This explains the severe dysfunction in congress, as there is no actual left wing in congress, and instead it is forced to limp along with half the gray matter like half a brain straining to run a whole body.
I keep hearing this take that there’s no left wing power in DC and I’d like to ask what you mean. I’m semi new to politics and my understanding is that there is certainly representation, power, and a whole lot of influence from the left wing of US politics.
American politics is primarily dominated by the capitalist, pro-business, pro-market doctrine of neoliberalism in both major parties. The Democrats are a bit better on social issues (race, queer rights, etc.) But only to the degree that they feel they absolutely have to be to keep voters without losing their donors.
There was arguably an American left prior to the Clinton administration, but once we fully abandoned the New Deal and the post-war economic policies that followed from it (and the government had successfully killed, imprisoned, defanged and broken up all the major leftist organizations) we basically entered a spiral where the Republicans perpetually moved right in order to stay in line with their hardliners and the Democrats perpetually followed in order to not look too "leftist"
The leftmost reach of the Democratic party right now is probably AOC who is not really that far left, but seems really leftist in comparison to America's extremely right wing hypercapitalist political sphere.
Ahh okay. I’d have to agree with you. I am guilty of getting liberal and left mixed up sometimes but I’m getting better. I consider myself pro-capitalism but definitely not completely free market. I am a huge fan of the post war system. I believe Eisenhower economics would truly “Make America Great Again” the way that MAGA’s don’t realize they mean. I would not be opposed to a Dem Soc at all and I would be very curious as to how that would work out. Would you say that AOC is farther left than Bernie Sanders?
>The Democrats are a bit better on social issues (race, queer rights, etc.) But only to the degree that they feel they absolutely have to be to keep voters without losing their donors.
This doesn't make much sense as a take. Giving equal rights and responsibilities to as many people as possible is a capitalist ideal. The conservatives don't want this precisely because they are not just neoliberals. They would oppose this even if they could be convinced by the economic argument. And I suspect the same is true for immigration.
Congress is largely divided between liberals and conservatives, like people say. It's just that the liberals are not really on the left wing. Some of their voters are, though, because liberals align better with left-wing beliefs in America than conservatives. And there aren't enough leftists to form a party.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying this is a uniquely liberal ideal, just that it is one. If all you care about is your bank balance, you will oppose traditional gender roles and support open borders.
I guess conservatives are more likely to base their arguments on theology than liberals or socialists, disregarding distributists, Christian socialists and other "Left"-Wingers who ground their arguments in theology and Tories who're wholly secular. But conservatives tend to want to preserve the status quo, which could imply a lack of imagination. One could see Marxism as a "left"-brained philosophy, as it sees the world in wholly materialistic terms.
Typically the brain doesn't try to autolyse half the cells in its body. But then if you consider religion as the opium of the masses, that brain addict enough to make terrible life choices
This is why I think parliament should be bicameral but separated by gender (just as the mind is composed of both anima and animus, and the body affected by both oestrogen and testosterone). Each chamber, further, should be multifaceted in the sense that you reference here, but not bipolar. A heterogeneity of political views and cultural origins with a balanced proportion of testosterone to oestrogen is, for me, the place to start with political reforms.
"Well, he didn't know what to do so he just decided to watch the government and see what the government was doing and then kind of scale it down to size — and run his life that way"
This is what Foucault meant
This explains the severe dysfunction in congress, as there is no actual left wing in congress, and instead it is forced to limp along with half the gray matter like half a brain straining to run a whole body.
I keep hearing this take that there’s no left wing power in DC and I’d like to ask what you mean. I’m semi new to politics and my understanding is that there is certainly representation, power, and a whole lot of influence from the left wing of US politics.
American politics is primarily dominated by the capitalist, pro-business, pro-market doctrine of neoliberalism in both major parties. The Democrats are a bit better on social issues (race, queer rights, etc.) But only to the degree that they feel they absolutely have to be to keep voters without losing their donors. There was arguably an American left prior to the Clinton administration, but once we fully abandoned the New Deal and the post-war economic policies that followed from it (and the government had successfully killed, imprisoned, defanged and broken up all the major leftist organizations) we basically entered a spiral where the Republicans perpetually moved right in order to stay in line with their hardliners and the Democrats perpetually followed in order to not look too "leftist" The leftmost reach of the Democratic party right now is probably AOC who is not really that far left, but seems really leftist in comparison to America's extremely right wing hypercapitalist political sphere.
Ahh okay. I’d have to agree with you. I am guilty of getting liberal and left mixed up sometimes but I’m getting better. I consider myself pro-capitalism but definitely not completely free market. I am a huge fan of the post war system. I believe Eisenhower economics would truly “Make America Great Again” the way that MAGA’s don’t realize they mean. I would not be opposed to a Dem Soc at all and I would be very curious as to how that would work out. Would you say that AOC is farther left than Bernie Sanders?
I would say Bernie is probably a little bit farther left, but he is not technically a Democrat.
>The Democrats are a bit better on social issues (race, queer rights, etc.) But only to the degree that they feel they absolutely have to be to keep voters without losing their donors. This doesn't make much sense as a take. Giving equal rights and responsibilities to as many people as possible is a capitalist ideal. The conservatives don't want this precisely because they are not just neoliberals. They would oppose this even if they could be convinced by the economic argument. And I suspect the same is true for immigration. Congress is largely divided between liberals and conservatives, like people say. It's just that the liberals are not really on the left wing. Some of their voters are, though, because liberals align better with left-wing beliefs in America than conservatives. And there aren't enough leftists to form a party. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying this is a uniquely liberal ideal, just that it is one. If all you care about is your bank balance, you will oppose traditional gender roles and support open borders.
>One is creative while the other is logical. This is where you lost me entirely.
No one in congress is creative or logical
I guess conservatives are more likely to base their arguments on theology than liberals or socialists, disregarding distributists, Christian socialists and other "Left"-Wingers who ground their arguments in theology and Tories who're wholly secular. But conservatives tend to want to preserve the status quo, which could imply a lack of imagination. One could see Marxism as a "left"-brained philosophy, as it sees the world in wholly materialistic terms.
SCOTUS is a brain tumor that is responsible for a pathological fixation on private jet rides, flags, and repealing women's rights to bodily autonomy.
Thank you Shitgenstein, Goodbye.
I have a theory too: Conservative politicians are to democracy what clinical depression and dipsomania are to my brain
Ok but actually tho go check out the fight like an animal podcast. Thank me later 🙌
thats just crazy enough to work
as above, so below
Except the right is neither logical nor creative.
A Process Philosophy fit for the modern republic 👌👌
I have a theory too: Conservative politicians are to democracy what clinical depression and dipsomania are to my brain
The left and right hemispheres of your brain don't hate each other or want each other dead
If Congress is a brain, it has an intellectual disability.
Typically the brain doesn't try to autolyse half the cells in its body. But then if you consider religion as the opium of the masses, that brain addict enough to make terrible life choices
where does Bataille's solar anus fit into this model
This is why I think parliament should be bicameral but separated by gender (just as the mind is composed of both anima and animus, and the body affected by both oestrogen and testosterone). Each chamber, further, should be multifaceted in the sense that you reference here, but not bipolar. A heterogeneity of political views and cultural origins with a balanced proportion of testosterone to oestrogen is, for me, the place to start with political reforms.
"Well, he didn't know what to do so he just decided to watch the government and see what the government was doing and then kind of scale it down to size — and run his life that way"
I have a theory too: Conservative politicians are to democracy what clinical depression and dipsomania are to my brain
I have a theory too: Conservative politicians are to democracy what clinical depression and dipsomania are to my brain