I really liked Ezra Klein's description of the realignments that American politics have seen in the last 30 years. I highly recommend giving it a listen if you, like me, have been struggling to contextualize this election in the bigger picture of political movements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbS5npUI4vU
If you are interested in past Realignments let me suggest a fantastic book by the aforementioned Frank DiStefano.
It’s called The Next Realignment and it is a magical analysis of how the silos of politics, religion, economics, history and every day people interact to create what happens in America.
So I think you have missed something. The new Republican party, and it is new, is not a worker/owner dichotomy rather it is a party which proposes unity of workers,management, and owners. Which really is the only thing that makes sense in a capitalistic, market driven nation. While I have no doubt that you have much to offer as we make this transition I strongly caution you against getting up on a high horse to provide guidance for those less enlightened than yourself. That methodology was soundly rejected on November 5, 2024.
Lynne, thank you for sharing your views. To be honest, I may have missed many things in trying to articulate the logic for an independent national coalition in 76 essays.
In this essay, I quoted several descriptions from one author of the realignment that is taking place. I agree that we have a new Republican party, but I don't immediately agree that we are seeing a unity of workers, management, and owners. I also think it is too early to tell what the Republican party is going to be as this realignment continues. I think Donald Trump has to exit the stage to know where it all settles. Both presidential campaigns in 2024 sold phrases and ideas to the public that are not congruent with past behaviors. For this reason and many others, I think a movement is needed that is independent of either party and geared to holding elected leaders accountable for policy ideas that resonate with a supermajority of Americans. This movement includes a methodology to adopt ideas through the use of representative citizens' assemblies.
Lastly, capitalism is a wonderful system. It can also run into trouble when concentration becomes too prevalent (monopoly and oligopoly) and rent seeking corrupts state power.
Thanks for this input as well as the the original post. I think we are largely in agreement merely differ as to methodology. To my mind the traditional two-party system (and I am a firm proponent thereof) just demonstrated once again its viability. I see the concept of populism as providing the supermajority. And this is not the first time it has done so. I view it as necessary course correction from time to time. Once that mission is accomplished it tends to ride off into the sunset. I think both parties always transition and some fail if they are unable to do so. FWIW Trump is essentially a lame duck but to his credit IMO is seeking to secure that the Republican party maintains its recent realignment. My fervent hope is that the Democrat party will likewise see the errors of its ways and transition accordingly. But I am opposed to a multiple party system because it requires compromise among lesser parties which to.my mind leads not to govegnment by compromise but to compromised government. That is actually what has happened yo the Democrat party at this pount. The pro-Palestine members hate the pro-Israel faction. The same sex and women's factions are being sacrificed to the trans faction. Men are wholly disregarded as evidenced by those ridiculous ads and the sermons by Obama and others. All of our institutions are subject to capture (for lack of a better term) and our capitalist institutions are no different. But government oversight thereof has not prevented that but rather has confounded it. For example you will never convince me that the Federal Reserve is anything ore than a shill for financiers. It is really nothing more than a cudgel to enforce unpopular pisitions. For your own good of course. Which infects the entire capitalistic system. For another example how wise is it to seek foreign investment, then take those monies as sanctions for some perceived grievance? And do not get me started on what has happened to the once noble health care profession at the hands of the regulators. Or education. As for a super-majority, yes and no. That old tyranny of the majority always echoes in my thought process. But I am very happy to see the razor thin margin in political elections start to break because it does provide indicia of popular support. But I think to call this election a mandate is foolhardy because support is far from universal. But change is clearly afoot. From an organic movement. Think about it. This election was not about the money, the polls or the media. Rather the American citizens spoke. That is the way it should be.
I really liked Ezra Klein's description of the realignments that American politics have seen in the last 30 years. I highly recommend giving it a listen if you, like me, have been struggling to contextualize this election in the bigger picture of political movements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbS5npUI4vU
If you are interested in past Realignments let me suggest a fantastic book by the aforementioned Frank DiStefano.
It’s called The Next Realignment and it is a magical analysis of how the silos of politics, religion, economics, history and every day people interact to create what happens in America.
Excellent recommendation!
So I think you have missed something. The new Republican party, and it is new, is not a worker/owner dichotomy rather it is a party which proposes unity of workers,management, and owners. Which really is the only thing that makes sense in a capitalistic, market driven nation. While I have no doubt that you have much to offer as we make this transition I strongly caution you against getting up on a high horse to provide guidance for those less enlightened than yourself. That methodology was soundly rejected on November 5, 2024.
Lynne, thank you for sharing your views. To be honest, I may have missed many things in trying to articulate the logic for an independent national coalition in 76 essays.
In this essay, I quoted several descriptions from one author of the realignment that is taking place. I agree that we have a new Republican party, but I don't immediately agree that we are seeing a unity of workers, management, and owners. I also think it is too early to tell what the Republican party is going to be as this realignment continues. I think Donald Trump has to exit the stage to know where it all settles. Both presidential campaigns in 2024 sold phrases and ideas to the public that are not congruent with past behaviors. For this reason and many others, I think a movement is needed that is independent of either party and geared to holding elected leaders accountable for policy ideas that resonate with a supermajority of Americans. This movement includes a methodology to adopt ideas through the use of representative citizens' assemblies.
Lastly, capitalism is a wonderful system. It can also run into trouble when concentration becomes too prevalent (monopoly and oligopoly) and rent seeking corrupts state power.
Thanks for this input as well as the the original post. I think we are largely in agreement merely differ as to methodology. To my mind the traditional two-party system (and I am a firm proponent thereof) just demonstrated once again its viability. I see the concept of populism as providing the supermajority. And this is not the first time it has done so. I view it as necessary course correction from time to time. Once that mission is accomplished it tends to ride off into the sunset. I think both parties always transition and some fail if they are unable to do so. FWIW Trump is essentially a lame duck but to his credit IMO is seeking to secure that the Republican party maintains its recent realignment. My fervent hope is that the Democrat party will likewise see the errors of its ways and transition accordingly. But I am opposed to a multiple party system because it requires compromise among lesser parties which to.my mind leads not to govegnment by compromise but to compromised government. That is actually what has happened yo the Democrat party at this pount. The pro-Palestine members hate the pro-Israel faction. The same sex and women's factions are being sacrificed to the trans faction. Men are wholly disregarded as evidenced by those ridiculous ads and the sermons by Obama and others. All of our institutions are subject to capture (for lack of a better term) and our capitalist institutions are no different. But government oversight thereof has not prevented that but rather has confounded it. For example you will never convince me that the Federal Reserve is anything ore than a shill for financiers. It is really nothing more than a cudgel to enforce unpopular pisitions. For your own good of course. Which infects the entire capitalistic system. For another example how wise is it to seek foreign investment, then take those monies as sanctions for some perceived grievance? And do not get me started on what has happened to the once noble health care profession at the hands of the regulators. Or education. As for a super-majority, yes and no. That old tyranny of the majority always echoes in my thought process. But I am very happy to see the razor thin margin in political elections start to break because it does provide indicia of popular support. But I think to call this election a mandate is foolhardy because support is far from universal. But change is clearly afoot. From an organic movement. Think about it. This election was not about the money, the polls or the media. Rather the American citizens spoke. That is the way it should be.