by theluckycountry » Fri 23 May 2025, 21:28:54
Here is a good an analysis of politics I've ever read
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he last fifty years has seen the relentless shift of formerly progressive political parties to the right, to the point that now so-called “liberal” parties are right-of-centre neoliberal, war-mongering, billionaire-coddling apologists for the political and economic status quo, even though these systems are obviously falling apart and not serving their citizens.
And when a true progressive leader emerges, like a Bernie Sanders or a Jeremy Corbyn, they are immediately sabotaged, largely from within, by right-wingers infiltrating these parties, whose vested interests are threatened by progressives.
There is no conspiracy here. When a particular party has been in power for a long time, during which the quality of government services has conspicuously declined, and during which it has allowed itself to be bullied by rich donors and lobby and pressure groups into actions that are anathema to its base, its unpopularity should come as no surprise. And running on a platform of “At least we’re not as bad and scary as the other party” is unlikely to be a successful strategy.
These parties are not idiots. They are not deliberately shooting themselves in the foot. So why are they acting so incompetently, and selecting such incompetent ‘leaders’?
Money is, of course, a large part of the reason. Money buys power. If the rich make supporting the party conditional on certain platforms, laws and (de-)regulations, the party is naturally going to do what it’s told. Those who buck the donors are unlikely to be even nominated by the party, let alone win against a barrage of attack ads and financial support for opponents by the disgruntled billionaires who’ve been snubbed. Given the dumbing down of the citizenry in many countries, and the increasing impact of propaganda, mis- and disinformation and censorship, that is unlikely to change.
The right-wing autocrats who are in their ascendancy almost everywhere are not “populists”. They are the only choice for the large majority of voters who are fed up with dysfunctional, unresponsive, and unrepresentative governments. They are protest votes. The last US election was not “won” by Trump; it was lost by Biden/Harris and their handlers, who told the voters things have never been better and the alternative was scary and dangerous. You don’t win elections by scare-mongering, war-mongering, and lying to voters.
Same thing in Canada. Voters repulsed by the racist anti-government hate-monger Poilievre turned on a dime after threatening to support him and oust the incompetent, toadying, pro-war “Liberal” Trudeau, when the party ousted Trudeau and replaced him with the political neophyte Carney. Now, instead for voting against Trudeau and the useless and broken status quo, they were free to vote instead against the lunatic Poilievre, who even lost his own riding. Both Carney and the reelected Australian PM Albanese won because Canadians and Australians both loathe Trump and his tariffs more than they loathe the government parties overseeing the falling-apart of their political and economic systems. Likewise, the US Congress (both parties) is loathed even more than Trump. Voters across the political spectrum are justifiably outraged by the incompetence, deceptions, unfulfilled promises, misallocation of funds, and the ignorance and neglect of citizens’ needs and suffering, that all of our governments have demonstrated over the past fifty years, almost without exception.
This is a completely unsustainable situation. I can see only two possible outcomes:
The citizens will give up on “democracy” and the role of government entirely, and continue to support those (mostly ideological right-wingers) advocating (and now implementing) its dismantling; or
A new progressive movement will arise to fill the void with programs that actually live up to their heretofore purely performative ‘principled’ utterances.
The argument Aurélien has consistent made why the second outcome is not happening and seems unlikely to happen is that it takes time, money, and sustained organizational effort to launch a political movement. It looked for a while as if Occupy might evolve to be such a movement, but look what happened to it. The New Green Deal stumbled and fell before it had even started to gather steam. When true socialists like Bernie and Jeremy looked as if they might steamroller such a movement to power, the moneyed interests, notably within their own parties, quickly crushed their movements with money, propaganda, and innuendo.
We learn slowly, we civilized humans, especially in systems that keep us ignorant and as dependent as infants on the status quo. So I tend to agree with Aurélien that this ‘second option’ is unlikely to happen. I think we are likely to continue to stumble into electing autocracies that will continue to erode our trust in, and destroy, our governments. Though at least these ideological despots clearly show that money and corporations already actually run our political systems, and that the ‘democracies’ that governments want us to believe we live under are a sham.
And because private moneyed interests are just as incompetent at running things as governments (they are, after all, largely the same gang passing through the revolving doors between government and corporations), and are even less interested in acting in the interest of the population as a whole, the ongoing collapse of our economic and political systems is likely to be faster and more brutal than it might have otherwise been.
I wrote recently about how I see that collapse unfolding, and it’s not pretty.
But I thought it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider what would be (or would have been) required for this second option to occur, and at least mitigate the effects of collapse.
The rest is here
https://howtosavetheworld.ca/
We're 17 years past the peak now and the 3rd World is going hungry and dark. We'll be next, we're well on the way in fact.