A MAGA gunman in New Mexico and ‘the end of politics’ in America
A MAGA gunman in New Mexico and ‘the end of politics’ in America
Donald Trump's increasingly violent vision is coming through loud and clear to supporters like the MAGA gunman in New Mexico.
Donald Trump's increasingly violent vision is coming through loud and clear to supporters like the MAGA gunman in New Mexico.
You're viewing a single thread.
There's a bunch of different notions about "the end of politics," but mostly I've seen it refer to the fact that the economic system in the US is basically not up for debate at this point. The issues that are up for debate now do not threaten the basic structure of the political economy, or the economic arrangements of people in this system.
I disagree somewhat about the "both sides" criticism of the media here. This "both sides" approach isn't because the media "hasn't figured out" how to move beyond conventional 90s politics, it's because the media subsists on it's ability to exploit the viewer's attention and emotions. There's plenty of writing and analysis of "real" politics, but the biggest news networks aren't running that as top stories because it doesn't offer the engagement of partisan culture war debates.
As a non USAmerican, this seems only partly true. The media does indeed benefit from the partisanship hype, but it is also (often) accurately reporting politicking made to exploit the same emotional response.
For example, there is little good statesmanship in the North Carolina Republicans founding their own extrajudicial secret police, but it triggers a lot of emotional response even before them actually using it as a fascist tool.
This isn't blown out of proportion by the media, it is an actual thing that the party officially proposed, and it is outright disregarding both rule of law and democratic principles. Even if they have no hope of enacting it, the proposal is made to evoke emotions and sow chaos.
The French would have striked until these people resigned.
The French would have striked until these people resigned.
Because the French have social services and resources that allow them to do this without facing bankruptcy, homelessness and starvation.
True, but how did they get those?
By collective action.
(and a lot of blood)
One wonders if we are going to keep working through bankruptcy, homelessness, and starvation.
Because the question is going to come up.
Its gonna take utility and food collapse for that to happen.
Up to 50% of homeless people in the states work full or part time.
The question has been answered.
Let's go back even farther in French history and ask how they would handle this!
To be fair, the USAmericans also have a few notable occasions of standing up against oppressive rulers.
So did you only read the opening paragraph of the French Revolution, or are you super cool with thousands of innocent people dying for no reason?
The whole point is that there's already thousands of people dying for no reason.
In the history of the end of the First USAmerican Era, we are already past the opening paragraph. Societal mass inequality, unrest, bickering self-absorbed politi, and the populace suffering starvation, homelessness, rising rates of crime and police oppression...
Sounds like most of the setting for almost any major upheaval the last 5000 years
Lmao doomers are hilarious
They don't see it that way. It's like how the Confederates broke away after Lincoln's election even though Lincoln promised he wasn't going to abolish slavery. It doesn't matter that we aren't going to change the economic system, the fact that they know we don't fully support it is the same as trying to replace it.
I’ve seen it refer to the fact that the economic system in the US is basically not up for debate at this point
Well yeah, because we have the best one in human history.