Again: could you please tell me why you think she is earnest? All politicians are performers. She is additionally a public liar. What do you know about her that makes you believe she's earnest? I worry about her long game and her extremism frightens me. I've watched Marine LePen pull off such an approach in France (she had to boot h…
Again: could you please tell me why you think she is earnest? All politicians are performers. She is additionally a public liar. What do you know about her that makes you believe she's earnest? I worry about her long game and her extremism frightens me. I've watched Marine LePen pull off such an approach in France (she had to boot her own father out of the party he founded to manage it) and the results are scary.
She is clearly in earnest about taking a public stand against Trump. In doing so, she is obviously scuttling her obvious career-path, and setting herself against her party. Maybe she has a deep game. Maybe she doesn't. I can't guess why she's doing this.
Her political calculation could be as simple as ours: she prefers democracy. I don't know why she would prefer democracy. I don't know why Heather prefers democracy: I do know that she does, because she's said as much. I'm not entirely clear on why I prefer democracy, but I know that I do. Maybe Ms. Cheney prefers it because she thinks democracy gives her political advantages that autocracy would not. Maybe she's recently "discovered Jesus." I don't know, and I really don't care.
I do refuse to view every politician as a super-intelligent, psychopathic machine full of dastardly motives, with a long and deep game (bwah, ha-ha) that every move is calculated to advance, because that is simply ridiculous. The fact is, most of them are really rather dim herd animals, and -- like Gaetz -- when presented with an opportunity to use their power and wealth to "scratch an itch," they do so without much thought for even short-term consequences.
The only thing that is clear is that Cheney is standing publicly against Trump, and is a sharp edge against which the Republican Party could split in two. It's already a minority party. If it splits, and still holds power, we don't have a democracy at all, and should have our own come-to-Jesus moment and stop pretending.
So the presumption is that a split Republican Party would not hold power after the split, and the Democratic Party would therefore hold power until an opposition party got its shit together. If that resolved democratically, it would take years, maybe decades.
Unfortunately, the way that would probably play out is that one of the Republican splits would dominate, and after having eaten its weaker sibling, would come roaring back. My money would be on a fully fascist Republican party: populist and autocratic. Hitler all over again.
That's why Biden's thrust for stability is so important. What allowed Hitler to gain power was the wide and deep discontent of the citizens of Germany under the Weimar Republic. Had most Germans been happy campers, Hitler would never have risen to power. We in the US have, as a people that fundamentally misunderstands the real relationship between government and prosperity, been enabling government action that has dissolved everything that makes us happy as humans, for at least forty years. We are deeply discontent, and growing more so. If that isn't addressed, and promptly, we are simply tilling the earth for a new fascism.
I think Biden has the right idea: I think he grasps this. So what has to happen in the short-term is to move the obstruction out of the way, so that we can reduce the level of discontent over crumbling infrastructure, bad policing, bad healthcare systems, etc., etc., etc.
Again: could you please tell me why you think she is earnest? All politicians are performers. She is additionally a public liar. What do you know about her that makes you believe she's earnest? I worry about her long game and her extremism frightens me. I've watched Marine LePen pull off such an approach in France (she had to boot her own father out of the party he founded to manage it) and the results are scary.
She is clearly in earnest about taking a public stand against Trump. In doing so, she is obviously scuttling her obvious career-path, and setting herself against her party. Maybe she has a deep game. Maybe she doesn't. I can't guess why she's doing this.
Her political calculation could be as simple as ours: she prefers democracy. I don't know why she would prefer democracy. I don't know why Heather prefers democracy: I do know that she does, because she's said as much. I'm not entirely clear on why I prefer democracy, but I know that I do. Maybe Ms. Cheney prefers it because she thinks democracy gives her political advantages that autocracy would not. Maybe she's recently "discovered Jesus." I don't know, and I really don't care.
I do refuse to view every politician as a super-intelligent, psychopathic machine full of dastardly motives, with a long and deep game (bwah, ha-ha) that every move is calculated to advance, because that is simply ridiculous. The fact is, most of them are really rather dim herd animals, and -- like Gaetz -- when presented with an opportunity to use their power and wealth to "scratch an itch," they do so without much thought for even short-term consequences.
The only thing that is clear is that Cheney is standing publicly against Trump, and is a sharp edge against which the Republican Party could split in two. It's already a minority party. If it splits, and still holds power, we don't have a democracy at all, and should have our own come-to-Jesus moment and stop pretending.
So the presumption is that a split Republican Party would not hold power after the split, and the Democratic Party would therefore hold power until an opposition party got its shit together. If that resolved democratically, it would take years, maybe decades.
Unfortunately, the way that would probably play out is that one of the Republican splits would dominate, and after having eaten its weaker sibling, would come roaring back. My money would be on a fully fascist Republican party: populist and autocratic. Hitler all over again.
That's why Biden's thrust for stability is so important. What allowed Hitler to gain power was the wide and deep discontent of the citizens of Germany under the Weimar Republic. Had most Germans been happy campers, Hitler would never have risen to power. We in the US have, as a people that fundamentally misunderstands the real relationship between government and prosperity, been enabling government action that has dissolved everything that makes us happy as humans, for at least forty years. We are deeply discontent, and growing more so. If that isn't addressed, and promptly, we are simply tilling the earth for a new fascism.
I think Biden has the right idea: I think he grasps this. So what has to happen in the short-term is to move the obstruction out of the way, so that we can reduce the level of discontent over crumbling infrastructure, bad policing, bad healthcare systems, etc., etc., etc.
Any guarantees that it will work? None.