You know, I kinda dig the innocence of some folks in the States who think there’s one political party that’s more “wicked” than the other. It’s like they still reckon that picking between two not-so-great choices is what they call democracy, right?
I get why you would say that. Both parties certainly have their problems, and it’s easy to overlook the flaws of “your side”. But you do have to realize that, as bad as the Democrats are (and they are quite bad), the Republicans are profoundly worse. That both-sides sentiment, while technically true to a degree, vastly underplays the difference in magnitude. Democrats are awful corporate neo-liberals, but Republicans have a mainstream literal-actual-fascist element. Literal literal.
Both choices being not so great, and one party being definitively more wicked, are not mutually exclusive facts.
I understand what you’re saying, and I do see where you’re coming from. I’m a foreigner who lived in the country for a while, and I’m passionate about following both US and global political news. I can assure you that on the larger spectrum, they are more alike than they are different.
I’m not just talking about international politics where a president is essentially an actor repeating concepts they may not fully understand, but also in terms of domestic affairs. The debates they have in the United States may seem profound (healthcare, abortion, student debt), but they often appear to be comfortable discussions. In other words, the primary interest of their politicians is to retain their jobs, and they would never seek to improve the lives of their citizens if it goes against the possibility of maintaining their influence. Ultimately, both parties serve a higher good: preserving the two-party system. They may pass the baton back and forth from time to time, but the game remains the same.
Again, I understand your perspective, and it was probably relatively valid a few decades ago.
That is no longer the case. Your analysis is outdated.
One party is still playing the baton-passing-status-quo game, the other is actually, factually undermining democracy itself. Actively attempting to rig elections, televised insurrection, equivocating the lawful execution of due process with baseless imprisonment of their political opponents.
Yeah, in a lot of ways you’re right especially in terms of foreign policy. But when you look at a lot of the social policies the differences become stark. Abortion being the most recent example.
You know, I kinda dig the innocence of some folks in the States who think there’s one political party that’s more “wicked” than the other. It’s like they still reckon that picking between two not-so-great choices is what they call democracy, right?
I get why you would say that. Both parties certainly have their problems, and it’s easy to overlook the flaws of “your side”. But you do have to realize that, as bad as the Democrats are (and they are quite bad), the Republicans are profoundly worse. That both-sides sentiment, while technically true to a degree, vastly underplays the difference in magnitude. Democrats are awful corporate neo-liberals, but Republicans have a mainstream literal-actual-fascist element. Literal literal.
Both choices being not so great, and one party being definitively more wicked, are not mutually exclusive facts.
I understand what you’re saying, and I do see where you’re coming from. I’m a foreigner who lived in the country for a while, and I’m passionate about following both US and global political news. I can assure you that on the larger spectrum, they are more alike than they are different.
I’m not just talking about international politics where a president is essentially an actor repeating concepts they may not fully understand, but also in terms of domestic affairs. The debates they have in the United States may seem profound (healthcare, abortion, student debt), but they often appear to be comfortable discussions. In other words, the primary interest of their politicians is to retain their jobs, and they would never seek to improve the lives of their citizens if it goes against the possibility of maintaining their influence. Ultimately, both parties serve a higher good: preserving the two-party system. They may pass the baton back and forth from time to time, but the game remains the same.
Again, I understand your perspective, and it was probably relatively valid a few decades ago.
That is no longer the case. Your analysis is outdated.
One party is still playing the baton-passing-status-quo game, the other is actually, factually undermining democracy itself. Actively attempting to rig elections, televised insurrection, equivocating the lawful execution of due process with baseless imprisonment of their political opponents.
deleted by creator
Yeah, in a lot of ways you’re right especially in terms of foreign policy. But when you look at a lot of the social policies the differences become stark. Abortion being the most recent example.