After having experienced the downsides of Trump's presidency in the US and Brexit in the UK, the greatest challenge we are going to face is not to convince the sceptics about those specific downsides and why nationalism can hardly be considered a rational option, but to return to
The capability of sharing our respective opinions most likely to oppose one another but to argue mutually without a sense of hostility; to be able to leave identity politics and tribalism aside and to enjoy a common ground rather than hard-headedly sticking to our non-compromisin
Demand to be served only our policy. There are many people especially on the left who wish their policies to be introduced without any compromises, but still, they want to see this happening inside the parliamentary state. They want specific things and actions to be condemned,
Certain movements to be prohibited (no sources to be mentioned as they are of no interest in terms of this definition). Inside Democracy, which builds upon open debate and occasional opposition, they are not fond of sealing compromises. Of course such figures can be found on the
Right as well, but it is the current left wing that depicts itself as the wing of rationality while there are figureheads in charge on the right threatening the free world with obsolete nationalism. Therefore, assuming the left is serious about its self-reflection as the movement
Of rationality, if also needs to be capable of questioning itself, of being able to confess personal failures. It must not equip the tool of utter polarisation, but has to move forward and confront its enemies with offers of compromise—and if those offers should be refused, they
At least can tell so with good reasons. To move forward and present an extreme intention not to be negotiated, the widening gap in society, torn open by the likes of Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro, is going to be opened even further—a poisonous development for a free
Society. Those who are interested in bringing society forward by any means possible have to do so firstly by reuniting the people. There can be no progress—there can be no progressive left!—without a united society. Before any progressive policies will be negotiated, the people
Have to be persuaded about the righteousness and benefits of them. To simply pass them forward despite a noticeable opposition is doing no-one any good. (noticeable = at least 50 percent). Such force-fed passes are venomous for the free society. Thus, for example, assuming Bernie
Sanders is going to win the IA primaries, it will depend on his probable victory in November 2020 whether he should push forward his agenda or whether he first should reconcile the US and enforce social unity. Even though Trumpists are stubborn nationalists, they are still a part
Of this nation, thus have to be carried with by those policies, or have to accompany them. That's what a nation is for, that's the whole concept of democracies. Any other way, they themselves are anti-democratic, self-contradictory. Those who didn't want to take them with
Themselves were better off promoting the dissolution of the state and create an Anarchist society. Because otherwise, they were the strongest fiends to the concept they want to interact with and in. One cannot have the cake and eat it too; put it in your pipe and smoke it. To
Proactively divide the society one lives in and wants to see it being governed by one's personal favourite despite the odds is a simple-minded comprehension of how statist politics work. This way, the implosion of the state is being developed gradually. Those who prefer
Tranquility over a civil war should know better, assuming they did know what they were talking about. In most cases, I personally believe they don't, but just yell that Bernie Sanders should win. Their counterparts from the other aisle also advertised the exit of the UK from the
UK because a double-decker told them their kingdom would have £ 350 mn more per month. They too didn't exactly know what they wanted but they were upset about being ruled by a foreign government, allegedly. That's how populism works, on both sides equally. There are just differen
Talking points and objectives to be accomplished. And to see that the left-winged frontrunner too is a populist should scare anyone interested in a united society that gets things done united. A divided society naturally stagnates because there are too many struggles inside.
Companies and groups alike cannot solve their tasks unless everyone contributes to the solution equally. And finally a state is nothing different from companies or groups. Ideological differences have to be surpassed, common sense has to be created. Populists don't seek these
Matters-of-fact, they only seek their own satisfaction. They willfully deconstruct society as long as it serves their primary objectives. In an Anarchist society of autonomous communities, this would not cause a larger issue as they didn't affect other communities, but in charge
Of a state that accommodates people of various beliefs and ideologies, their stance causes enough trouble to question the president's fitness for office. A president has to unite the people, not divide.
Hence, long story short, I doubt Bernie Sanders' fitness for office, as he is
Hence, long story short, I doubt Bernie Sanders' fitness for office, as he is
Just going to be another Trump, but from the left. While he might be eager to solve the most tremendous challenges of our time, he is certainly going to leave a path of division behind him, sowing discord in the 2024 elections, at worst extending the horror that many people
Recognised throughout the 45th presidency. This horror should not be continued in 2020—an alternative has to be elected to obstruct the commencement of a vicious cycle. A common-sense candidate should be extended the reins of the Oval Office. Common-sense candidates should be
Everybody's favourite choice in office. Unfortunately, identity politics have infected the people's minds, so that those candidates will most likely usually rank in the single-digit areas, or just manage to enter the runner-up places. Because the most polarising candidates appeal
To the simple-minded people's delights. And those simple-minded, mostly frustrated people prefer simple, obtuse answers to complex issues which underwent a lengthier process to prevent latter negative consequences in retrospective. Hence, we are caught in a paradox we cannot
Escape especially because we are chained to a ball-and-chains of people incapable of comprehending the complexities of our society which we have to take with us nonetheless as they are eligible to our future leaders.
Yes, we are finally doomed in our status quo society.
Yes, we are finally doomed in our status quo society.
Therefore, and in order to finally wrap this thread up, I would like you to read my essay on a society in which we wouldn't suffer from those issues, as like-minded people would group up in their own communities while no-one had to deliberately see progress obstructed by those
Thdx couldn't consent with, came hell or high water. The link is here: politique-rationale.blogspot.com/2019/12/free-w…, and I hope that we can find a common ground. If not, please leave a comment to this thread. Thanks a lot for reading.
@threadreaderapp Please Unroll.
