Anthony Sabatini, who is running for Congress in Florida's 11th district, reportedly made the remarks during June's Florida Teenage Republicans Youth Summit.
I feel the same way. I’m very left leaning to the point that I’m probably Progressive, but I recognize the need for an opposition party - as long as that party operates in good faith. I wouldn’t want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad. Maybe we’d see a lot of progress in the short term, but corruption would intensify and it would end really badly.
However, the key part of this is “operates in good faith.” I don’t think the Republicans do this anymore. They prioritize attacking people living their lives and culture war stuff over everything. With every issue, they don’t ask “how can we help people.” Instead they ask “how can I turn this into a culture war/battle against woke in order to get more political power?” They’ll shatter every norm and rule to gain slightly more power and it’s tearing the foundations of this country apart.
At this point, a great Republican with sane positions could emerge (don’t ask me from where or why they’d still be in the Republican party) and I wouldn’t vote for them.
So I’m going to take issue with a few things here. Progressive is not left. Socialist is left capitalist is right. It’s very frustrating to hear people keep making this claim. But it’s absolutely understandable considering the propaganda and indoctrination many of us in the United States go through. Now as far as progressive goes. The better term to describe it is pro-social democracy. Social democracy is inclusive. The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are loosely pro-social democracy and Republicans are authoritarian or anti-social democracy. Though they are both solidly right-wing.
If Republicans disappeared tomorrow we would not have to worry about finding an opposition party. The lot of us pro-social democracy socialists would instantly split off and form a party that represents us. And between the two of us. Both pro social democracy parties. We could stand to fix a lot of the problems capitalists have made. Not mistakes, problems. They did this shit on purpose. Just some food for thought and perhaps something you had not thought about or been aware of before.
I’m very left leaning but I don’t think we as a society are necessarily ready for the optimal societal structure, and I know I don’t know what the best path to getting us there is.
I’m not against opposition parties, I think that we ideally need a bunch of distinct viewpoints at the table, but all of those distinct viewpoints should meet some minimum bar of human decency and respect.
Right now I think some of the stuff the GOP fights for is demonstrably below that bar, and I am not referring to the quiet and unheard constituents, I’m referring to the people with the loudspeaker.
Some examples of viewpoints that don’t get a seat at the table are pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-sexual abuse, pro-fake medicine, pro-corporate ownership, etc. An opposition party is not a party that supports these things, an opposition party would be one that says “hey rather than letting X company corner the market and have a de facto monopoly, we break them up so they have less control”, or “hey instead of invading another country militarily, we offer humanitarian aid instead”, or “hey if we’re going to rework the economy to have more freedom and respect for the consumer, instead of socializing production of resources we adopt more competition-oriented free-market regulations”. The thing is, this isn’t what any opposition party is doing.
(I’ll also admit that I was a fool for thinking that big tech hate by the right was ever going to lead stronger regulation of the big tech corporate empires, it’s just hollow and blind hatred, all bark and literally no useful bite.)
but I don’t think we as a society are necessarily ready
So, I’ve two thoughts on this. The first is that yeah, a good chunk of people have been propaganda-ized into thinking things that will help them are magically bad because the “other team” wants them. And I agree that there’s a hell of a fight that has to happen to get through this brokenness in the system.
The second thought is that “waiting for the most opportune time” because you’re afraid of how rough the fight/struggle will be is how you sit idly by and LET the rot continue to spread.
I wanted to call the second bit out because it’s pretty common for people to see a battle is going to be hard, and think it’s better to wait for a “better” time.
It’s kind of a form of tone policing, almost? Like–“If you’re weren’t SO ANGRY about these things THEN I’d support you?” Except in slightly a different context, a slightly different form. So instead it’s, “If it wouldn’t be SO HARD to do right now, THEN I’d help you do it–but things better calm down first before I’m willing to lift a finger!”
Same energy as tone-policing…basically, other things being emotional/hard to deal with makes someone opt-out of trying, and makes them say they want to wait until a “better” time, even if it’s unlikely that better time will ever come.
tl;dr: I don’t think we can shift to an optimal societal structure overnight, but there are already concrete steps to take along that path that we could and should have already taken yesterday. None of my judgements are based on “is it too hard?” just “will it work, and if it won’t work yet what can we do to get to a situation where it will be possible?” Under no circumstances do I think sitting around doing nothing and waiting is the correct decision.
I was sort of masking my thoughts so they may have come out unclear, so I will be more clear:
I think that the future of humanity requires us to become space-faring. Our current ownership model is fundamentally incompatible with us being space-faring and successful at it. We can’t transition all of society to a space-compatible structure overnight, it would end in failure since it would cause immediate mass revolt.
I don’t think we should wait to make changes to society though. I just think we need a transition and I’m willing to work with anyone who has good-faith proposals on steps we can take now to eventually get there.
From my point of view there’s never going to be a time where we can shift overnight because we can’t handle that extreme of a shift.
One concession of a space-compatible society unfortunately is the “complete” freedom we have today and the concept of ownership. In a space-compatible society every person must play their part. Only after essentials are covered would people have freedom and ownership, but even still both would be restricted and it would be semi-meritocratic. Security would also become paramount.
Things like single-payer health care and education are relatively basic and realistically speaking should be inoffensive short-term steps that we take. The best time for those steps was yesterday, the second best time is now. Things like UBI would be the step after that, and role-optimization would come after even UBI because that’s when we begin to lose some freedom. I think role-optimization is something we can’t even implement yet but would cause riots and it would take a generation or two with the previously mentioned things before it could be applied society-wide (it’s already something that will be required for early space colonization).
I wouldn’t want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad.
I agree with the spirit of where you’re coming from, but I don’t think this is a realistic risk. More than two major political ideologies effectively exist already, but their coalitions are the parties themselves due to the limitations inherent in the US voting system.
The Democrat party already encompasses a broad spectrum of political philosophies, and they’re not in the same party because they want to be. They are a de facto coalition of whatever the Republican party isn’t. This is because the US leans to the right on the Overton window, and the two-party government of the US forces the role of the leftist party into being the kitchen sink coalition. This regretfully gets wallpapered over by the “radical left” narrative talking point that Republican media chestbeats over relentlessly, to the point where the average American never makes this connection.
If I were to wave my magic wand and enact voting reform that doesn’t empower a two-party system, we have at least four parties worth of politicians in play:
establishment liberals, neoliberals, etc.
everyone in the democrat party who is to the left of them (who would realistically form more than just one party)
non-MAGA conservatives (Republicans who jumped ship to Democrat already/are too indoctrinated to consider it, conservative politicians who don’t agree with party leadership but maintain status quo for their careers)
Far-right Freedom Caucus types. McCarthy would already backstab these guys in a heartbeat if his speakership was politically viable without them. The fact that Republican leadership cares more about ego than principles is what put them into this predicament. (largely a consequence of what safe primaries have done to political strategies, but that’s another rant)
You can split this up even further by pointing out libertarians (ones that aren’t really just conservatives who don’t want to be Republicans anymore) and others, but it’s enough to make the point. Let the Republican party collapse. Something else will immediately take its place, and as long as their replacement recognizes that the Freedom Caucus is what sank them, maybe they can steal enough of the right leaning Democrats to where they no longer need the far right crazies to be politically viable. A system that accommodates more than two parties would be better still, but congress critters are never going to vote in favor of something that weakens their own power. Voting reform will have to happen at the state level.
I feel the same way. I’m very left leaning to the point that I’m probably Progressive, but I recognize the need for an opposition party - as long as that party operates in good faith. I wouldn’t want the Republican party to vanish and have nothing take its place. Having only Democratic party candidates to choose from would be bad. Maybe we’d see a lot of progress in the short term, but corruption would intensify and it would end really badly.
However, the key part of this is “operates in good faith.” I don’t think the Republicans do this anymore. They prioritize attacking people living their lives and culture war stuff over everything. With every issue, they don’t ask “how can we help people.” Instead they ask “how can I turn this into a culture war/battle against woke in order to get more political power?” They’ll shatter every norm and rule to gain slightly more power and it’s tearing the foundations of this country apart.
At this point, a great Republican with sane positions could emerge (don’t ask me from where or why they’d still be in the Republican party) and I wouldn’t vote for them.
So I’m going to take issue with a few things here. Progressive is not left. Socialist is left capitalist is right. It’s very frustrating to hear people keep making this claim. But it’s absolutely understandable considering the propaganda and indoctrination many of us in the United States go through. Now as far as progressive goes. The better term to describe it is pro-social democracy. Social democracy is inclusive. The only real difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are loosely pro-social democracy and Republicans are authoritarian or anti-social democracy. Though they are both solidly right-wing.
If Republicans disappeared tomorrow we would not have to worry about finding an opposition party. The lot of us pro-social democracy socialists would instantly split off and form a party that represents us. And between the two of us. Both pro social democracy parties. We could stand to fix a lot of the problems capitalists have made. Not mistakes, problems. They did this shit on purpose. Just some food for thought and perhaps something you had not thought about or been aware of before.
I’m very left leaning but I don’t think we as a society are necessarily ready for the optimal societal structure, and I know I don’t know what the best path to getting us there is.
I’m not against opposition parties, I think that we ideally need a bunch of distinct viewpoints at the table, but all of those distinct viewpoints should meet some minimum bar of human decency and respect.
Right now I think some of the stuff the GOP fights for is demonstrably below that bar, and I am not referring to the quiet and unheard constituents, I’m referring to the people with the loudspeaker.
Some examples of viewpoints that don’t get a seat at the table are pro-slavery, pro-genocide, pro-sexual abuse, pro-fake medicine, pro-corporate ownership, etc. An opposition party is not a party that supports these things, an opposition party would be one that says “hey rather than letting X company corner the market and have a de facto monopoly, we break them up so they have less control”, or “hey instead of invading another country militarily, we offer humanitarian aid instead”, or “hey if we’re going to rework the economy to have more freedom and respect for the consumer, instead of socializing production of resources we adopt more competition-oriented free-market regulations”. The thing is, this isn’t what any opposition party is doing.
(I’ll also admit that I was a fool for thinking that big tech hate by the right was ever going to lead stronger regulation of the big tech corporate empires, it’s just hollow and blind hatred, all bark and literally no useful bite.)
So, I’ve two thoughts on this. The first is that yeah, a good chunk of people have been propaganda-ized into thinking things that will help them are magically bad because the “other team” wants them. And I agree that there’s a hell of a fight that has to happen to get through this brokenness in the system.
The second thought is that “waiting for the most opportune time” because you’re afraid of how rough the fight/struggle will be is how you sit idly by and LET the rot continue to spread.
I wanted to call the second bit out because it’s pretty common for people to see a battle is going to be hard, and think it’s better to wait for a “better” time.
It’s kind of a form of tone policing, almost? Like–“If you’re weren’t SO ANGRY about these things THEN I’d support you?” Except in slightly a different context, a slightly different form. So instead it’s, “If it wouldn’t be SO HARD to do right now, THEN I’d help you do it–but things better calm down first before I’m willing to lift a finger!”
Same energy as tone-policing…basically, other things being emotional/hard to deal with makes someone opt-out of trying, and makes them say they want to wait until a “better” time, even if it’s unlikely that better time will ever come.
tl;dr: I don’t think we can shift to an optimal societal structure overnight, but there are already concrete steps to take along that path that we could and should have already taken yesterday. None of my judgements are based on “is it too hard?” just “will it work, and if it won’t work yet what can we do to get to a situation where it will be possible?” Under no circumstances do I think sitting around doing nothing and waiting is the correct decision.
I was sort of masking my thoughts so they may have come out unclear, so I will be more clear:
I think that the future of humanity requires us to become space-faring. Our current ownership model is fundamentally incompatible with us being space-faring and successful at it. We can’t transition all of society to a space-compatible structure overnight, it would end in failure since it would cause immediate mass revolt.
I don’t think we should wait to make changes to society though. I just think we need a transition and I’m willing to work with anyone who has good-faith proposals on steps we can take now to eventually get there.
From my point of view there’s never going to be a time where we can shift overnight because we can’t handle that extreme of a shift.
One concession of a space-compatible society unfortunately is the “complete” freedom we have today and the concept of ownership. In a space-compatible society every person must play their part. Only after essentials are covered would people have freedom and ownership, but even still both would be restricted and it would be semi-meritocratic. Security would also become paramount.
Things like single-payer health care and education are relatively basic and realistically speaking should be inoffensive short-term steps that we take. The best time for those steps was yesterday, the second best time is now. Things like UBI would be the step after that, and role-optimization would come after even UBI because that’s when we begin to lose some freedom. I think role-optimization is something we can’t even implement yet but would cause riots and it would take a generation or two with the previously mentioned things before it could be applied society-wide (it’s already something that will be required for early space colonization).
I agree with the spirit of where you’re coming from, but I don’t think this is a realistic risk. More than two major political ideologies effectively exist already, but their coalitions are the parties themselves due to the limitations inherent in the US voting system.
The Democrat party already encompasses a broad spectrum of political philosophies, and they’re not in the same party because they want to be. They are a de facto coalition of whatever the Republican party isn’t. This is because the US leans to the right on the Overton window, and the two-party government of the US forces the role of the leftist party into being the kitchen sink coalition. This regretfully gets wallpapered over by the “radical left” narrative talking point that Republican media chestbeats over relentlessly, to the point where the average American never makes this connection.
If I were to wave my magic wand and enact voting reform that doesn’t empower a two-party system, we have at least four parties worth of politicians in play:
You can split this up even further by pointing out libertarians (ones that aren’t really just conservatives who don’t want to be Republicans anymore) and others, but it’s enough to make the point. Let the Republican party collapse. Something else will immediately take its place, and as long as their replacement recognizes that the Freedom Caucus is what sank them, maybe they can steal enough of the right leaning Democrats to where they no longer need the far right crazies to be politically viable. A system that accommodates more than two parties would be better still, but congress critters are never going to vote in favor of something that weakens their own power. Voting reform will have to happen at the state level.