Remember, Atlas has repeatedly said we don't *want* to stop the virus from spreading, in fact we want it to spread! And then, his argument went, we'll protect vulnerable populations (those in long-term care facilities, those with co-morbidities). But guess what happened.
This was all perfectly obvious to everyone. Literally no country has allowed the virus to spread and succeeded in protecting its vulnerable populations from death and severe illness. No one! Countries either control the virus or their people die en masse. That's it.
And given this stark choice, Atlas has pushed at every turn for the latter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let me take a run at this in a less snarky fashion. I think there are some people inside the GOP who are genuinely pushing towards a new consensus on monetary/fiscal policy that views tight labor markets as a good thing that policymakers should aim for. This is good!
These folks have, obviously, *enormous* instutional opponents, both ideological and economic. (Capital tends to like slack labor markets). I truly want them to win and the only way out of disaster in a divided government is *for them to win*.
BUT
Today's announcement on Judy Shelton suggests the institutional GOP will do what it always does and go back to pushing austerity and tight money in order to sabotage a Democratic president, even if it means screwing the same working class it *says* it no proudly reps.
I think it's more more likely we're not going to have lockdowns and instead policy-makers will just let the hospitals melt down and lots of lots of people will die uneccesarily.
It's already happening in some places (South Dakota, El Paso). People will die in ER waiting rooms before they can be treated and people will die at home alone before they even make it to the hospital. Death upon death upon death. An ocean of it before us.
There's a notion that many around the President have, and has fairly wide purchase that "it is what it is." Nothing to be done. Well that's a loser's ideology. If you want to be a winner, if you want to Make America Great then for the love of God save your people.
People should read some 19th century leftist writing to discover that both working class and rural reactionary politics are not, um, exactly new phenomena.
Vanguardism emerged for a reason!
You can find a great intro to these debates via @mikeduncan in his phenomenal Revolutions Podcast on the Russian Revolution. You can skip the Russia-specific stuff and focus on the early stuff about Marx and Bakunin, and then there's a lot more later around Lenin v Kautsky.
Part of what makes so much political analysis so confounding and frustrating is that the deep structural polarization means that almost everything in electoral politics happens on the margins. 1/x
Imagine you’re in a room of 100 people in which 53 are wearing t-shirts and 47 are wearing sweatshirts. You step outside for a moment and when you come back 6 people have put on sweatshirts.
You might not even notice! You sure as hell wouldn’t say “OH MY GOD WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU PEOPLE!?! I THOUGHT THIS WAS A T-SHIRT ROOM AND NOW ITS A SWEATSHIRT ROOM! WTF!?!!?”
One thing that stands out to me is how ubiquitous the notion that Democrats *should* be winning by big margins, and *should* have a durable ruling coalition, is across different ideological factions in the broad center to left coalition.
Now everyone has their different views about What They're Doing Wrong, etc.. Lots of the critiques are good and draw blood, and have merit at the margins. And, look, I get that GOP governance has been an absolute horrifying deadly disaster across two administrations now!
And but also: It's a big, complicated country with lots of conservatives! We're very closely divided, politically. I've noticed, interestingly enough, conservative growing more resigned to that & putting their faith in instutions they can control: state government in red states..
Media gossip aside, the country continues to accelerate into the worst mass death catastrophe its experienced in 75 years.
A staggering percentage of households with children are food insecure and 100,000 small businesses are teetering on the edge of failure.
The effects of this calamity, a preventable one, or at the very least a far more manageable one, fall disproportionately on those who are poor, working class, and non-white.