1/ Everyone acting surprised at the response to the 10k move, or treating it as if it's a thing that can be rationally discussed with them is missing the point that this was always going to be the response no matter what they got.
2/ The entire purpose of the ratfucking accelerationist left's reductionist abstraction of complex policy proposals down into symbolic shiny baubles is to breed grievance and discontent to keep their followers from voting for Democrats. That's it. Nothing else.
3/ An actual complex policy proposal entails trade offs, winners and losers, anticipation and mitigation of unintended consequences, an entire raft of different pieces which are individually dispensable in the interest of getting the larger proposal enacted.
4/ Compromise is implicit because the imperfectability of policy proposals and honest disagreement about means, ends, costs, and benefits is undeniable when you're dealing with a real policy.
5/ And that is anathema to the leaders of the accelerationist left. It can only lead to political maturity, honest good faith discussion about trade-offs and cost-benefit analyses and assimilation of the reality that all progress in a democracy is, by design, incremental.
6/ So instead, they take a complex policy proposal and the reduce it to a symbol, a shiny bauble with a slogan or catchy name that muse be delivered unto them in platonically ideal form, unsullied by edge case, trade-offs or political expediency, to "earn" their votes.
7/ And by reducing to a symbol, they ensure that the ideal form will be subjective to each individual, meaning no policy that could ever be delivered can satisfy them. Because that's the point: to foster the kind of Manichean thinking that drives authoritarian ideologies.
8/ And this is why any time a thing they purport to have demanded comes close to enactment, some particularly complex or unobtainable piece of it, preferably something inserted as a negotiating point, will be hived off, reduced to a shiny bauble and made non-negotiable.
9/ In 2008, Obama, Hillary and Edwards all had health care plans. All were basically similar, standardization of employer provided coverage, prevention of adverse selection and subsidized private policies for those who don't get it through work.
10/ There was broad satisfaction among Democrats with these plans. Small differences were elevated into major issues by the candidates, but anyone with a brain new whatever passed would be an amalgam of the three. And so it was.
11/ And the accelerationist left couldn't have that. So they hived off the "public option" feature of the House version of the bill, reduced it to a shiny bauble and demanded that that part must be delivered in idealized form as proof of the Democrats undying fealty to them.
12/ As originally proposed, the public option was a complex and very limited proposal. It was to be a quasi-public entity that would provide policies to those who a) did not get insurance through work and b) could not find a policy on an exchange that cost less than 9% of MAGI.
13/ But once it was reduced to a shiny bauble slogan, the acclerationist left's minions were able, and encourage, to read their hearts' desire into it and it transmogrified into perfect government coverage that anyone could buy into at any time for any reason for a trice.
14/ It was designed to fail. That was the point. Even if the public option in the bill had passed, it would have enraged the leftists who weren't allowed to buy into it just because they didn't want to contaminate their purity of essence by paying a private insurer for coverage.
15/ Another "slap in the face" of the Only Voters to Whom Democrats Entirely Owed their Victory. Just one of an endless series of designed to fail golden calves: "Telecom Immunity," "The Public Option,"" M4A," and now "Student Loan Relief."
16/ It's crucial, of course, that the shiny bauble bear some relation to an actual campaign policy proposal, but that the details of that proposal be abstracted away so that any failure to deliver in the unobtainable form imagined into existence a "broken promise."
17/ And because their motives are pure and good, it's an insult and an attack to draw any attention to the bad faith built into the scam. Look at how they talk about the most important, lifesaving piece of progressive legislation since 1964.
18/ And thus, even if Biden gave them the 50k with a Stroke of Pen Warren has been demanding, the accelerationist left would be assuring their trust fund left that it was as if Biden had knocked on their door and taken a shit in their proffered hand.
19/ A broken promise. A Slap in the Face.
$10k? An insult. Worthless. A positive reason to stay home in the midterms to punish Democrats for failing to earn their votes.
There's no point in negotiation over details when every shiny bauble is the Apple of Discord.
$10k? An insult. Worthless. A positive reason to stay home in the midterms to punish Democrats for failing to earn their votes.
There's no point in negotiation over details when every shiny bauble is the Apple of Discord.
20/ Remember that time Hillary reluctantly gave into them on the shiny bauble the turned the TPP into? Remember the gratitude and support she received for the furthest left platform in half a century?
21/ Of course you don't, because their demands are self-moving goalposts, designed to foster disappointment and act as fetish objects in the cult of Oh So World Wear and Worldly Wise cynicism and despair.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
