBJ with one hand tied behind his back wouldn’t make Donald Trump fill his depends with one glance. LBJ could put “the treatment” (see below) on the “radicals” in the Democratic Party to get his agenda through, and maybe even appeal to old school republicans. Of course the MTG and Madison (“There’s a video of me rubbing my penis on my male cousin’s face”) Cawthorn voters are a lost cause, but LBJ could win, in my opinion.

LBJ sure loved using the n-word.
 
It's not going to be easy, but it's not impossible. I think its probably going to take an individual to start to pull it back, just like it took one person primarily to pull it totally off the rails.

I'm fairly certain that someone like Mark Cuban could absolutely pull a Ross Perot but actually make it work. If he was a native citizen, Elon Musk could. Obviously Elon Musk is currently in the left's crosshairs, but not for anything that actually matters to any but the Very Online. He's certainly not some reactionary Republican.

Or, a guy like Mark Cuban could probably win either party's nomination as a moderate with very careful messaging. It wouldn't be easy, but we're in a cult of personality and celebrity phase at this point. Don't forget that Trump won the nomination running on many ideas (pro-LGBT and gay marriage, protecting pre-existing conditions, anti-free trade, anti-military intervention) that were totally counter to the last several decades of Republican standards. And they were thrown off like nothing.

The Democrats did it in the past (with Clinton) and came pretty close to doing it again in the other direction with an avowed and committed socialist in Bernie Sanders.

Ultimately, with the right message and some kind of charisma, many of the "issues" are just so many details.
You know who would be an excellent national presidential candidate the Left and Right would get behind?

Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Too bad about that pesky native born resident thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlickShagwell
“Tax the rich” is the mantra Dems pull out every election to pander for votes.

Back in 1980 while a student at Iowa, some woman (can’t remember her name….was running on the dem ticket for the House…she lost) came to speak at my Political Science class. Made all the usual promises of all the great things that she would do. I asked her how they would be paid for. The answer? “Tax the rich.”

I can’t believe there are idiots that still fall for this.
But it has never actually been tried. The richest 1% often pay ZERO taxes.
 
... and a question:

How does the author propose that the federal debt be managed? Like any divorce, money is usually the biggest sticking point.
My guess is whatever new entities (countries?) form will say, "not my debt" and people holding it will be SOL. I'm not sure what the IMF could do and international banks, I'm sure they can do something, but honestly whatever punishments they come up with might be better than being stuck with 23 trillion dollars of debt.
 
So here's the fallacy that this article and everyone that sees the country dividing into two countries, including this article. The vast majority of people neither want to live in an autonomous zone, or in a theocratic Christian monarchy.

It's a mistake of mixing up the online world (including HROT) with the actual world. Most Americans don't want to live in EITHER a socialist utopia or antebellum restoration. But because the online world thrives and monetizes polarization, and the political parties keep offering a binary choice between extremes and make people choose the one that might be a little less worse.

Even most of the Trump haters on this board don't actually want to live in a world with no gendered language allowed, police funding cut to the bone or abolished, no-bail release and reduced prosecutions, government funded abortions through nine months, permanent making, etc.

And most of the Republican voters don't want slavery stricken from textbooks or condoms made illegal or mandatory church attendance or their neighbors to be able to buy a rocket launcher.

"Hey Nole Lou, you're specifically choosing the most extreme fringes, that doesn't really represent the views of the parties."

Well, no shit, but what do you think is going to happen when the 35-40% of Californians that are Republicans leave, or the 45% of Texans that are Democrats leave those states? Just look at the city of Portland or Marjorie Taylor Greene's district if you want the answer. The vast, vast majority of people don't want to live in either political environment.

Even if we were so stupid to actually want those things that you pointed out, it's almost a guarantee that the next generation will not see it the way will and things will go right back to where we're at.
 
You know who would be an excellent national presidential candidate the Left and Right would get behind?

Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Too bad about that pesky native born resident thing.

Yep, I thought of him too.

Was thinking about the fact that if you're not particularly young, this blue/red divide, is an awfully new development. California had a Republican governor ten years ago.

In 1999, California had a Republican governor. New York had a Republican governor (and a Republican Senator). Alabama had a Democratic governor. Republicans barely see need to bother in those places anymore.

Mississippi and Oklahoma and Indiana had a Democratic governor in 2004, none of which Biden was remotely competitive in.

I mean, WTF? If you're 25 that might seem like a million years ago to you, but it's just not that long. I'm sorry, I don't think the basic wants and needs of Americans changed that much in the past 20 years.

It's the continued rigging of the system and the purging of any ideological deviation out of both parties. I think it does have a lot to do with the rise of cable news and social media basically reversing "all politics is local" to "all politics is national".
 
Another weird phenomenon of the current atmosphere, probably related to the monetary value of doom clicking to social media algorithms...both sides desperately feel like they are generally losing, if not getting routed, and are in the 11th hour to "save" America.
 
Another weird phenomenon of the current atmosphere, probably related to the monetary value of doom clicking to social media algorithms...both sides desperately feel like they are generally losing, if not getting routed, and are in the 11th hour to "save" America.

I'll give Republicans/right/cons credit for one thing, they are at least are acting appropriately if they genuinely think they're in a existential fight to save America.

If you think the election was legitimately stolen from Trump by Deep State Dems or whoever, it makes sense to storm the capital to prevent it.

If you think the Dems legitimately used 3 million illegal voters to "win" the election, it makes sense to pressure election officials in Georgia to "find" votes, that's righteous.

If you think Trump is God's chosen savior and is the only one who can save America, it makes sense to protect him from impeachment and do anything necessary to keep him in power.

And on and on. I can at least appreciate that they act on their crazy.

What do the Dems do? Just keep trying to run on how awful and crazy Trump and Republicans, yeah ok?! Maybe, they should get some credit for restraint, but where is the sense of urgency for their dire 11th hour saving of America?
 
It wasn’t that long ago that some Dems on this board and in the media we’re saying the Republican Party is finished.
 
It wasn’t that long ago that some Dems on this board and in the media we’re saying the Republican Party is finished.
It is. The party that replaced it may have taken over the name, but this is not the "Republican" party of Reagan, the Bushes, Romney, Cheney, etc. It is a weird right wing populist front now and is anathema to actual conservative values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
It wasn’t that long ago that some Dems on this board and in the media we’re saying the Republican Party is finished.

I'm sure there were some people who were overly optimistic and had too high expectations for people and legitimately thought the Republican party would be gone and non existent.

However, what I understood people to generally mean is that the Republican party is dead in terms of what it once was, that it's a shell of its former self, that it's unrecognizable. It's finished as a functioning, reality acknowledging group that is capable of governance, etc. Became the party of Trump and Trumpism, etc.

That's just my understanding as opposed to the understanding that people legitimately thought the Republican party would just poof, disappear, finished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerome Silberman
It is a weird right wing populist front now and is anathema to actual conservative values.
Not really true. That is as accurate as saying the democratic party are left wing socialists.

Neither party is what they once were.
 
I'm sure there were some people who were overly optimistic and had too high expectations for people and legitimately thought the Republican party would be gone and non existent.

However, what I understood people to generally mean is that the Republican party is dead in terms of what it once was, that it's a shell of its former self, that it's unrecognizable. It's finished as a functioning, reality acknowledging group that is capable of governance, etc. Became the party of Trump and Trumpism, etc.

That's just my understanding as opposed to the understanding that people legitimately thought the Republican party would just poof, disappear, finished.
There were a few on this board. But then, they were all loonies. And still are.
 
ADVERTISEMENT