- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 36,436
- Reaction score
- 17,224
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Here's what they think: 'Either party is too extreme. The best situation is for each to have part of government, so they check each other, and prevent either party from doing radical things. That's the best, split government."
They're quite wrong.
To help them understand this counter-intuitive point, I ask them, over the last century, name the ten best things government has done. Take some time and think about it.
Some candidates for me include economic programs in the Great Depression, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights bills, the moon landing, winning WWII, the ACA.
Now, what do all these things have in common? Democratic super-majorities.
In other words, *to get good things done, the best things, they only way they've gotten done is Democratic super-majorities*. Democratic super-majorities haven't caused bad, harmful, extremist polices, but the best policies.
And split government would prevent most of these policies. (On the other hand, Republican super-majorities make THEM more effective also, but in my opinion, for bad policies, such as massive borrowed tax cuts for the rich or military contractor spending).
What they don't seem to understand is the basic idea of the government as the people - 'of, by and for' as Lincoln said - so that the government being able to actually get something done can be a good thing. Instead, they fear the government doing anything, and so they want to prevent the American people from doing anything through government. It's actually a quite anti-American view.
They want a crippled, hobbled, dysfunctional government that can't do anything - with anything Democrats want to do for the people blocked by Republicans who want their wealthy donors served.
For an analogy, it's a little like setting up a business with two co-CEOs who have opposite interests and have to agree on anything.
So, the business gets no new products, no new stores, no new employees, no new sales or promotions, no new anything. It just stagnates, stuck, unable to do anything but keep basic functions. That business is not going to do well. But that's what 'moderates' want for the country.
Their view on it is misguided and harmful. They need to understand that the only way the country almost ever gets anything good done in the government, is when there is a Democratic super-majority.
And that's all the more true, the more completely the Republican party is taken over by plutocrats, which is now basically 100%.
And what we get is what we saw under Obama - the Republicans having one priority, to prevent Obama passing anything, including policies clearly good for the country and policies they agreed with.
'Moderates' are supporting the country being able to actually address issues, to function. Things like the national debt, the climate, healthcare, cannot be addressed - and that dysfunction by the people's government is just what the plutocrats want, so they can have the nation's resources controlled by and serving them, not the people.
And that's why we see the people without power, and less and less wealth. Just as the plutocrats want. It's why Reagan tries to convince these people that 'government is the problem, not the solution'. He wanted them to give their power and wealth to the plutocrats, and they largely did.
They're quite wrong.
To help them understand this counter-intuitive point, I ask them, over the last century, name the ten best things government has done. Take some time and think about it.
Some candidates for me include economic programs in the Great Depression, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights bills, the moon landing, winning WWII, the ACA.
Now, what do all these things have in common? Democratic super-majorities.
In other words, *to get good things done, the best things, they only way they've gotten done is Democratic super-majorities*. Democratic super-majorities haven't caused bad, harmful, extremist polices, but the best policies.
And split government would prevent most of these policies. (On the other hand, Republican super-majorities make THEM more effective also, but in my opinion, for bad policies, such as massive borrowed tax cuts for the rich or military contractor spending).
What they don't seem to understand is the basic idea of the government as the people - 'of, by and for' as Lincoln said - so that the government being able to actually get something done can be a good thing. Instead, they fear the government doing anything, and so they want to prevent the American people from doing anything through government. It's actually a quite anti-American view.
They want a crippled, hobbled, dysfunctional government that can't do anything - with anything Democrats want to do for the people blocked by Republicans who want their wealthy donors served.
For an analogy, it's a little like setting up a business with two co-CEOs who have opposite interests and have to agree on anything.
So, the business gets no new products, no new stores, no new employees, no new sales or promotions, no new anything. It just stagnates, stuck, unable to do anything but keep basic functions. That business is not going to do well. But that's what 'moderates' want for the country.
Their view on it is misguided and harmful. They need to understand that the only way the country almost ever gets anything good done in the government, is when there is a Democratic super-majority.
And that's all the more true, the more completely the Republican party is taken over by plutocrats, which is now basically 100%.
And what we get is what we saw under Obama - the Republicans having one priority, to prevent Obama passing anything, including policies clearly good for the country and policies they agreed with.
'Moderates' are supporting the country being able to actually address issues, to function. Things like the national debt, the climate, healthcare, cannot be addressed - and that dysfunction by the people's government is just what the plutocrats want, so they can have the nation's resources controlled by and serving them, not the people.
And that's why we see the people without power, and less and less wealth. Just as the plutocrats want. It's why Reagan tries to convince these people that 'government is the problem, not the solution'. He wanted them to give their power and wealth to the plutocrats, and they largely did.
