The French way isn’t a quick fix either, in France it just put an authoritarian in power who created fertile grounds for a coup by Napoleon. It took them a hundred years since the revolution until the republic stabilized and had achieved peace.
Violent rebellion rarely results in a government that those rebelling wished for, unless those rebelling wish for authoritarian government. Egalitarian governance is often born from long-term persistence to addressing the needs of the population and a general rejection of policies from the wealthy.
That being said, a population under an authoritarian regime often need to use violence to (attempt to) trigger the shift into a more egalitarian government. In France’s case it worked (for a while), but took several attempts to get there.
Creating lasting policy which truly works for the population requires that the population is healthy, fed, housed, and educated - if any of these are missed, then there is a significant risk of a right-wing shift.
Yeah, I know. I’m gravely concerned that we may be in for 100 years of shit here. I think America is/can be a great country, but if we are going to be a fascist hellhole for the next 100+ years, I’d like to encourage my kids to GTFO. They don’t need to spend their lives under tyranny. Guess I’ll know by the end of the term, at least.
I’m only in for 40 more years of shit at best. My kid is fucked though, but if we keep raising him right maybe he can be a part of the solution, or at least live to see it.
Also killing Trump wouldn’t speed run much beyond a conservative marshal law wet dream. The couchfucker in chief would waste no time declaring is a terrorist act because “who would harm our dear leader but a terrorist?”
The slow way, liberal incrementalism, is seemingly getting us authoritarianism not just in the US but in much of Europe as well. Not to mention the liberal incrementalists broadly seem to have stopped bothering to, you know, increment.
Considering half of voters voted for him, which is like 1/4 of the country, I don’t know if that’s enough people to support a revolution. Especially given the geographic distribution.
Red states are brain-draining people fast enough, blue cities are where all the hospitals and infrastructure are, and that’s all being defunded rapidly. Can you imagine what it would be like if droves of medical and other professionals just left red states - shuttering hospitals and colleges and the like.
When conservatives say “I wish we could just split the country and then we’d prove how our policies are better” I always picture the scenario of them wandering around, trying to get cancer treatment or an MRI.
That’s what they want, though. They (the rich leaders) can always go elsewhere for medical care.
Their constituents, on the other hand, suffer the full brunt of it, and so end up poor, uneducated, with even minor illnesses causing major issues. So they are constantly too busy trying to survive to fight back, and too poorly educated to realize they should.
When do conservatives say that? I’m all for it. Let’s do it.
They don’t say that because they know their backwoods dead shitholes have no economy and no money. They need california and states like it, as much as they love to talk shit about, since it pays for their welfare state.
My rule of thumb is if you don’t have enough people to win the vote, you don’t have enough people to overthrow the government.
I really hope that theory isn’t put to the test.
Yeah, that first option? Not going to work.
The French way isn’t a quick fix either, in France it just put an authoritarian in power who created fertile grounds for a coup by Napoleon. It took them a hundred years since the revolution until the republic stabilized and had achieved peace.
Violent rebellion rarely results in a government that those rebelling wished for, unless those rebelling wish for authoritarian government. Egalitarian governance is often born from long-term persistence to addressing the needs of the population and a general rejection of policies from the wealthy.
That being said, a population under an authoritarian regime often need to use violence to (attempt to) trigger the shift into a more egalitarian government. In France’s case it worked (for a while), but took several attempts to get there.
Creating lasting policy which truly works for the population requires that the population is healthy, fed, housed, and educated - if any of these are missed, then there is a significant risk of a right-wing shift.
Yeah, I know. I’m gravely concerned that we may be in for 100 years of shit here. I think America is/can be a great country, but if we are going to be a fascist hellhole for the next 100+ years, I’d like to encourage my kids to GTFO. They don’t need to spend their lives under tyranny. Guess I’ll know by the end of the term, at least.
I’m only in for 40 more years of shit at best. My kid is fucked though, but if we keep raising him right maybe he can be a part of the solution, or at least live to see it.
Also killing Trump wouldn’t speed run much beyond a conservative marshal law wet dream. The couchfucker in chief would waste no time declaring is a terrorist act because “who would harm our dear leader but a terrorist?”
The slow way, liberal incrementalism, is seemingly getting us authoritarianism not just in the US but in much of Europe as well. Not to mention the liberal incrementalists broadly seem to have stopped bothering to, you know, increment.
Considering half of voters voted for him, which is like 1/4 of the country, I don’t know if that’s enough people to support a revolution. Especially given the geographic distribution.
Red states are brain-draining people fast enough, blue cities are where all the hospitals and infrastructure are, and that’s all being defunded rapidly. Can you imagine what it would be like if droves of medical and other professionals just left red states - shuttering hospitals and colleges and the like.
When conservatives say “I wish we could just split the country and then we’d prove how our policies are better” I always picture the scenario of them wandering around, trying to get cancer treatment or an MRI.
That’s what they want, though. They (the rich leaders) can always go elsewhere for medical care.
Their constituents, on the other hand, suffer the full brunt of it, and so end up poor, uneducated, with even minor illnesses causing major issues. So they are constantly too busy trying to survive to fight back, and too poorly educated to realize they should.
When do conservatives say that? I’m all for it. Let’s do it.
They don’t say that because they know their backwoods dead shitholes have no economy and no money. They need california and states like it, as much as they love to talk shit about, since it pays for their welfare state.
My rule of thumb is if you don’t have enough people to win the vote, you don’t have enough people to overthrow the government. I really hope that theory isn’t put to the test.
China and Russia can’t do it. The republicans in the US have figured that out, and now it’s our turn. Hopefully we do better. We’ll see.
well, not without some of the French way, like a revolutionary tribunal