[schainks]

The US government currently is inhabited by one political party whose goal is to hinder US interests in any way possible while complaining that the US doesn’t do enough to bolster said interests.

So yes, part of the government is serious, while another part is serious about doing the opposite, which does produce the intended effect: public perception that the US government is not serious about these things.

What it will take for all political interests to align for the sake of US interests? Probably turning off financial lobbying from shadow money groups.

[huytersd]

Political influence isn’t going to align if two sides of the country are irrevocably misaligned on some fundamentals (racism, LGBT etc.). There’s no middle ground (mainly LGBT) on these issues so it’s going to have to come down to a pseudo civil war with one side prevailing.

[hn_throwaway_99]

As a gay person, this seems fundamentally wrong to me. There was even more distance among the parties on most LGBT issues 25 years ago, but the ability of the parties to compromise on anything is much, much worse now than it was then.

I also think there is much more "crossover" on LGBT issues than one may believe. Tons of Republicans are pro-gay marriage, and tons of Democrats have real concerns about allowing trans women to compete in women's divisions in sports.

[huytersd]

The trans thing is the deal breaker when it comes to the right. We never saw massive resistance to gay anything for the last decade or so.

[Smoosh]

I think that the right lost the battle over gay rights as general attitudes had become accepting of them over the past 3-5 decades, but they don't want to lose the war so they are digging in over rights for transgender people.

[huytersd]

I feel it’s a little more than that. The right have never accepted feminized men and trans is taking it to its furthest conclusion. I genuinely believe the right doesn’t care about manly men fucking each other.

[zzozzo]

There's definitely middle ground that could be negotiated if the will was there. For example, regarding the T (of LGBT), a liberal stance on people presenting how they want, and making it unlawful to discriminate against them for it. But at the same time, protecting single-sex spaces rather than redefining them in terms of "gender identity", and not punishing others for exercising freedom of speech and belief.

So if Bob wants to call himself Brenda, wear a frock and make-up, and take drugs to grow breasts, then that's fine and he shouldn't be fired from his job for doing so. But this doesn't give him access to women's spaces, and if any of his colleagues don't want to refer to him as "she" then they shouldn't be censured for doing so either.

This stance also protects LGB who may want to organize same-sex groups, such as lesbian speed dating or gay men's saunas, without having individuals of the opposite sex imposing themselves for self-identity reasons.

[crooked-v]

A serious question: Do you believe that this person https://www.instagram.com/laith_ashley/, who is a transgender man, should be made to stay in women's spaces and use womens' restrooms?

[zzozzo]

Yes I do. Part of the middle ground compromise on this issue would be for people in general to be more accepting of those who don't conform to traditional gender roles and presentations, such as the masculine-styled woman whose Instagram you linked.

Another potential middle-ground position on this issue is for third spaces to be made available to those individuals who don't feel comfortable in the spaces designated for their sex. For example, India has laws mandating this for their Hijra demographic.

[huytersd]

Hijras are firmly men. They’ve been around forever but no one says they are women, just men dressed up as women. They have their own specific niche is society.

[huytersd]

If the prevailing notion is Bob is playing dress up as a woman I don’t think there would ever be a problem with the right. The left would never agree with that.

[tarsinge]

That's not what I got from the parent. Besides, everyone is dressing up one way or another depending on the situation. The problem is putting all your identity into it. And conversely also imposing on others that some characteristics you find important in your own belief system should be part of their identity. Extreme left and extreme right both have issues with that.

[zzozzo]

I think it depends on which factions of the right and the left. As I understand it, left-wing radical feminists mostly already hold that view. And some on the socially conservative right may still object to Bob/Brenda teaching their children, for example.

However I do believe this position, or one very similar to it, could be enough of a middle-ground compromise to satisfy most people.

[TaylorAlexander]

That’s how they get us. Divide and conquer. The thing is that it’s really the politicians riling up the vocal members of their base. Surveys of most republicans show that they don’t like the extreme focus on trans people. There’s lots of common ground, if we cut away the ideology, on things like labor rights and jobs. The politicians amp up the rhetoric on LGBTQ issues because it gets people upset, but it’s really not an issue that affects most people’s lives outside of LGBTQ people directly.

[torginus]

How true is this? I thought that being openly racist or anti-gay is a political suicide for both sides of the US political spectrum.

[mikewarot]

The US government is currently inhabited by one political Duopoly, the RepubliCrats, who cater to the interests of the 0.001%, who keep us divided. It's been that way since at least 1970, if this set of interviews from 1970 is to be believed[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeeA-IU45pc

[bigstrat2003]

Amen. Both parties are equally hostile to my freedom and well being. I would love to have another option, but Americans have been brainwashed by the parties in power to think that they are "wasting" their vote if they vote for anyone else. I have voted third party in every election since I turned 18, but as long as that pernicious lie continues to spread nothing will change. It's a dumpster fire and I don't expect it'll ever be fixed in my lifetime.

[notTooFarGone]

They are wasting their vote and actively vote against their interests by voting third-party.

This is a well established fact and the main reason why the voting system needs an overhaul to allow for ranked choice or something similar.

Chances of Duopoly parties doing that by their own are 0% - so it has to be the people.

[webninja]

No they’re not. If a third party gets 5% of the vote, they receive federal funding during the next election which could be enough to make them go mainstream. Also every vote is tallied so your vote is more visible when you vote for a 3rd party. Anonymously of course.

[shiroiushi]

>So yes, part of the government is serious, while another part is serious about doing the opposite, which does produce the intended effect: public perception that the US government is not serious about these things.

I disagree with your conclusion. My conclusion is that, yes, the US government really is not serious about these things. It's not just a "public perception", it's reality. It's reality because half the people in that government act this way and make it reality, and because those half the people in government are voted into their positions by half the voters in the population.

>What it will take for all political interests to align for the sake of US interests? Probably turning off financial lobbying from shadow money groups.

Financial lobbying isn't the reason that half the people are voting for a party that works against US's best interests. Those voters really do believe in the people they're voting for, and think that they really can make America like the 1950s again somehow.

[schainks]

You're right. The government is only as serious about this as the people are who elect our leaders.

> Financial lobbying isn't the reason that half the people are voting for a party that works against US's best interests. Those voters really do believe in the people they're voting for, and think that they really can make America like the 1950s again somehow.

If the financial lobbying machine was turned off tomorrow, most of the money for the culture war goes away on mass media.

I do agree said voters think they can "roll back the clock," to to speak, but it is an erroneous belief. 1950s USA had much more of that socialism thing that resulted in technological advancements and super-power-ness.

One thing about the 1950s those people have right is that median income back then was closely tied to productivity, whereas today it just isn't, which is shafting everyone except the ultra wealthy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...)

[Pigalowda]

Says you! I think it’s important for my political party to only a function when it has majority control over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as well as majority control over provincial governance.

Once we have that we can show our voters how disappointment really feels. It needs to feel so soul crushing we completely implode our party and die out in irrelevance. That’s my thoughts on it anyways.

[throwanem]

How dare you suggest a political party should offer some material benefit to its supporters in exchange for their effort and partisanship!

[xp84]

> one political party whose goal is to hinder US interests in any way possible while complaining that the US doesn’t do enough to bolster said interests.

I’m really amused because I genuinely can’t tell which of our useless “parties” you’re referring to!

[schainks]

Relevant meme: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/233/325/33a

[UberFly]

I'm honestly not sure which one you're referring to.

[e40]

Must be the Republicans because they have been trying to strangle government for decades by making it look incompetent so they can point to it and say “see, I told you.”

[rayiner]

What republicans are making the government in California and New York look incompetent?

[e40]

The comment I was replying to was more general.

There are lots of examples of Republicans sabotaging government legislation. The most recent case is the immigration deal reached by Senate Democrats and Republicans. They did this to make the current administration look incompetent so they could allow Trump to "win" on the issue next year.

[rayiner]

You would have a point if the border deal gave republicans what they wanted but they rejected it anyway. But the border deal is a compromise between Democrats and a minority faction of the Republican Party that wants cheap immigrant labor. It includes things like immediate work permits for illegal border crossers claiming asylum, and enforcement provisions that don’t kick in until 5,000 crossings per month (five times higher than the rate when Obama was President).

Rejecting a compromise bill is in no way “sabotage.” Republicans (probably correctly) perceive that public sentiment about immigration is such that they can hold out for a better deal.

A truer example of “sabotage” would be the immigration compromise under Reagan. There, the parties reached a deal to combine amnesty with stronger border protections. But the second half of that deal never happened.

Regardless, you dodged my point about blue states. If the US government was dysfunctional because of republicans, blue states should be like Denmark—at least within the spheres where the state governments have primacy. Maryland should have world-beating schools, transit, healthcare, compassionate policing, and etc. Almost all of those are domains that are almost exclusively within the province of the states. But as a Maryland resident I can assure you it’s nothing like Denmark. The American inability to operate government effectively and efficiently is a bipartisan issue.

[e40]

Your reply is disingenuous. The deal was between Senate Republicans and Democrats. They agreed fully. They only people that don't like the deal are the extreme House Republicans and they represent a powerful but minor of Republicans in the House. If you look at everyone in Congress, there is definitely general support for the failed bill. And, the failed bill is a step in the right direction. To say it was a compromise is absurd, unless you want every bill to be perfect when it is voted on. There can always be further refinement of the law, through future legislation.

On your other point about blue states. There are a lot of people who think blue states are much better places to live because of their legal/legislative climates. Ask people in Oklahoma who want IVF.

In general, governing is hard and I'm not about to say that Democrats have perfected it or are even doing it effectively, on an absolute scale. I am saying that the current Republican party is (other's said it here first) a cult with a criminal at the head of the ticket and a bunch of obstructionists in the House and Senate. They care nothing of the rule of law, when it is they who bend it, but they will scream bloody murder if the other side takes a tiny step in that direction.

[greenavocado]

Republicans are completely irrelevant. They have accomplished nothing except skim some cream off Democrat initiatives.

[twoodfin]

Republicans have basically 0 to do with any of the reasons the Biden administration is struggling to implement the CHIPS act.

They’re struggling because

a) Industrial policy is hard enough in a federal system without …

b) A federal government inexperienced with implementing industrial policy and …

c) An administration that sees industrial policy as YA avenue to achieve its social objectives, so called “everything bagel liberalism” [1].

I think industrial policy is a terrible idea, so not too distressed to see it trip out of the starting gate.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/02/opinion/democrats-liberal...

[TaylorAlexander]

The comment we're discussing just mentions “US interests”. So for example providing military support to Ukraine, which the republicans keep blocking, or establishing programs to manage the border, which Biden has proposed and Republicans now oppose because they don’t want that issue relieved before the election, so they can point at how bad Biden is with the border.

[rayiner]

Supporting Ukraine isn’t in America’s interest. Stopping bankrolling random foreign wars was one thing republicans finally got right after decades of getting it wrong.

And the border proposal was a fake-out, just like Reagan’s amnesty, which was supposed to be combined with border controls but never was. The goal of the recent border legislation was to make 5,000 illegal crossings a day (5 times higher than under Obama) the “new normal.”

[schainks]

It is absolutely in America's interest. For less than 0.01% of the defense budget, the USA can disarm Russia as a threat for another 50 years, if not forever.

The ROI looks pretty good:

1. Bolster NATO (Sweden and Finland have joined already)

2. Bolster the EU (Ukraine and Turkey gaining membership would be interesting)

3. Revive EU self-interest in not relying on US military and cash. This directly results in less foreign random wars because more parties are stakeholders.

4. Diplomatic leverage against China. They are actively supplying manufacturing capacity for weapons to the Russians.

5. Transparency around for who is supplying who with what regarding weapons and Russia. This makes it easier to sanction people/companies that do things that are Bad For Business globally.

[TaylorAlexander]

Edit: I misread the comment

[downrightmike]

You read their comment wrong.