Since elected officials are the least important part of the left-wing governing apparatus, it's not a big deal if one of them has (a few) reasonable opinions.
Bullseye! A hundred years ago, it was the revolutionary Marxists, polemicizing against reformist socialists, who argued that, even should socialists win an election, their victory would be neutralized by the pro-capitalist state apparatus. (Lenin thought this issue important enough to write an extended essay about it in 1917-- titled State and Revolution -- even as he was occupied with preparing his party for the seizure of power.) It's an irony of history that the 'Deep State' is now in the process of destroying democratic society, rather than protecting it. Lenin turned inside out.
Yes, it is an irony. Lenin & Trotsky & co. were a lot like liberals today - more intelligent and disciplined than their enemies, with a keen understanding of how the sausage of politics is made... and also willing to lie relentless on a handful of big issues that they really cared about. The Bolsheviks were right when they said that democratic wins could be subverted, but you'd have to be a nutcase to believe that the regime they built was somehow a more genuine defender of the rights and interests of the common people.
As for the present situation, it's frustrating. On paper, congress and other elected bodies have immense power; in practice, their influence on how Americans are actually governed is small. Yet unlike in Lenin's case, the state doesn't have to engage in frequent orgies of violence in order to keep the kulaks in their place - it's enough that Americans, despite being very fed up with the system, don't have anywhere near a majority consensus about why the government is malfunctioning and what needs to be done to change it. So the deep state carries on, proudly wrapping itself in the mantle of democracy (though it despises the substance), while all of its embarrassing missteps cause dimwitted right-wingers to renounce classical liberalism entirely and become Russia/China stans, or to say that the American founding was a mistake and we'd be better off if we still had kings, or if Catholicism were still the state religion, or some such drivel.
Thankfully this ideology hasn't spread much beyond the very online people. So there's still reason to hope that when we finally get a real whopper of a crisis, enough of the old ideas about representative government will have survived in places like Idaho, and New Hampshire, and small towns in the South and Midwest, that we'll have a chance of cobbling together something authentically American in the ruins.
Hmmm... well, no one knows the future, but I suspect betting on a 'real whopper of a crisis' is a pretty safe bet. I don't see how anyone can study history, especially the history of the 20th Century, and think "this time it's different". We just have to hope the 'whopper' is not a nuclear war.
As for Lenin and Trotsky: we need to talk about this some time. I'll just say that they didn't think that they were going to erect a totalitarian system.l But ... "events, dear boy, events."
Not sure what you mean by saying it "didn't age well." After all I didn't predict that Walz and Harris were going to win. So actually my article achieved its intended purpose by helping them to lose.
Walz is not to the right of most Democrats on any issues that have relevance. Being for Nuclear power and doing nothing to push it means nothing. He sat on his hands while $500 million in damages were done. He turned a surplus into higher taxes. We give free education to immigrants. You’re insane.
If you'd paid attention to my essay, you'd realize that I'm not defending Tim Walz - just saying that, despite his mix of reasonable and hard-left views, electing him will still empower the worst members of the Democratic coalition. One doesn't need to be "insane" to hold political views more nuanced than "us good, them bad."
I did pay attention. You called him right of 90% meaning you don’t know what you’re talking about. Minnesota is one of the most progressive states in the country. I live here. You’re out of your element.
I said that GovTrack.us rated him to the right of 90 percent of Democrats. I then spent the rest of my post explaining why ratings like that don't matter much in the real world. Surely you can recognize the difference between acknowledging someone else's opinion and agreeing with it?
Bullseye! A hundred years ago, it was the revolutionary Marxists, polemicizing against reformist socialists, who argued that, even should socialists win an election, their victory would be neutralized by the pro-capitalist state apparatus. (Lenin thought this issue important enough to write an extended essay about it in 1917-- titled State and Revolution -- even as he was occupied with preparing his party for the seizure of power.) It's an irony of history that the 'Deep State' is now in the process of destroying democratic society, rather than protecting it. Lenin turned inside out.
Yes, it is an irony. Lenin & Trotsky & co. were a lot like liberals today - more intelligent and disciplined than their enemies, with a keen understanding of how the sausage of politics is made... and also willing to lie relentless on a handful of big issues that they really cared about. The Bolsheviks were right when they said that democratic wins could be subverted, but you'd have to be a nutcase to believe that the regime they built was somehow a more genuine defender of the rights and interests of the common people.
As for the present situation, it's frustrating. On paper, congress and other elected bodies have immense power; in practice, their influence on how Americans are actually governed is small. Yet unlike in Lenin's case, the state doesn't have to engage in frequent orgies of violence in order to keep the kulaks in their place - it's enough that Americans, despite being very fed up with the system, don't have anywhere near a majority consensus about why the government is malfunctioning and what needs to be done to change it. So the deep state carries on, proudly wrapping itself in the mantle of democracy (though it despises the substance), while all of its embarrassing missteps cause dimwitted right-wingers to renounce classical liberalism entirely and become Russia/China stans, or to say that the American founding was a mistake and we'd be better off if we still had kings, or if Catholicism were still the state religion, or some such drivel.
Thankfully this ideology hasn't spread much beyond the very online people. So there's still reason to hope that when we finally get a real whopper of a crisis, enough of the old ideas about representative government will have survived in places like Idaho, and New Hampshire, and small towns in the South and Midwest, that we'll have a chance of cobbling together something authentically American in the ruins.
Hmmm... well, no one knows the future, but I suspect betting on a 'real whopper of a crisis' is a pretty safe bet. I don't see how anyone can study history, especially the history of the 20th Century, and think "this time it's different". We just have to hope the 'whopper' is not a nuclear war.
As for Lenin and Trotsky: we need to talk about this some time. I'll just say that they didn't think that they were going to erect a totalitarian system.l But ... "events, dear boy, events."
Excellent. Really excellent.
My. This didn't age well, did it?
???
Not sure what you mean by saying it "didn't age well." After all I didn't predict that Walz and Harris were going to win. So actually my article achieved its intended purpose by helping them to lose.
Walz is not to the right of most Democrats on any issues that have relevance. Being for Nuclear power and doing nothing to push it means nothing. He sat on his hands while $500 million in damages were done. He turned a surplus into higher taxes. We give free education to immigrants. You’re insane.
If you'd paid attention to my essay, you'd realize that I'm not defending Tim Walz - just saying that, despite his mix of reasonable and hard-left views, electing him will still empower the worst members of the Democratic coalition. One doesn't need to be "insane" to hold political views more nuanced than "us good, them bad."
I did pay attention. You called him right of 90% meaning you don’t know what you’re talking about. Minnesota is one of the most progressive states in the country. I live here. You’re out of your element.
I said that GovTrack.us rated him to the right of 90 percent of Democrats. I then spent the rest of my post explaining why ratings like that don't matter much in the real world. Surely you can recognize the difference between acknowledging someone else's opinion and agreeing with it?
Did you read the essay? Go back and try again.