I'll grant that it's layered in double-talk -- I am confident that no-one in Congress is planning on leaving any time soon (cf., all the claims by "celebrities" that they'd leave the country if Trump won, etc.).
For instance, it's not clear, to me at least, what "redeemable" features the United…
I'll grant that it's layered in double-talk -- I am confident that no-one in Congress is planning on leaving any time soon (cf., all the claims by "celebrities" that they'd leave the country if Trump won, etc.).
For instance, it's not clear, to me at least, what "redeemable" features the United States have in the minds of many people on the "left".
One rarely if ever hears people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mention what is good about the United States, only what is wrong.
I would wager that ninety-percent of what is said is grand-standing for an audience that will eagerly eat it up so it may be that it's said unconciously. But I don't see much patriotism in the actions or words coming from these parties.
Being "down" on America is good for them. Sanders is a perfect example. He's from New York city but represents a state with some of the highest per-capita wealth, lowest levels of poverty and greatest racial homogeneity. People love talking big "stuff" when there's no downside, no risk.
I became sensitized to this when living in Minnesota in the 1980's and 1990's. The area around the University of Minnesota was thoroughly "woke" by the early 90's. It was called "politically correct" back then.
My point being that while a lot of the talk is just that, it's so uniform and accepted, nay required, that it might be difficult to determine whether or not the people pushing this perspective believe it or not.
It may be a matter of confabulation, be it active or passive, but the negativity, the "anti" mindset is so pervasive that it makes me wonder. For these parties, the only acceptable solution is the expected one: more bureaucracy, more spending, more same-as-it-ever-was: throw money into the bureaucracy where it can be consumed by one's donors and don't worry about "deliverables". For them, DOGE is like holy water to a demon.
Truly though, as you note, the terms "@$$hole", "hypocrite", and the like are certainly accurate.
Identifying problems justifies spending money on solutions. Trouble is, the people identifying problems always want to spend new taxpayer money solving them, to increase dependence on government and lead people tp believe government exists to solve their problems. What has actually happened in leftist administrations, however, is that government creates more problems than it attempts to solve because they are really bad at governance.
Actually, I'm not sure that it is ridiculous.
I'll grant that it's layered in double-talk -- I am confident that no-one in Congress is planning on leaving any time soon (cf., all the claims by "celebrities" that they'd leave the country if Trump won, etc.).
For instance, it's not clear, to me at least, what "redeemable" features the United States have in the minds of many people on the "left".
One rarely if ever hears people like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mention what is good about the United States, only what is wrong.
I would wager that ninety-percent of what is said is grand-standing for an audience that will eagerly eat it up so it may be that it's said unconciously. But I don't see much patriotism in the actions or words coming from these parties.
Being "down" on America is good for them. Sanders is a perfect example. He's from New York city but represents a state with some of the highest per-capita wealth, lowest levels of poverty and greatest racial homogeneity. People love talking big "stuff" when there's no downside, no risk.
I became sensitized to this when living in Minnesota in the 1980's and 1990's. The area around the University of Minnesota was thoroughly "woke" by the early 90's. It was called "politically correct" back then.
My point being that while a lot of the talk is just that, it's so uniform and accepted, nay required, that it might be difficult to determine whether or not the people pushing this perspective believe it or not.
It may be a matter of confabulation, be it active or passive, but the negativity, the "anti" mindset is so pervasive that it makes me wonder. For these parties, the only acceptable solution is the expected one: more bureaucracy, more spending, more same-as-it-ever-was: throw money into the bureaucracy where it can be consumed by one's donors and don't worry about "deliverables". For them, DOGE is like holy water to a demon.
Truly though, as you note, the terms "@$$hole", "hypocrite", and the like are certainly accurate.
Identifying problems justifies spending money on solutions. Trouble is, the people identifying problems always want to spend new taxpayer money solving them, to increase dependence on government and lead people tp believe government exists to solve their problems. What has actually happened in leftist administrations, however, is that government creates more problems than it attempts to solve because they are really bad at governance.
Say something long enough and you end up believing it. This is another version of slave mentality in freedom: cut off your nose to spite your face.
We do need a healthy opposition party but i'd like to be able at least to respect it.