[analog31]

I used to think this too. But the past couple of years have soured my taste for "dismantle and replace" of vital institutions.

I still think healthcare needs to be reformed, and I hope that insurance will someday be a thing of a past, but I've hung up my chain saw for now.

[squigz]

This is because "dismantle and replace" (or perhaps in other words, "defunding") is not a serious, viable solution to many of the societal issues we face.

Things were ruined slowly. They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.

[ianbutler]

I don't think that's going to work. We need broad political change and then that has to work rapidly to legislate this. I don't think slow and steady has done anything but lead to the decay our institutions over the last 70 years.

[zbentley]

I think that both this and GP are misguided. The pace of societal change in a given direction is neither inherently proportional to the pace of change in a different direction (GP) nor is the pace part of the direction (you).

You have to engage with the specific historical events/factors that led to the direction and the pace in order to change either. Broad statements like "society is big so change has to be slow" are just as unwarranted as "slow change results in decline".

There's a correct answer to "how quickly can change in a new direction be achieved". It will probably only become known after the fact. It will certainly not be model-able as a function with variables for "progressive or not" and "speed of change".

[ianbutler]

My argument is more along the lines of "slow change has resulted in decline observably for the time period I have observed it and we should try catalyzing something else"

I grant that whether that winds up being fast or slow even if the attempt is intended to be fast is out of my or anyone's hands for the most part as the system dampens that barring total collapse and chaos :P

[andrekandre]

  > They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.

this can work until you hit a crisis point; i think one issue is we are sliding faster in the wrong direction (increasing bureaucracy, increasing fees, wait times, overwork etc) so "slowly" can work but only if its "fast enough" if you get what i mean (people are really suffering out there)

[ianbutler]

It's increased mine if it works for the repugnant morons in government right now we can use the same playbook for positive change.

[MostlyStable]

It is statements like this that convince me we haven't learned anything and are doomed to ever wider pendulum swings.

[ianbutler]

I think the time for the normal decorum and extended hand have passed.

[MostlyStable]

I wonder if your political opponents see things similarly. Types like these, a theory of mind is especially useful.

[ianbutler]

Of course they do. Most of their platform is built on [appearing] to repudiate coastal elitism and left wing dogma in higher education + globalism with a healthy dose of fuck you because you're you.

And I graciously waited and allowed them to do things that will take decades if not more to repair before deciding they were irredeemable. I had hoped a middle ground and bipartisan ship would be reached, but it's clear to me it won't be. We do not inhabit the same universe at this point, the disdain is mutual.

You’re acting like I’ve always thought about them like this or like I haven't spent years observing and thinking about this to come to my conclusion. You'd do well to listen to your own words about theory of mind. I was raised conservative I voted for Romney. I'm a fan of many of the political platforms they run on now (minus originalism, removing bodily rights, religion), but in practice they do not walk their own talk. The wars, the spending, abandoning neo-liberalism except in word the blatant corruption and disdain for the positions they hold and how they appear on the world stage.

No, I’ve watched their actions for 15 years and moved ever closer to the position that I have nothing in common with them even being ideologically close to a version of their party from 20-30 years ago and they do so blatantly want to destroy the middle class, health, and wealth for anyone outside a small oligarchic class.

I'm pissed because they wear a lot of my ideology as cheap dress to fuck someone.

[MostlyStable]

You are describing a set of dynamics that lead nowhere other than violence and total and complete breakdown of the polity. If you are correct, then nothing matters, everything is fucked. You won't get what you want, but neither will anyone else.

My preferences, while possibly futile, are least an attempt to not just accomplish short term goals but to fix the broken dynamics of the system. That is, in my opinion, far more important than literally any particular policy goal. Policy progress is pointless in a broken system, so fix the system first.

It's possible that my view of focusing on fixing the system, restoring institutions, erecting new guide-rails in places we have observed that the old ones don't work, etc. won't work. But at least it has a chance of producing a good outcome. A good outcome literally can't come from the kind of political behavior you describe. You want your side to seize as much power as it possibly can when it wins, enact as much "good" as it possibly can in however long it can maintain it's grip before the political tides inevitably swing and you lose power again. You don't seem to realize that this is what we have been doing for at least several cycles now. And what we have seen is that the next administration just tears up the progress, does the same thing except in the opposite direction and even harder, and does what they view as "the good thing" and which your side views as nothing but unmitigated evil (the same way they viewed you and yours when you were in power), and so the both sides have accomplished nothing but pushing the pendulum a little bit further, giving it a little more momentum, and shredding up the social fabric a little bit more.

I'm not so naive as to believe that it is possible for just one side to say "no we won't do that, we will unilaterally disarm". But I am of the belief that, if one wants to pretend that one is "on the side of good", that the only rational action is to, when granted power, to spend as much political capital as is possible to slow down the pendulum, tear back power from the bloated executive and the federal branch more broadly. Stop trying to enact your political project and instead make your political project nothing other than the restoration of the norms and principles of the constitution.

This is not something that has been tried and failed. it's the opposite of the past 50 years of federal political dynamics. What has been tried is your plan of "fuck the other side, they are evil, just do what our base wants and ignore consensus and norms".

It doesn't work, it won't work, and it can't work. It's destroying the country.

From my perspective, you are no better than the side you hate. You may want different policy goals, but both you and your polar opposites are collaborating on a shared project: the destruction of the country.

[SauntSolaire]

It's easy to destroy but hard to create. If your goal is to further destroy then I suppose that's achievable, but I have a hard time picturing what positive change is going to come from it.

[ianbutler]

No offense, but this comes off as passive indifference and while I've heard people say things like this all my life it has broadly resulted in watching 30 years of societal decay. I can't help but think this is wrong.

We should have stacked the courts ourselves, brandished executive orders etc, had some spine.

Edit: I think I need to make clear my thinking that the right has selectively destroyed institutions and levied them in other areas where it makes sense for their agenda. It's not been wanton. So when I say leverage the playbook it's not a one sided act of destruction.

[mrguyorama]

"Stacking courts" would require a Senate that actually votes those judges in. "Brandishing Executive orders" requires a congress that won't be able to countermand you and a Supreme Court that won't "nuh uh" you.

You are yet another person upset that Democrats cannot overcome the purposeful design of our government that you need a lot of power to build, and little power to destroy.

People who want to fix things need dramatically more power than people who want to stymie and break things. Democrats only rarely get that power, and usually only by one or two votes from people who strictly do not care about fixing things. You want this country to fix things? You need to vote significantly more for a party who will push to fix things.

The minority party in congress has no power by design.

[ianbutler]

Im an independent who would prefer a version of republicanism that died and the closest thing I have is a deeply ineffective party. While the right is currently building things I don't like to put in place institutions and laws I dont like.

All of you talking about the right destroying things are wrong they’re just building things and enshrining things you wont like.

[SauntSolaire]

Let's say, hypothetically, you had two political parties — a "destroy the current institutions" party, and the "preserve the current institutions" party.

The latter might notice the former having an easier time, but "hey, it works for them" is the wrong takeaway. Commit to the hard work of building resilient institutions; don't join in the destruction because it's easier.

There's also an element of "Never (...), they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

[ianbutler]

The republicans are building things not just destroying is the point. It’s just stuff you wont like. This is why Im not a democrat. The left hasn't been able to effect change or be useful ever [my entire life], sure loves to moralize though.

[zbentley]

Strongly agree. I think some (not all) of the Trumpian playbook can be wielded very effectively for non-conservative parties, for a few reasons:

- Some executive orders are always flipped as soon as the opposition takes office, but some unilateral changes are much harder for a cyclical/pendulum-swing opposition season to reverse than they are to emplace. We don't know which are which yet. The return-to-office mandate for Federal workers is probably one that'll have a lasting effect--even if un-done in the future, the average prospective Federal worker will consider the job as something that has a significant likelihood of requiring in-person work if the political winds change and that EO is restored.

- Some things really do get permanently addressed within an electoral season, if you have the guts to shotgun through enacting a solution to them. The withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Afghanistan under Biden is a good example of this. So is the "Fork"/RIF/firing wave of Federal employees under Trump. I'm not saying those are both good things, but they aren't "reversible" in the sense that, say, the Global Gag Rule was endlessly reversible.

- Success follows success, as well. Part of the reason that momentum holds such a sacred place in electoral planning is the same reason that Trump's "flood the zone" strategy was effective (again--not good, but undeniably effective): capitalizing on/marketing early unilateral wins of any size results in the public and Congress being more likely to support larger, more durable changes. This is complicated by many factors (media landscape, districting, money), but is broadly true.

[tehjoker]

You've witnessed a dismantle and replace effort by the right wing that wishes to squeeze everything to make rich people more money. An effort by the left would destroy the private insurance scheme and build up medicare. Completely different and you'd get something functional.

When the wrong targets get destroyed, everyone suffers. When parasitic forces are destroyed, the system functions better. It's the difference between defense and friendly fire.

[kortilla]

We already had an effort by the left. You can “no true scotsmen” if you want, but it represents the reality of what will happen when ideals clash a sector that makes up 18% of the GDP.

What’s going to be different now than in 2010?

[myko]

Are you referring to the ACA here? That was a compromise bill that props up the current system in the US, primarily created by right leaning centrists.

[BigTTYGothGF]

> We already had an effort by the left.

You mean the one based on Mitt Romney's approach?

[kortilla]

Yep, that Obama spearheaded and was the keystone piece of legislation of the entire administration

[lpcvoid]

Why is this downvoted? What the (far) right wing has done to american institutions is incredibly destructive and it will take decades to fix it, if that's even possible. People are hurting because of it.

[HPsquared]

Replace first, then the old broken one will fade away.