People generally don’t like actually participating in democracy. And fuck, who can blame them? The essential feature of changing policy in a democratic polity is the hard, arduous, thankless fucking task of fighting an apathetic or actively hostile majority. You don’t get to be a hero. You don’t get recognition. You may not even see any change at all from your own, personal efforts, sometimes not even locally. Success is measured on the scale of decades. It’s fucking miserable. There’s no sudden wave of support to ride to victory, there’s no cheering crowds showing your opposition how utterly defeated and isolated they are, like you once were; there’s no moment of vindication. It’s nothing but struggle, toil, and tedium.
The essential feature of changing policy in a democratic polity is the hard, arduous, thankless fucking task of fighting an apathetic or actively hostile majority.
The TikTok ban flew through. The '08 bank bailouts passed practically overnight. War bills for rammed through in a matter of months. Weapons deals are routine and tax cuts happen under every presidency.
The corrupt legislation doesn’t need to walk this arduous road. And corporate lobbyists regularly tout their jetset cocaine and hooker lifestyle.
This is the real face of American democracy. Not an army of petitioners fighting bad weather and apathetic crowds to scrap out civil rights from a clumsy bureaucracy. It’s dudes in $10k suits wooing senators in wine caves and beach resorts. And those same senators denouncing their constituents as greedy, lazy, ignorant slobs when a protest over the latest turd of a legislative package comes through.
Sorry that the miserable task of democracy doesn’t appeal to you. Maybe you can find somewhere where you can just parrot the Party Line and be happy with the Great Leader? I hear the PRC is nice.
Keeping licking those boots, I’m sure your social credit score will serve you well in the future. Cretins like you adore fascism, after all.
I mean, imagine simping for a state currently involved in a genocide, putting hundreds of thousands of Muslims in concentration camps and executing them at will. And imagining that you’re better than the Israeli simps?
imagine simping for a state currently involved in a genocide, putting hundreds of thousands of Muslims in concentration camps and executing them at will. And imagining that you’re better than the Israeli simps?
If you think that’s bad, wait until you hear about Native American reservations and the origins thereof.
Success is measured on the scale of decades. It’s fucking miserable. There’s no sudden wave of support to ride to victory, there’s no cheering crowds showing your opposition how utterly defeated and isolated they are, like you once were; there’s no moment of vindication. It’s nothing but struggle, toil, and tedium.
Yet, that is how societies change.
Interesting.
Is this how the United States was created?
I thought that the Fourth of July was celebrating some other type of event
The American Revolution was the result of some 40 years of agitating and politiking to change popular opinion, and ended with a ramshackle government where everyone hated one another and was entirely dysfunctional for half a decade, at which point a series of compromises no one was happy with and the only unambiguously popular figure in the nation came together to make the US Constitution, which everyone at the time hated. At which point we struggled for the next 20 years with lingering monarchist and loyalist sentiment, and then for the next 50 with anti-democratic and secessionist sentiment.
The change from a British colony to an independent country was (largely) not guns and fireworks. It was comprised of convincing people on the ground to take a different view than the one they grew up with; a slow, miserable, thankless process. And the part of it that was guns and fireworks was not nearly so glorious and momentous, nor spontaneous, as it is often pretended.
I did not suggest that there is anything glorious about violent revolution wherein untold numbers of human beings are murdered.
However, barring that violent revolution, the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world would not currently exist.
My point is that it is inaccurate to act like the slow progress of incrementalist democratic reforms is the only way for societal conditions to progress. If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution. Secondary powers, such as Australia, Canada, Israel, etc, were formed through violent settler colonialism. And yet, despite this lack of democratic negotiation and mediation, these are the states that largely control the world.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired. Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
Under that same logic, democratic governments are historical aberrations rather than norms. So why are you trying to apply a concept of how history ‘normally’ is to historical aberrations?
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution.
Formed by violent revolution against non-democratic polities.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired.
Or maybe all the Nordic countries combined have less than a third of the population of the UK alone and didn’t even develop into democratic polities until the 20th century?
Nah, it’s gotta be because they didn’t found their prosperity on violence, not that stupid ‘material conditions’ stuff.
Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
“The US was founded on violence because of the lack of democracy, therefore, voting in a democratic system instead of using violence is missing the essence of America.”
The US has a representative democracy. We elect people by voting so that those people can represent our beliefs in the action of government without us being there to make sure our voice is heard and considered.
While I agree that everyone should be more involved in civics, especially at a local level, it’s not really efficient for a society to implement a vanilla democracy. There are lots of other jobs like generating food/removing waste, generating energy/removing pollution, constructing/maintaining housing, transporting people including democratic representatives to and fro based on their obligations and desires, entertaining people so they can offset the pain in their lives and continue on with the struggle that is life, defend citizens from others or ourselves, etc.
Having a group of people act out government on our behalf is a good thing because we can specialize in other things to allow them to do so.
This all being said, there has been a disconnect with our representatives and with reality in general, so there is a giant need to reconnect with civic life in the US at all ages and at all levels for that matter.
People generally don’t like actually participating in democracy. And fuck, who can blame them? The essential feature of changing policy in a democratic polity is the hard, arduous, thankless fucking task of fighting an apathetic or actively hostile majority. You don’t get to be a hero. You don’t get recognition. You may not even see any change at all from your own, personal efforts, sometimes not even locally. Success is measured on the scale of decades. It’s fucking miserable. There’s no sudden wave of support to ride to victory, there’s no cheering crowds showing your opposition how utterly defeated and isolated they are, like you once were; there’s no moment of vindication. It’s nothing but struggle, toil, and tedium.
Yet, that is how societies change.
The TikTok ban flew through. The '08 bank bailouts passed practically overnight. War bills for rammed through in a matter of months. Weapons deals are routine and tax cuts happen under every presidency.
The corrupt legislation doesn’t need to walk this arduous road. And corporate lobbyists regularly tout their jetset cocaine and hooker lifestyle.
This is the real face of American democracy. Not an army of petitioners fighting bad weather and apathetic crowds to scrap out civil rights from a clumsy bureaucracy. It’s dudes in $10k suits wooing senators in wine caves and beach resorts. And those same senators denouncing their constituents as greedy, lazy, ignorant slobs when a protest over the latest turd of a legislative package comes through.
Sorry that the miserable task of democracy doesn’t appeal to you. Maybe you can find somewhere where you can just parrot the Party Line and be happy with the Great Leader? I hear the PRC is nice.
Imagine being this angry at a country with cutting edge mass transit, modern health care, and a retirement age of 54
Keeping licking those boots, I’m sure your social credit score will serve you well in the future. Cretins like you adore fascism, after all.
I mean, imagine simping for a state currently involved in a genocide, putting hundreds of thousands of Muslims in concentration camps and executing them at will. And imagining that you’re better than the Israeli simps?
If you think that’s bad, wait until you hear about Native American reservations and the origins thereof.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schools
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States
My guy, you can’t walk through a college campus in the US without getting gang tackled by police.
Fucking lmao.
Interesting.
Is this how the United States was created?
I thought that the Fourth of July was celebrating some other type of event
Ah yes, that act of violent revolution that inexorably sent the US down a path to manifest destiny and the civil war
Definitely a perfect model for a modern movement for significant political change!
The American Revolution was the result of some 40 years of agitating and politiking to change popular opinion, and ended with a ramshackle government where everyone hated one another and was entirely dysfunctional for half a decade, at which point a series of compromises no one was happy with and the only unambiguously popular figure in the nation came together to make the US Constitution, which everyone at the time hated. At which point we struggled for the next 20 years with lingering monarchist and loyalist sentiment, and then for the next 50 with anti-democratic and secessionist sentiment.
The change from a British colony to an independent country was (largely) not guns and fireworks. It was comprised of convincing people on the ground to take a different view than the one they grew up with; a slow, miserable, thankless process. And the part of it that was guns and fireworks was not nearly so glorious and momentous, nor spontaneous, as it is often pretended.
I did not suggest that there is anything glorious about violent revolution wherein untold numbers of human beings are murdered.
However, barring that violent revolution, the most powerful and wealthy country in the history of the world would not currently exist.
My point is that it is inaccurate to act like the slow progress of incrementalist democratic reforms is the only way for societal conditions to progress. If anything, those sorts of nonrevolutionary improvements, such as with Mandela in SA, are historical aberrations rather than norms.
The current global superpowers of the United States, China, and Russia were all formed by violent revolution. Secondary powers, such as Australia, Canada, Israel, etc, were formed through violent settler colonialism. And yet, despite this lack of democratic negotiation and mediation, these are the states that largely control the world.
Peaceful adherence to norms and consensus may have arguably established the Nordic model of social democracy and high living standards. However, in terms of global power politics, it seems to leave something to be desired. Violence has consistently led to a change in conditions, and oftentimes, an improvement in those conditions. If we disagree with that then we disagree with the essence of the United States itself - in which case, voting for neoliberal moderation with the Democrats seems to be missing the point entirely
Under that same logic, democratic governments are historical aberrations rather than norms. So why are you trying to apply a concept of how history ‘normally’ is to historical aberrations?
Formed by violent revolution against non-democratic polities.
Or maybe all the Nordic countries combined have less than a third of the population of the UK alone and didn’t even develop into democratic polities until the 20th century?
Nah, it’s gotta be because they didn’t found their prosperity on violence, not that stupid ‘material conditions’ stuff.
“The US was founded on violence because of the lack of democracy, therefore, voting in a democratic system instead of using violence is missing the essence of America.”
Do you even listen to yourself
The US has a representative democracy. We elect people by voting so that those people can represent our beliefs in the action of government without us being there to make sure our voice is heard and considered.
While I agree that everyone should be more involved in civics, especially at a local level, it’s not really efficient for a society to implement a vanilla democracy. There are lots of other jobs like generating food/removing waste, generating energy/removing pollution, constructing/maintaining housing, transporting people including democratic representatives to and fro based on their obligations and desires, entertaining people so they can offset the pain in their lives and continue on with the struggle that is life, defend citizens from others or ourselves, etc.
Having a group of people act out government on our behalf is a good thing because we can specialize in other things to allow them to do so.
This all being said, there has been a disconnect with our representatives and with reality in general, so there is a giant need to reconnect with civic life in the US at all ages and at all levels for that matter.