1065 Comments

Matt, I have been following your work and admiring your honesty ever since the vampire squid article came out. I consider you one of the most intellectually honest and intelligent reporters out there.

The question i have for you - why did you vote for democrats for so long in the first place? How come intelligent people only see the problems when they are impacted personally?

Expand full comment

Many "intelligent" people keep voting Democrat even after they are impacted personally by higher taxes, crime, etc. Check out the cases of Josh Kreuger, Ryan Carson, and Pava Lapere. You cannot reason with a demoralized person, my namesake tried to warn us in 1984: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-reason-with-a-demoralized-person-yuri

Expand full comment
Oct 28, 2023·edited Oct 28, 2023

Democrats are an awful lot and so are republicans. Both parties and their mindless partisan live to desecrate the first mandate of the constitution which is to strive “for a more perfect union.” Selfishly voting out of economic interests while the parties actively collude to divide us is anti-American.

Expand full comment

SO why do Amerikans why do they not vote for people (3rd party)?

Expand full comment

Because we have a first-past-the-post voting system, not a parliamentary system, alternative vote, or any of the other systems that make third parties viable options. Look these things up and learn about their systemic consequences and all will be revealed.

Expand full comment

Watch out for the occasional "affiliation" polls. "Affiliation," in this case, is the percentage of American voters who will admit to a pollster that they belong to one party or the other. That number has been falling for more than a decade; it's presently about 30% EACH. In other words, 60%, a solid majority, are "independents" - everybody else. Or, "A Pox on Both Your Houses," which would be a good name for a 3rd party. No wonder turnout is so low.

Personally, I've been a Green, and advocated for that party in comments, for about 3 decades - since Clinton. But at this point, I'm sufficiently disgusted with my own party that I've stopped advocating for it.

Maybe just vote NO, instead.

Expand full comment

We need another Montgomery Brewster candidate to campaign for "None Of The Above."

Or we all just write in "Giant Meteor."

Expand full comment

Oops, looks like I can't do arithmetic any more. It's FORTY percent, a plurality, not a majority. There is no majority. However, in our system, a plurality is enough - and it's well on its way to a majority.

Expand full comment

Because unlike where you (probably) live it’s insanely diverse with massive variance in lifestyles and values. So the ‘big issues’ tend to be more fundamental in nature. Abortion. Guns. Healthcare. Religion.

At least that’s my theory. Hard to be a pro abortion anti-gun evangelical socialist. If there were to be a powerful third party it might be in form of a racial minority coalition (Eg, African-Americans abandon democrats but don’t join republicans.... see evangelical socialists above). We’ll see.

Gotta live here to understand it otherwise too easy to throw stones - especially with your own (likely state owned) media brainwashing you, too.

Expand full comment

But abortion wasn’t really an issue until the early 90s. Bush Sr. supported abortion rights. As for guns, we had a federal ban on assault rifles between 1994-04. And healthcare became an explosive topic in the wake of the anti-Obama hysteria of the Tea party. So it seems to me that the American public is constantly being agitated from the top to elicit the division than then allows the elites to plunder and pillage without fear of the mob ever going for the pitchforks.

Expand full comment

What is your reference for George H.W. Busch Sr. ‘S support for abortion rights? I know he supported planned parenthood, mainly because it provided medical services like gyn exams and birth control. He did support abortion for the health of the mother and rape or incest but not for routine or general abortions. He also was opposed to any federal money used for abortion procedures. His wife was pro choice but, I don’t think he left any written or oral record that he supported it.

Expand full comment

I lived in the USA for 23yrs. No-one cared about Politics. You just bought your toys and had fun! I lived in a 'left leaning' Canyon close to LA. We were called 'pinkos.'

Left is Socialism or Liberal Socialism (in France) which means we have free Healthcare/Education

Right means you will have nothing to help people!

Expand full comment

That’s a lazy characterization of the right. That they will do nothing to help people. If it’s possible to distill it down this way, the right, conservatives, are for less government and more self determination. Independence. Being in favor of and offering largesse to the people hasn’t exactly led to good outcomes. The nuclear family is disappearing, dads not in the home, especially in families of color. What used to be a good thing was when the natural tension of the rights instincts to do less met with the left’s desire to do something, resulted in a compromise that was reasonable. We cannot do that anymore. The left has a voracious appetite for power and is uncompromising, the right has reached a place of zero trust that they can bargain in good faith. So here we are. Taibi’s coverage of the police state shows how the left, for all the claims to the contrary about the right, Trump et al, are the real Nazis.

Expand full comment

You had me at left-leaning canyon near L.A.

Perfect vantage point to observe the diversity of American life.

Expand full comment

Your healthcare and education are not free. Do you think the workers in those fields are doing their work without pay? Do you think builders are making hospitals without billing the government? Those textbooks - magically made from nothing for nothing? You are paying far more than you know for your education and healthcare - and not just in money.

Did you know that the "right" in the US generates considerably more of it's time and money to charity than does the "left"?

Expand full comment

This is a really good analysis. Most people don’t vote on purely economic issues, they vote on issues that resonate personally with them. If you are a gay or alienated type person who grew up in an evangelical-influenced environment-family or town, you aren’t voting for an R even if you don’t like Bidenomics. If you are a big 2nd Anendment person, there aren’t any Ds left to vote for besides Joe Mancin. For African Americans, there is still a huge stigma in the community for voting GOP, b/c it is seen-correctly-as the pro-cop party. Corporate social posturing-and thus potential career advancement-is completely in the D/woke wheelhouse.

Abortion is becoming a difficult issue for the GOP-it is hurting GOP candidates on state level races. Just like one doesn’t see pro 2A Ds, pro-choice GOPers are increasingly rare-and the issue is now open on the state level. I’m a pro-life libertarian, but I see how the issue is benefiting the Ds.

Expand full comment

It isn't hard to be pro killing of fetus's and anti-guns. It depends on whether or not you consider a fetus to be a human being. It if is a cluster of cells then it is easy to kill it. There may be some disagreement about clusters of cells. Some might see that right up to the time the umbilical cord is cut.

Evangelicals can be socialists. But we say that we are not interested in a theocracy.

The third party exists and it is right in front of us. We keep electing our "team" even when they don't work as if they are on our "team". Congress is supposedly not liked, but they are more likely to die in office or retire than get voted out.

Expand full comment

I think you missed my intended point entirely but that’s ok, I didn’t exactly edit the original response for clarity, either. No worries.

Expand full comment

I have. Patrick Buchanan (twice), and Ralph Nader (also twice). The other 3rd Party candidates seemed like they were bought off just like the D & R candidates.

Expand full comment

I really think that the DNC should be done away with!

Expand full comment

There were a great many opportunities to change who won the elections for dog catcher on up to Senator that you did not comment on. Not coming down on you per se, but for the readers, there are many elections, and they all matter. The dog catcher becomes the Senator.

Expand full comment

Everyone needs to start voting for themselves, things that actually impact them. Most people vote for a percieved benefit to someone else, like people voting as abortion rights being a primary issue. I don't care if you can or can not get abortions but since less than 1 percent of the nation will need to get an abortion it seems silly to vote on that as a primary issue.

Now I get that you are voting out of some altruism, like voting Democrat is better for minorities, that is a feeling many Democrat voters have that are not minorities, but since the issue doesn't actually impact you, you do not actually have first hand knowledge that Democrat vote is for minorities.

When we vote for "other people" not out of our own benefit you actually get bad results. Because how we vote and how webare controlled to vote impacts our politicians. If everyone voted selfishly politicians might actually have to DO things that benefit us because as a swlfish voter you would KNOW if you were benefitted.

Think about this like an ice cream parlor, imagine the ice cream parlor has 16 flavors and they make new flavors based on popularity of the existing ones and instead of picking ice cream you want to eat you see a sign that says eating the Kale and Kelp Ice Cream is good for pregnant women, so you order the god awful ice cream because if you don't maybe the parlor won't keep making that ice cream pregnant women eat.

Of course its terrible ice cream and of course the parlor keeps making more of it but do you know if pregalnant women are ever actually eating the Kale and Kelp Ice Cream? Or are you just pissing money down the drain and stopping the ice cream parlor from replacing that flavor with something someone might like.

Why does a brilliant black man who was an adult during Jim Crowe, educated at Harvard and Chicago on Merit scholarships, was a young communist until finishing his PHD, but now believes Democrats are destroying black America. Read Thomas Sowell and start thinking.

Expand full comment

I agree about the voting for self-interest but I think the 50/50 split among the electorate makes that easier. They can just say we can't negotiate with the other because it will alienate our base. We need a 60/40 split.

Expand full comment

I think it's yet to be empirically proven, other than through editorializing, whether higher taxes, crime, etc., aren't also a product of republican voting, though perhaps propagandized by the right using different rhetorical moves. Bottom line is that it's a scam, and part of that scam is emphasizing false claims about how democratic policies across the board result in XYZ while republican policies don't. Many Substack writers that think of themselves as "intelligent" seem to continue to run this scam rhetoric that you're putting across.

Expand full comment

It has been empirically proven that increasing crime in big cities, and the brazenness of criminals, and the inertia of law enforcement, have absolutely nothing to do with Republican voting because the government on ALL levels in these cities is from the Democratic party. You would have to use a magnifying glass and still would not find a Republican in the NYC government, for example. In local elections, you would have to register as a Democrat if you wanted your vote to be counted for a more moderate Democrat against progressive left extremists.

Expand full comment
founding

Here in Illinois the Dems have a super legislative majority, and all State constitutional offices. Chicago hasn't had a Repub mayor or city council since . . . it's been awhile. State-wide cashless bail went into effect in Sept. Chicago is a sanctuary city and the Mayor needs more money to provide for the new arrivals. Chicago needs more money for failing schools and pension systems. So although one may live closer to Missouri than Chicago, all Illinois residents are going to pay.

Expand full comment

I'm in Chicago. The recent resistance on the west-side to the mayor's plan to use an open block to build a "heated tent" space may be indicative of change.

Look up the "Inn of Chicago". An arguably past-its-time hotel just off Michigan Avenue that's now a shelter for "migrants" (i.e., illegal immigrants). I feel for these people as they must be profoundly motivated to take the risk of traveling to enter the US illegally, but they're still breaking the law as their first step into the US. It's sad and it's also clearly unsustainable.

I have known and worked with numerous people from Venezuela: smart, educated and hardworking. What the Chavez/Maduro administrations have done to that country is both tragic and criminal. Venezuela is rich in natural resources; there's no logical or non-criminal reason for the country to be in the state that it is.

Expand full comment
founding

And there is no logical or non-criminal reason for THIS country to be where it is now.

The border obliteration perpetrated by Obama 3.0 is part of a plan to transform America. But worse than that, it has been accomplished with a loving embrace of human trafficking to accomplish its goals, implemented by narco-terrorists. Talk about a war of proportionality. How many drug ODs kill Americans? All these children, especially girls --- what is their trip like on their way to "freedom" and "a better life?" What's it like after they get to their final destination? And our government is an accomplice in this, NOT an innocent bystander.

Jingoistic? Whatever other term is used to smear people who believe in the rule of law. This democracy only works if there are rules and everybody buys in at some basic level. Gangbangers being in charge of The Open Door, in partnership with our federal government. I think we are going to find out pretty soon that wasn't really in our best interest.

Expand full comment

I watched a special on the homeless problem on PBS. They visited a number of cities and spoke residents and government officials. When the Mayor of San Francisco had her turn, she basically blamed all of her cities problems on Republican's. The interviewer neither laughed or questioned the Mayor. The magnifying glass comment reminded me of this show.

Expand full comment

And nothing else anywhere in the global economy, public policy, or anything else impacts people. Only their little tiny spot on the globe and local politics. It has been empirically proven that partisans are dumb. There is progressive left or conservative right. There are only corrupt politicians the people they make tools to keep them in power. Whether they're banning abortion or twerking naked in gay pride parades, identity politics is what passes for governance of, for and by the people. .

Expand full comment
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023

Public policy - yea, it does impact people. As it relates to crime, it is the public policy of local government that affects it. If the local government does not want to prosecute people who steal hundreds $$$ worth of goods, then thugs feel brazen and invincible. Then local stores do not file police reports because police would not act on them and because they will be called racists. I do not believe global economy has anything to do with crime in our cities. I have not mentioned abortion rights here, and you don’t know my position on it, though I stated it in other posts. And I am far from being a partisan. As far as you can be lol. I have flipped between parties searching for someone to match my political believes more times than I can count and embarrassed to admit. Of course, extreme positions on both sides are a problem. But crime currently is where democrats govern because of their progressive and SJW view of law and order. And, unfortunately, moderate Democrats so far are loosing in this battle.

Expand full comment

democratic policies across the board and republican policies across the board insure that the finance sector profits and middle Americans pay the bills. ......

Expand full comment

This is because you have a 2 party system BOTH controlled by big money!

Expand full comment

finance, pharma, defense, teacher's union, and congressional families...

Expand full comment

- I do not believe that anything in politics can be "empirically proven". Whether it is a statement that turns out to be provenly false "no deal with out a public option" or acknowledged policy that clearly is illegal, such as the murder of American citizens without due process. Nothing is empirically proven, it all is subject to revisionism and spin. George Bush threw out the first pitch of a baseball game last night although many would say it has been empirically proven he lied and led us into a war; but apparently that's not the case.

That is why politics is such an art that captures people's passion and imagination but seemingly does little to form a more perfect union as the poster above mentioned.

To blame to not blame, to call it a scam by one side and not the other; we are dealing with a coin that has heads on both sides.

I do not believe that the "intelligent" people here are blaming polices of XYZ on democrats. I think most if not all here know that both parties are (most likely) equally to blame as the powers in those parties feed at the same trough.

Being passionately dissolussioned by the Democratic party, the ACLU, wikipedia, etc is not promoting a scam. It's just expressing remorse at things folks wanted to believe but are not true, and being able to commiserate and bitch a little bit.

An interesting quote that Dick Cheney said onetime about whose politics are the cause for the successes and failures was something like " it's not until an administration or two after the one in which the policies were implemented that we see results"

He was referring to the first Bush "read my lips no new taxes". After Bush realized he needed to work with Congress to raise taxes to stave off economic calamity he lost when a conservative challenged him. We all know this ushered in Clinton who would have had no chance without Perot. We know the Clinton administration led to (in many ways) our current economic system.

As a side not- Does anyone remember the surplus, the "lock box" as Gore called it. Then we had the coup d'etat of 2000 and look who got to come in a spend all that money that republican politics (tax increases, contract with (on)America) had helped achieved....

Expand full comment

"...I do not believe that the "intelligent" people here are blaming polices of XYZ on democrats."

Wholeheartedly agree.

Expand full comment

Who else should we blame for the policies that have been discredited in real time? Should we just ignore our eyes when we walk through cities swarming with homeless fentanyl addicts? Should we just ignore our eyes as we watch thousands walk across the border? Should we just ignore our eyes when we go to the corner store and see that everything is locked behind plexiglass? Your complete inability to connect cause and effect these past few years speaks to a lack of curiosity, intelligence, or both.

Expand full comment

Parties are used by politicians to gain power. It is correct to assume that many politicians don't have a ideological base, or if they do, that their base actually aligns with their party. If you want to win in CA, you better call yourself a D. If you want to win in TN, you better call yourself an R.

However at the end of the day, if your one party state has a serious issue that is not being addressed, then it is correct to assume that the party itself is actually responsible. Notice how the D party gamed things to keep Bernie out of the Presidency. Parties do have strong influence due to money.

If you want your project done in CA, you better give to Democrats. If you want it done in TN, you better give to Republicans.

Expand full comment

23 Skidoo: “Empirically proven” means a basis of information obtained by experimentation and observation. I’d say people have observed a significant increase in crime in democrat run cities so your statement is incorrect. Regarding taxes, I’d say people have seen that cutting taxes has resulted in increased economic growth and improved real buying power so your statement is factually incorrect and your claim it’s a “scam” is nothing more than blame shifting.

Expand full comment

Obama himself even said that it was more important to be perceived as taxing the rich than it was to generate revenues. He knew his tax policy would reduce income from what it would be otherwise, but it was a political exercise. He was more interested in the politics than the results. He is a politician.

Expand full comment

Your comment makes zero sense. You can literally track the history of which party has power and how they vote lol

Expand full comment

You are suffering from rectal-cranial inversion. Seek help immediately!

Expand full comment

Why don’t you go visit any big city in the country, Skidoo. Guess who runs them?

Expand full comment

Mormons?

Expand full comment

Again, you’ve truly wowed us with your insight. I mean who would have thought it possible to distill this problem with a one word non sequitur? But you did it, you really did it! Good job, little man. Now run along to bed.

Expand full comment
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 31, 2023

Someone just claimed that Youngkin won in Virginia, because Asians, who value education, voted for him.

It took me the whole 25 seconds to prove him wrong: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-americans-favored-democrats-wide-margin-high-profile-races-exit-rcna5024

Well, in America, Asians are just like blacks and Jews. All groups are screwed mightily and still vote for their soul owners. 😢

Expand full comment

The average person is inundated with Democratic Party propaganda generated within consultant groups, spread by the media, unions, universities, government agencies, and a plethora of other sources. “The borders are not open.” “The Republicans are in chaos.” “Republicans practice voter suppression.” “Trump is a Russian asset.” When that average person identifies some of that propaganda and reacts negatively to what the Dems have been spewing, they are already programmed to question and see negatively the alternative, which is a major objective of the propaganda: “If you think we’re bad, they’re much worse. Better stick with us, the less-incompetent.” It’s not so much the long-game as it is the game that’s been running for a long time.

Expand full comment

I don’t get my news about Republican ambitions for authoritarian government from MSNBC or ABC or CN, etc. I. get it straight from Donald Trump on his truth social posts.

The bed is a stark, raving lunatic, and he’s going to start by throwing homeless people who knows where

Expand full comment

I must have missed Trump's lust for authoritarianism when he completely ceded authority over covid mandates to the states, leaving freedom- and democracy-loving governors such as Cuomo, Whitmer, Newsom, Brown et al. to demonstrate their true nature. By your logic, Trump must have been a clueless idiot to squander a once-in-century opportunity to rule the whole country with an iron fist. What a chump!

Expand full comment

Trump still is a clueless idiot, as well as a mendacious one.

Expand full comment

You cite political rhetoric, I cite historical facts. So, you remain curiously silent on how Trump, while in power, actually governed with restraint, when his political opponents launched fusillades of illegal actions (think the FISA warrants) and are channelling the exuberant spirit of third-world law fare to seek his incarceration for 100s of years. The sheer lack of self-reflection among the MSM is indeed epic.

For most of his political life, DJT was a moderate democrat, who drifted right as America declined. The amazing demonization of the man, from hero of rappers and praised by Jesse Jackson to "traitor to Russia, white supremacist fascist" is indeed extraordinary. I suppose that Biden is so improbable as a political leader that Trump must be correspondingly demeaned and tarnished. But the whole process is absurd.

Expand full comment

"Historical facts." My mommy advised me to run screaming from anyone using those words.

Expand full comment

Dude, everything in that article is sourced with his actual comments. Also project 2025 he will be more able to carry out his dangerous rhetoric next time.

That article is full of FACT.

People go on and on about FISA warrant from FBI officials who had every right to worry about a man who was looking more and more like he was being bought by Russians, and guess what I haven’t even gone down that rabbit hole with you, but the man is a Russian asset. If you can’t see it, you’re blind

Expand full comment

You’re citing medias touch? Lmao.

Expand full comment

You think Trump is authoritarian? Lol. You’ve been brainwashed.

Expand full comment

He wants to be King. Once you let this maniac into the Presidency he will never leave. Watch out.

Expand full comment
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 30, 2023

And what are you basing this claim on? The intelligence agencies embedded themselves in every social media platform to silence and algorithmically manipulate millions of voters in the run up to the 2020 election. It’s the same thing they do in foreign countries when they wish to foment revolution. Trump was right to challenge that fraudulent election. It certainly doesn’t make him a wannabe king. It seems those intelligence agencies are the actual wannabe kings and you’re a useful idiot in their service.

Expand full comment

"...The intelligence agencies embedded themselves in every social media platform to silence and algorithmically manipulate millions of voters in the run up to the 2020 election."

Look, ma, it's that man again in the slow idling Oldsmobile with the bag of candy and offering another "historical fact." Should I except a ride and get in the car?

You funny. Please keep me laughing.

Expand full comment

Please>Trump is a nutcase. IF he becomes President YOU (yourself) will never vote again.

DO you think a MALE who has been charged with rape is a potential President?

NOT to mention that no other Country will ever deal with him.

We are watching Americans self-destruct.

Expand full comment

If you’re a Democratic shill, just say so and we can all move on. On the chance you’re not, the only ones claiming that Trump intended to instill himself into a permanent presidency have been Democrats. Other than disputing the election results of 2020, Trump did nothing to perpetuate himself in office. (As to disputing the results, he definitely did, but does anyone think a narcissist really believed he had lost?) If you’re looking for someone wanting to hold perpetual office, you’d need to consider those that are doing things to allow themselves to cancel elections by changing the rules, or by doing things that allow themselves to declare martial law, like by launching wars (model: Ukraine), or inciting violence or civil war by not enforcing the laws--immigration, theft, etc, splitting the country over claims of racism, dismissing half the country as unqualified to vote (in need of reprogramming), generating false impeachment proceedings (ironically because a president wanted to follow the corruption of a public official that has since been proven to have been corrupt), undermining a president with persistent claims of being a foreign agent, or in a myriad of other constant plots.

Expand full comment

Ya, I think Trump did a few of those. Dolt.

Expand full comment

NO.

Idiots I do not reply to.

Vote Trump and you will see and be happy!

Expand full comment

You do realize that "this maniac" was already let into the Presidency, and he already left, right? Your statement has already been literally disproven by historical fact. This isn't 2016 where you can just invent hypotheticals of what Trump will do if he gets into office. IT ALREADY HAPPENED.

Expand full comment

You mean the GOP would make things worse for the homeless than conditions in LA, San Francisco, or Philadelphia.

Expand full comment

Unquestionably. And not just the homeless.

Expand full comment

Authoritarian regimes of the past would be stunned by the propaganda tools availed today, from literally all fronts. Many that have been directed toward us were billed as scientific or medical. Important to also resist those that advance derangement syndromes.

Expand full comment

If you think Trumpnis calling for tyranny then you either have a processing error, a per eption error,or a data error. Possibly combinations if all 3.

Expand full comment

A significant majority ignores MSM. That’s why YouTube, Wikipedia, etc get cleansed and AI-s, which use these as sources got introduced.

One has to be really astute and nuts to waste time verifying crap to figure out the lies.

In a credible source saw 1936 flags. Among them a flag of Palestine, close to the modern day Israel’s. Dug some more, got the history. Verified with other sources.

Went to MSdncFT’s Chat and got as 1936 flag of Palestine the modern day Palestinian flag, which is close replica of 1936 Jordan flag …

It’s like Back In The USSR, China, etc.

Expand full comment

Yes, Texan, 'nuff said.

Expand full comment

Because Republicans are just as bad--they only differ in what they want to control about you. Both parties are right wing authoritarian parties. Democrats have not been left wing in a very long time.

Expand full comment

Clearly you don’t intellectually grasp the basic concepts of Right snd Left, typical! Democrats are now the Far Left Wing, they have swallowed the Neo-Marxist ideology and have modified it the be Cultural Marxism rather than economic.

Using race, gender and sexual orientation to divide human beings who would otherwise seek out common ground is their method to dismantle Society and to assume absolute power and control. The Democrat Party has not been a “liberal” Party for a couple of decades now, but Obama is the one that accelerated that decline into the illiberal, anti-human flourishing Party it is now.

As a former Democrat, and classic Liberal, I can no longer stomach the systemic dismantling of our constitutionally mandated Liberal democracy. In hindsight, the blinders I wore to what the Democrat Party is, and not what they portray themselves to be is mindboggling. Never again, my eyes are wide open, the veil has been removed, and the moral and intellectual rot has finally been exposed for what it is - nihilism!

Expand full comment

"Democrats are now Far Left Wing, they have swallowed the Neo-Marxist ideology and have modified it to be Cultural Marxism rather than economic."

I don't know where you get your information from, but this is a little crazy to me. Neo-Marxist? 'Cultural Marxism rather than economic'? There is an accurate word to describe the Democrats, and it is 'Neoliberal'. You could also throw in Imperialist and even Fascist if you wanted to describe the Democrats. None of these are 'Far Left Wing'. They are in fact Right wing. You can't have Marxism without the economics. If you don't have the economic aspect of Marxism, it isn't Marxism. Calling 'Wokism' 'Cultural Marxism' is nonsensical. Wokism is the pretty well-meaning face Democrats paste over the face of Neoliberalism to make the Liberals feel better about themselves, while ignoring material conditions.

To summarize:

Left Wing: pro worker, anti-large private interest. Nationalization of critical industries, important necessary services (medicine, utilities, education) are to be provided at-cost by state run industry. Belief in international working class solidarity. No war but class war.

Right wing: zenophobia, militarism, sacredness of individual property rights over the common good, the state exists to protect property rights, 'Free Market' privatization of all services, anti-union, sacredness of Our Nation State vs. all other Nation States. Class doesn't exist, only bootstraps and entrepreneurs.

The Democrats since the New Deal have really dropped the ball on Left wing policies. Today they absolutely resemble a Right wing party. And the Republicans aren't much different in practice.

Expand full comment

I don’t see Republicans empowering the teachers union to take over our schools, mandating vaccines, masking children, pushing the sexual mutilation of children, censoring the public, exalting a Marxist terror group masquerading under a civil rights banner (BLM), pushing intellectually bankrupt ideas like critical race theory, or sicking the IRS on its rivals. I’m not happy with the Republicans because many of them have gotten way to comfortable with the status quo, but the ideas and actions that are dismantling our Republic are coming from the left and whatever the Democrats are considered today.

Expand full comment

In the US you use this word 'left' so often. I don't think you know what it means.

You could say Alexander Cortez is a LIBERAL left for instance.

Expand full comment

The late 60's radicals, Angela Davis, Herbert Marcuse, Derrick Bell, Paolo Freire, the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the Black Liberation Army are the foundation of the Neo-Marxism and the Far Left cultural revolution we see in America today. Chris Rufo among many others have done a lot of research on this, might want to check him out.

The Democrat Party has swallowed the ideology of the critical theories and is now implementing it into every aspect of the government bureaucracy, changing laws and policies as we speak. You have a very one-dimensional idea of what the "Left" is, you should get out more. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is a Marxist ideology, the very concept of "equity" is Marxist.

Neoliberal might describe what some are, like the Clintons, but there is far more to it. Oppressor v. Oppressed and the Victimhood ideology pushed by Democrats is also Marxist. The Chinese Cultural Revolution is Cultural Marxism, so it is hardly "nonsensical."

Also, by your definition of "Right Wing," few if any of those positions match what the Democrat Party is today. The militarism most likely comes from the Neoliberal Republicans who have joined the Party since Trump, but that doesn't make Democrats "Right Wing."

Expand full comment

Obama launched more wars than Bush, cemented the national security survellance state, and rather than regulating the banks after the 2008 crash, handed the keys of government over to Wall Street. Biden supported the 1994 Crime Bill, helped get Clarence Thomas on the bench, supported NAFTA, vociferously supported every war we've been involved in, and now he's finishing Trump's border wall while expanding the privatization of medicare. The Democrats are absolutely militarist law and order pro corporate state stooges. By any real world definition they're Right wing.

I'm sorry, but this 'cultural marxist' nonsense is garbage. Biden told railworkers who wanted to strike to talk to the hand, and is funding cops, prisons, and the surveillance state just as much as Bush. And now Biden is literally printing endless money for wars.

But they're actually Marxists? Get out of here. Mainstream democrats today are more chummy with Henry Kissinger and Madaleine Albright than they are students of 60's radicals. Joe Biden undoubtedly was cheering when Fed Hampton, MLK, and Malcolm X were killed.

Expand full comment

"I'm sorry, but this 'cultural marxist' nonsense is garbage. "

Apologizing doesn't make you correct here. Read James Lindsay's work at his New Discourses website.

"They" are not Marxists, but neo-Marxists.

Expand full comment

Tell me more about what Chris Rufo has to say about Marcuse.

Expand full comment

Centrist Party owned by big money = Democrats.

Expand full comment

Glauber's Salt?

Expand full comment

You are behind the times.

Neo-Marxism has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the redistribution of perceived social "power," wresting it from (to use their terminology) the white man's hegemony and distributing it among what neo-Marxism defines as the "historically marginalized." It's the ideology behind Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE); it explains why the Pentagon is giving lip service to homosexuals and trans-sexuals; it explains why so many on the left support the bloodthirsty Hamas as liberators of oppressed Palestinians, and on and on.

Neo-Marxism is the origin of what many like to dismiss as trivial--"identity politics" and the "culture war."

The right is still conservative in the traditional sense, and what you call "xenophobia" is simply the recognition that nations need borders and should be selective about who is allowed citizenship. Not very "far right"normally, but the left's extremists apply that epithet to everything to the right of Marcuse.

Expand full comment

Let’s make a deal with the left. Us libertarian/righty types will leave Marx out of our criticisms while the leftys will concede that the roots of our current disastrous social policies in US cities are to be found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse.

Expand full comment

Couldn't let this one lie... Gramsci and Marcuse??? An Italian communist who's been dead for approaching 100 years? And I've read One Dimensional Man and the best thing I can say about Marcuse is that he is an anti-authoritarian. The current policies and instruments of power in the United States lie elsewhere than these two obscure figures. I would offer the following:

1532, Machiavelli, ‘The Prince’. This is the modern ideology of raw power. How to be a venal asshole out for yourself. We still suffer from this world view among our leaders.

1928, Edward Bernays, ‘Propaganda’. Bernays is an interesting but lesser-known figure. The father of modern advertising and opinion forming/mass manipulation. Worked for large industrial concerns, and also the first US propaganda department during WW1. His concern was how to control ‘the masses’ in a democracy in an anti-democratic fashion. This would be the beginning of government starting to link arms with the media for the purpose of narrative control.

Cold War foundation documents: 1943, Policy Planning Study 23, 1947 The Long Telegram, 1950 NSC-68, George Kennan and Paul Nitze. Along with the Dulles brothers activities, these were the founding documents that established US policy of global hegemony and militarism post-1945. They established a policy of violent interventionism, coups, proxy wars, and military industrial complex funding that remain with us even today in a post-Soviet world.

Economic ideology and policy documents: 1962 Milton Friedman ‘Capitalism and Freedom’, Lewis Powell 1971 Memorandum, 1975 Crozier/Huntington/Watanuki Trilateral Commission. These are the documents that strategized and successfully laid the groundwork for the rollback of New Deal and Great Society gains that were made for regular working Americans during the 30’s through 60’s. They talk about an ‘excess of democracy’ and how to combat it, using money to capture our political system. Freidman’s “Chicago School” established Neoliberalism, which today is the dominant ideology in the Democratic Party.

Neoconservative foundational ideology: Leo Strauss “Natural Right and History” 1953 – influenced many of our Neocon leaders who were in power in the 90’s and 00’s. Giving us such gifts as ‘Project for a New American Century’ – 1997, Kagan and Kristol. Essentially this is doubling down on using US military power to enforce global hegemony, even in a post-soviet world. This is why we have maintained our 800 military bases overseas and still spend cold war levels on our military.

Anyhow, this collection of documents and writings I have presented here I think will describe to you the underlying power structure and intent of action of the United States for more than reading Gramsci and Marcuse.

Expand full comment

You have even more faith in these people than I do

Expand full comment

Gramsci and Marcuse are the intellectual forbearers of the woke/post-modernist/hierarchy of oppressions bs we are seeing in today’s colleges, and corporate DEI initiatives. Robin D’Angelo, Ibrahim Kendi, and the anti-Semitic little monsters we are seeing at elite universities are the intellectual heirs of Gramsci and Marcuse.

Expand full comment

Don't forget the migration of so-called neoconservatives like Bill Kristol from R to D. That the Ds are now the pro-war faction is pretty remarkable given the history of the 20th-century.

Expand full comment

Let’s see...which party got us into WW1, WW2, and Vietnam. A faction within the Republican Party has returned to its isolationist roots. The war mongering party has historically been the democrats.

Expand full comment

Wilson: WWI

FDR: WWII

Truman/U.N. Korea

Eisenhower/U.N.: Korea nation building

Kennedy: Cuba, Vietnam

Johnson: Dominican Republic, Vietnam

Nixon: Vietnam, Cambodia, Loas

Reagan: Grenada, Nicaragua

Bush41: Panama and Desert Storm

Clinton: Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Serbia,

Bush43: Afghanistan, Iraq

Obama: Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria

Trump: eliminated ISIS

Biden: Ukraine

Expand full comment

Don’t forget the four years of Afghanistan we got under Trump, or his assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the drone strikes in Iran and other places we do know about, and the ones we are no longer allowed to know about

Expand full comment

LOL--OMG. I'm fully aware of what constitutes the left and right, thanks. Suggest you take a look at politicalcompass.org to see what the criteria actually are. The site was started by two political science profs to use with college students.

Expand full comment

Relying on a website for "truth" seems like "Leftie logic," kind of like banking on the "honesty" of a source like Politifact or the Washington Post "Fact" Checker thinking it's unbiased?! Also, the LOL & OMG seem histrionic, how old are you?

Expand full comment

Lemme take a wild guess--you subscribed to Matt when he started the Twitter Files.

Expand full comment

You don't know anything about me, and stereotyping based on one's internal bias is not analysis! I've followed Matt ever since his days at Rolling Stone.

His 2020 article, "The American Press is Destroying Itself" is how I found Substack, and where I began to understand what was happening in journalism and the Woke ideology that I was seeing and experiencing in my personal life. I owe him a lot!

Expand full comment

And why is that a problem?

Expand full comment

75, and I have a PhD. By the way, I am a libertarian. Have it your own way--I was just trying to save you time. You can pick up any book of your choice on the difference between left and right--politicalcompass.org is in perfect alignment with any book on the subject.

Expand full comment

Both parties sell their souls for votes. Neither give a shit about party values, only votes and what will keep them in the power position so the money flows into their pockets..

Expand full comment

As a former Democrat, and classic liberal, I am now...off on a tangent from which I'm unlikely to return?

Expand full comment

You can always sign into the Washington Post or MSNBC if you are more comfortable with the Far Left bubble you seem to live in? It's quite clear that many on the Left can't comprehend the face of Far Left Authoritarianism as expressed by the Democrat Party these days... let me guess, Communism hasn't been done the "right" way?

Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot, are all fine examples of Left Wing "social justice," and now the Democrats have Angela Davis, Ibrahim X Kendi, BLM and their ilk to take the grift to even more absurd levels. The Far Left demolishes existing hierarchies, only to create new ones that are even more regressive and antediluvian that what preceded it... so much "progress" I can hardly stand it comrade -

Expand full comment

Ya, ok, sure.

Expand full comment

Amen to blinders off and veils lifting. Kind of sickening to reckon with former Democratic Party allegiances and activism. Had Yuuuge blinders to the unbridgeable chasm between what the say they are and what they really are. Having said that, it is absolutely true (for me) that the Republican party is same, just “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Registered Independent, still care, but not fooled.

Expand full comment

Incoherent pseudo-theoretical mooning. Gibberish and nonsense.

Expand full comment

That’s not an argument.

Expand full comment

Define cultural Marxism

Expand full comment

RINO Republicans are aligned with the Democrats. Republicans are trying to separate from Uniparty RINOS. Look at the process in choosing a Speaker. I thought it was fantastic. The Democrats lack values and courage most likely because they were all bought off.

Expand full comment

Yes, and now we have a speaker who believes the earth is 5000 years old and calls Netanyahu, one of the biggest thugs on the world stage for the last 30 years, his "friend."

Expand full comment

He's a conservative with convictions he acts on. He can believe whatever he likes as long as he leads the Rs in the Right direction and arranges the purge of RINOS from the party.

Expand full comment

The jury is out on the Speaker for sure. The point is they tried to send an anti establishment message.

Expand full comment

The jury is out? The speaker is against gay marriage, abortion, and thumps his bible every other sentence. Religious zealots, of any fold, creep me out. As my mom (a devout Christian) always told me...do not trust people who wear their religion on their sleeve.

Expand full comment

I'll let the irony sink in.

Expand full comment

Millions of other Americans are also opposed to this decadence. Religiously informed moral convictions are helpful when battling the godless left that's destroying all hierarchies and distinctions of any sort and cheering the slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians.

Moral relativists creep me out.

Expand full comment

When it comes to people who believe crazy shit, I'll ALWAYS prefer the ones who wear it on their sleeves rather than the ones who hide it. I like to know what I'm dealing with.

Expand full comment

The speaker has his own personal beliefs. He believes the law is clear on gay marriage and respects the law, unlike the leftists on the other side.

Expand full comment
Oct 30, 2023·edited Oct 30, 2023

Who are the religious zealots, Ann? I don’t remember the Christians having massive parades and months of celebrations that everyone was forced to celebrate and that no one could criticize. I don’t remember all the major corporations changing their corporate logos to include the cross or other Christian symbols. I don’t remember Christians demanding that gays bake them a cake or approve of their lifestyle. I don’t remember seeing an army of Christian teachers force feeding students their ideology and posting Christian flags all over their room.

Expand full comment

They are back where they were with McCarthy.

Expand full comment

Except McCarthy didn't say (at least in public) that the Bible was his world view.

Expand full comment

History has proven McCarthy mainly correct about the Communists in Hollywood. That snake pit is still populated by leftists in the neo-Marxist era. I'll admit he was over-zealous in his approach to purging Communists from American politics. A less sensational, more nuanced approach was called for.

Expand full comment

Yeah, basically. Good on Jim Jordan in this case, though it was an easy act to take, he ends up getting to be on the right side of things with this. Hardly exonerates him for all his other bullshit. Nonetheless Matt has a point

Expand full comment

Mark. Curious about “the other bullshit” you reference concerning Jordan.

Expand full comment

This is the 4th or 5th time I have heard this "Jim Jordan is a bad person" thing from someone on the left. I always ask the same question: What has Jim Jordan done that makes him "bad"??

Expand full comment

Jordan is pals with Dennis Kucinich. They both admittedly disagree on most policy issues, but have a common respect for the Constitution and proper governmental processes-as illustrated by Taibbi’s anecdote.

Expand full comment

Stxbuck, I continue to ask this question, even to friends (who are otherwise rational) who are quite adamant that Jordan is "a bad human being" or words to that effect.

I never get an answer.

When I show this article by Matt Taibbi simply thanking him for doing his job, they get hysterical mad, start cussing and attack Matt Taibbi...but still no answer as to why they think Jordan is "a bad person". I guess I will chalk it up to Trump derangement syndrome and mass formation psychosis of some sort.

Expand full comment

The trying to help overturn the electoral college thing also isn’t terribly flattering for him either. Refusing to cooperate with congressional subpoenae is also not a great look for a congressman.

you may call that Trump Derangement Syndrome though. Blame me for what Jordan chose to do, if you will.

He also protested McCarthy really strongly, and then fell right in line with the guy. It’s sorta funny in retrospect how republicans ever viewed him as a suitable replacement for speaker. But those people are kinda huffing their own farts 24/7, kinda hard to judge them too harshly. Farts don’t hang in the air long enough to make coherent politics just out of breathing them, as it turns out

Expand full comment

His constant slobbering on Donald Trump’s cock doesn’t do him any favors. But I guess the main thing is how he covered up sexual abuse, for me anyway

Expand full comment

By "other bullshit" you mean what exacrly?

Expand full comment

Except that the VP of the United States has repeatedly said we need equity, which is a Marxist concept to its core.

Marxism is considered the far left of the political sphere.

Your comment does not pass basic rigor or the laugh test.

Expand full comment

Bro you gotta read more

Expand full comment

What would you suggest?

Expand full comment

Wage Labour and Capital has been recommended to me (by people actually interested in Marx) as a suitable broad primer to the Marxist viewpoint.

“Equity is a Marxist concept”?

Specifically this chapter is illustrative: “The General Law that Determines the Rise and Fall of Wages and Profits”.

After you’ve read the text, ask yourself: if what Marx has said is true, and the relationship of profit (understood as the extractable part of capital growth) to wages is an inverse relationship, how could a Marxist be satisfied with equity as a political goal?

The part of capital reserved to establish “Equity” in the sense you’re using it would simply be the whatever proportion of capital labor were able to wrestle away for itself.

Or even if (somehow) a real mathematical equity could be achieved (through union organization, or a truly benevolent capitalist), it would still be only the proportion of capital which union leaders (or stoic capitalists) saw as expendable. And that’s the fantasy world.

An equitable dispersal of the fruits of capital would be (if managed by the state) simply welfare-state capitalism. Ownership of the means of production would still rest in the hands of the capitalists.

If managed by the capitalists, it would be something like private welfare - or charity. In the Marxist viewpoint, charity is no substitute for revolution.

Furthermore, economic equity (in the sense of the word you’re using here) is an economic concept independent of Marx. It can be easily defined in the terms preferred by subscribers to free market ideology. There’s nothing revolutionary socialist about welfare state capitalism on the one hand, or about charity on the other.

To the Marxist, you’re under the table arguing with me over crumbs while the people in real power dine above.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch07.htm

Expand full comment

Also

No one here is arguing. This is civil discourse.

Two people taking in an e-bar.

Expand full comment

Does Marx opt for a redistribution model in his writings?

Expand full comment

They aren’t just as bad. That’s absurd.

Expand full comment

Why do you follow Matt? Have you read his reporting? What do you think it's about?

Expand full comment
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023

The democrat party has divided the country using the most perverse and twisted racialist narratives. They destroyed every institution to overturn Trump’s election in 2016 and weaponized those same institutions to prevent him from being elected in 2020 and to prevent any sort of legitimate election in 2024. They’ve rounded up their political opponents en masse and thrown them in jail for years without trial (see J6). In short, they’ve attacked or perverted every important constitutional right in their pursuit of power. How exactly are the two parties equally bad? It’s just dumb to claim that at this point. There are many problems with republicans. Wake me up when they start rounding up their political opponents by the thousands as the Dems have been doing.

Expand full comment

The Ds in California, Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia,etc. sure don’t seem interested in controlling anything. Eliminating cash bail and essentially legalizing retail theft don’t seem like elements of authoritarian control.

Expand full comment

So controlling your speech, right to assembly and bodily autonomy isn't authoritarian enough for you? And remember, those policies you mention above may not control criminals, but they control YOU.

Expand full comment

A fetus/child has a separate DNA structure from it’s mother. It is not subject to someone else’s bodily autonomy.

Expand full comment

We were talking about intrusion on bodily autonomy by the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Expand full comment

I've been independent until this year because most of the republicans are just as dirty. Now that the dems have set themselves on fire, I moved right. Matt Gaetz is another reason. May he keep bulldozing and get us back to at least 2 distinct parties.

Expand full comment

Oh, please, Gaetz is not the guy. Don't be taken in by a showboat out for himself. Blowing something up without a rebuilding plan is not progress.

Expand full comment

So you believe there's no difference between McCarthy and Mike Johnson? The "showboat" managed to get the flaming dems to shoot themselves in both feet by removing McCarthy to end up with Johnson. Johnson's plan for individual spending bills may just help to save the future.

Expand full comment

I was stating my opinion of Gaetz. If Johnson is actually better than McCarthy, I'll be pleased.

Expand full comment

Gaetz did do some showboating, but I now think it's what got him underestimated and was perhaps on purpose.

Expand full comment

Washington politics has become a circus. It’s hard to get anything done anymore without some type of sideshow antics. Sad situation but Gaetz got something accomplished. I think Johnson is a good man. We shall see.

Expand full comment

Gaetz the 'playboy?'

Expand full comment

It won’t.

Expand full comment

I'll keep my eyes open.

Expand full comment

There was a plan. The new Speaker garnered 100% of the Republican votes.

Expand full comment

We seem to be stuck in a pattern of choosing who blows up what, not choosing people with plans. And God forbid we get any more "progress". We're already drowning in it.

Expand full comment

That sound like a sound bite from the rinos

Expand full comment

Matt Gaetz is a piece of work.

Expand full comment

Like in master piece? He took the Big Dog Uniparty swamp creature down - the one with the mediocre scorecard.

Expand full comment

“took the big dog unitary swamp creature down” 👀

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12607773/Matt-Gaetz-insists-absence-House-Speaker-not-impact-ability-Congress-provide-aid-Israel.html

“Matt Gaetz insists absence of a House Speaker will not impact ability of Congress to provide aid to Israel”

Expand full comment

And I'm suppose to say what? We have a speaker now and if Israel doesn't get taxpayer aid it will be Biden's fault.

Expand full comment

What are you supposed to say about your boy holding the torch for the uniparty?

Expand full comment

I can tell you as a life long lefty who only in the past three years started to take a good, hard look at the other side of things, the view is very different from what people see on the conservative side of the aisle.

I never could open my mind to anything coming from the right, because the Republicans I knew were also the ones telling the racist jokes and trying to explain to little old me why whites were fundamentally superior to blacks. Oh, they laaaaaaugghed at me when I’d get so angry. That creates a real sticking point when it comes to being interested in anything else someone has to say.

I cried for two days straight after Trump was elected, and I was absolutely convinced that all the minorities were going to be in concentration camps within 6 months of him becoming president. But that six months came and went, and the apocalypse I had anticipated never came about, and I started to wonder what was going on on the other side. I was increasingly dismayed by all the hate coming from all my love and peace blue communities… My politics were based on my values and I just didn’t understand how much the left no longer represented those. I didn’t know how much the media had been lying. It has taken time to grasp how far the Democrats have gone off the rails. The people who learned me how to be antiestablishment and to watch out for propaganda have no idea they’re drunk the koolaid, themselves. We are a long way from where it all started, at least where it did for this 70’s child.

I began listening to conservative voices, and I started paying attention to all the lefties leaving the party. I discovered brand new to me information about issues I had previously thought I was super informed on (starting with Michael Shellenberger). I became politically homeless. I sat in silence up at all our family get togethers when politics came up because I had no idea how to navigate those conversations from the new place I found myself in. The view is SO different from the left. The mainstream media is blocking out so much reality, and if you don’t go looking for something else, the right looks pretty terrifying. But also, if you don’t see the insanity of writing off 50% of the population as ignorant and evil, ya ain’t gonna start questioning the narrative.

The past few years have been an awakening for a lot of us democrats who have been #leavingtheleft. And I can tell you all the dems I know, those who’ve seen the light and those who haven’t, are good-hearted, intelligent folks who have the propensity to get stuck needing to be right, and are vulnerable to forces that seek to scare and anger them in order to be in control. That describes a lot people on both sides. Most of the humans.

You asked why people keep voting for democrats. Hey, I’m with you. I was shocked after the last election to find out how blue this state still is. Heartbroken. Outraged. Who remains still oblivious in California at this point?

But I do understand who and why, because that’s where I came from. If anyone honestly wants to understand how another person or another group sees things, ya gotsta get up, go around, and look at things from over there.

And many people aren’t concerned with issues until they’re affected personally. That’s kinda sensible sometimes. But the left I came from, the old school left, was made up of a lot of people who stood up for people whose problems didn’t affect them personally. They stood, they marched, and worked for humane treatment of all people… it’s just not clear to a lot of people that that ain’t the platform anymore.

Expand full comment

Shellenberger ran in the D primary for governor in California and finished fourth. That tells you all you need to know about current D thinking. I’m a lifelong libertarian/conservative and would vote for Shellenberger in a heartbeat. He has the best policy thinking on environmental and homeless/urban crime issues out there today.

Expand full comment

I voted for him. I was so sad he didn’t win, but he did bring more attention to his work, at least.

Expand full comment

"Good-hearted, intelligent folks who have the propensity to get stuck needing to be right, and are vulnerable to forces that seek to scare and anger them in order to be in control" deserve whatever political nightmare they cling to in order to protect their fragile egos.

William Burroughs called this condition "the Right virus." People infected must at all times be right or they experience extreme emotional distress. They feel threatened when they're proven wrong about anything. I have nothing but contempt for such people. Let Jesus have pity on them for their moral failing.

Expand full comment

That's a little harsh. How about “you cannot reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into” posted by Robert Hunter on one of Matt's SS’s. I find this to be the case in some of these comments.

There are those with a ‘government-must-fix attitude’ when their empathy for others that fall below their own perch in life (regardless of the underlying reason(s)), need attention. “a lot of people who stood up for people whose problems didn’t affect them personally. They stood, they marched, and worked for humane treatment of all people. . .” That is the remedy when one has a self-defined guilt. Life is not or never perhaps, fair (not a God term). The force of laws and more $programs$ is rarely, if ever, an answer because the root causes are never addressed. The 'fixes' become the perpetual degradation of society.

Expand full comment

Consider Dr. Cornell West. He is also running from a place you might recognize. Next to nothing in the Democratic Party is left, anyway not the left I grew up with.

Expand full comment

i would argue the Democratic Party is a moderate liberal party, not a leftist party.

Expand full comment

Thanks for your brave and honest advice. Nice post.

Expand full comment

Perfect questions!

Democrats hounded President Trump from day 1. They created chaos around President Trump's every action, then blamed him for the chaos.

President Trump and people on his campaign, in his administration, were lied about, surveiled, harassed, indicted, jailed...non-stop.

Did you think that was normal?

Did you consider any of this when deciding to vote Democrat?

Expand full comment

Hear hear. This reminds me of the scene in Braveheart, where William Wallace is thatching some hut or something, and the rebels come asking for help. He states he will not participate in the troubles or help them in the peril. Later, after his wife is murdered by the English magistrate, William Wallace goes all in asking for ALL the clans help. But only AFTER he felt the pain personally.

Expand full comment

No, Matt's been moving away from doctrinaire Democratic stuff for some time now. Perhaps the reason he voted for Democrats is because in virtually every election, the other side was desiring to privatize Social Security and Medicare, and lower taxes for rich people. Which they still desire.

Expand full comment

Probably because Democrats are typically driven by emotions and emotional causes. Democrats like to self congratulate themselves for being the "nice", "empathetic", "sympathetic", party that "cares" for the oppressed class and fights the oppressors. Because of these emotional drivers, Democrats conveniently forget to look at the actual results of their policies. Results don't matter for them, only feeling good and ensuring that they appear as "good" people versus those mean, awful conservatives. It's hard for such people to admit that their party's policies have generally lead to a worsening for the oppressed classes that they claim as their personal fiefdom of voters. Lastly, Democrats do not like anyone to question them and when one fo their own does it, that's when the really sharp claws come out. No one wants to lose their supposed "friends".

Expand full comment

I can say that I always voted Democrat because they were more humane. The crazy screaming ad hominem crazies used to be on Republican. Now they are with the Dems. Neither party is serious.

Expand full comment

As Matt and many longtime Dem voters would tell you, many of their beliefs once aligned with the party. When the party shifted dramatically--as in the case of warmongering and free speech which directly affects his profession--one has to consider going independent or losing most of your friends by condemning them.

Expand full comment

I'm pretty sure that Matt has said that he voted for Jill Stein in 2016, so that was years before he was 'impacted personally' by the IRS visit.

Expand full comment

I'm like Matt in that I voted D for a good while. Republicans want to cut taxes on rich people, don't give a shit about health care coverage, love censorship, and love war. Just because Dems now also love censorship and war doesn't automatically mean one should vote for Republicans.

Expand full comment

I would guess it's because the Republican party set policies based on appealing to religious fanatics, are just as pro endless war as the Democrats, and use levers of power to harass and attack political opponents just as much as the Dems do. The only difference today and 20 years ago is that the shoe is on the other foot for who's the party in the power.

Expand full comment

Any remaining Republican warmongers are now RINOS. Republican hawks like William Kristol have been migrating to the Democratic Party, the party of US global domination, the party bankrupting the US by funding proxy wars and pursuing WW III with its bombing of Syria.

Since we are stuck in a 2-party morass, I choose the current lesser of two evils, especially since it is advancing Trump for 2024 (if he can avoid prison or assassination beforehand).

I am much more comfortable with religious fanatics than neo-Marxists, as long as those fanatics aren't Muslims or bent on realizing some Biblical fantasy about Israel and Armageddon.

Expand full comment

Trump stayed in Afghanistan, a war started by war hawks, that wasted American and Afghanistan lives and trillions of dollars.

Biden actually put an end to the nonsense, and was immediately attacked by every Republican for do so. I doubt the sincerity of the Republican party claiming to be a party of isolationism, when it's actively supporting turning the entire Middle East into a war zone over Israel.

When to comes to public finances the Republican have been consistently worse at balancing budges than Democrats have, since the whole party loves cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, while spending even more on the military.

The lesser of two evils in this case are clearly dementia Joe and the Democrats since they're not trying to actively strip civil rights away from minorities while supporting the same war mongering policies that yes all the Republicans support.

Expand full comment

Sorry--this lesser of two weevils bullshit gets us nowhere.

The RP can dissolve and go away forever, as far as I care. That goes double for the DP, especially in light of their arrogant, cynical, and plain evil advancement of Dementia Joe to the office, with his cackling stewing hen Harris. I will vote Trump again for a third time because he fucks up the status quo and has permanent party DC bureaucrats and the press pissing themselves with fear--as they have from day 1. Too bad they decided to destroy the source of their anxiety instead of determining which faults of their own may have led them to this situation

The more stress and anxiety Trump generates in these totalitarian bureaucrats and their pimps in the press, the better.

Expand full comment

Trump did nothing to upset the status quo, all he did was make people mad over Twitter but his policies were in lock step with prior administrations. You're 100% kidding yourself to pretend otherwise.

The only bureaucracy Trump interrupted was making it harder for people to get passports and easier for corporations to evade consumer health regulations such as food poisoning laws. If you think that's effective disruption. I don't know what to tell you, but that's a joke.

Expand full comment

Nothing but reveal the mainstream press for what it is, after taking the heat for exaggerating. Recall what Taibbi said about how Trump put the campaign press on some sort of dais and mocked them to a rally crowd?

For this alone, for his war with the press that called our attention to their sycophantic good-old-boy Ivy League network and their Rolodex lists of leaky apparatchiks, their strategic placing of propaganda and lies, he deserves re-election.

And his re-election would--I am hoping--remove any restraints he was under in his first term, so he can go scorched earth as a lame duck.

He's what the country needs--someone to goad the left into more extreme madness and purge government of its toxic bureaucracies.

The only problem is his ego. Is he really working for us flyover-state conservatives? Will he be conciliatory or will he aggressively reform the FBI, CIA, NSA, disband/dissolve any or all of these bureaucracies? Will he stop the metastasizing censorship network? Normalize relations with Russia and China and broker a peace in Ukraine? If he's smart about his historical image, he will be consistent and actually make an effort to do these things if he can manage to gather a cabinet that can work with him.

Lots of big "ifs," but I reject the alternatives and hope Ramaswamy runs again in '28.

Expand full comment

I am curious how you define “a religious fanatic”. Would that be someone who believes in God and tries to live their life by the principles of their beliefs? Would I be a fanatic simply because of one aspect of my beliefs- that life begins at conception? I believe Thou shalt not kill, but I believe their are times when it would be acceptable to do so even as I know that I would have to live with that stain on my soul the rest of my life. Are these examples of a fanatic? Please, I really would like to know.

Expand full comment

You can believe in any bronze age fairy tales you want to believe, but you become a fanatic when you seek to impose those beliefs on others by force, which is what the Republican party has made a core part of its policy for over 50 years now.

You believe life begins at conception, that's fine, don't get an abortion. You become a fanatic when you seek to deny others the right to choose what they do with their own bodies by claiming you have moral authority over them. Authority that you claim is granted to you by a book written by people who also claimed that anyone who eats shellfish should be put to death, who thought the sun orbited the earth, and said slavery was fine.

Expand full comment

Dimitri - that is exactly what I thought when I read Matt’s comments - Matt, what’s your answer??

Expand full comment

Probably because the Republican party is even worse, and the way we've designed our voting system it is impossible to meaningfully vote for anyone else.

Expand full comment

Yeah, things are so much better in 2023 since democrats took control lol

Expand full comment

This is a good question and would help me understand this perspective more.

Expand full comment

The greatest danger facing our country today and all that it once stood for is the modern Democratic party. Your grandfather's Democratic party that truly stood for working men and women is looong gone. It is now dominated by coastal elites who view those very working class citizens with mistrust, disdain, and even contempt.

Expand full comment
Oct 28, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023

I sure don’t like some of items the Republican made the foundation of their agenda. For example, I think abortion is an issue that should be left alone between a woman and her doctor. I don’t want them to touch Social Security. I think there are vulnerable groups of population, like aged and disabled, that the government must assist, and that a blanket statement “small govt by all means” does not work. But in a big picture, my self-preservation instinct tells me to stay away from Democrats as far as possible and to not let them ruin this country, what they have pretty much succeeded in doing already. I will close my nose and vote for republicans while disagreeing with them on many points. It will still be safer.

Expand full comment

"I will close my nose and vote for republicans while disagreeing with them on many points. It will still be safer." Precisely. Because while many of us may disagree with some Repubs on certain policy, we're starting to realize that factions of the Democratic Party are out and out loons. For example, they cannot tell you what a woman is but that men can become pregnant; that "silence is violence" but looting is not; and on and on...

Expand full comment

Dont rule out Bobby Kennedy, Jr...he's running as an Independent, which means he represents US, the nation, not a neocon/neolib ideological party...that is if we even make it to 2024 election. A lot can happen between now & then.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately Social Security has to be touched unless our population can grow at a substantial rate constantly. The math of ehat people put into social security vs what it pays out just doesnt work, the average person gets back 7 times what they put in.that is a pyramid scheme.

Or you stop adding to the liat of people and there dependents that can claim disabilitu because that number is blowing up

Expand full comment

Agree, the program has to be made solvent again. But touched in a reasonable way, taking into consideration that many people depend on it and with an outlook for generations ahead. All I hear from right wing of the GOP is cut cut cut.

Expand full comment

Let's be clear, the Right Wing does not control the Republican Party. It influences the party. I've only heard a Republican proposals to reasonable solvency by increasing the eligibility age to receive benefits, and tighten the abuses to the system. I defy you to provide an instance where a Republican Party, representing more than 15 House members, that has proposed benefit cuts.

And let's go ahead and state the obvious that the Democrat Party has never creditably offered a proposal that would address the pending insolvency. Indeed, Democrat Party always presses to expand the costs, exacerbating and drawing the reckoning closer.

Expand full comment

And if you want to express your dissatisfaction, they will arrest you drag you through their corrupt courts, assign you a dirty prosecutor, a bias judge and lock you up.

Expand full comment
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023

The democrat party never stood for working men. Lol. They’ve always been frauds.

Expand full comment

That Old Democrat Party of freedom and justice for all tossed Harry Truman on the ash heap. Despite trying to bill itself as the smarter, better educated and sophisticated crowd, it functions more like People Magazine or TMZ in determining objectives according to an ever evolving, Twitterized, "current thing" agenda.

Expand full comment

"Why couldn't I call a Democrat?"

---------

You would have been able to if you had just parroted the narrative like they wanted!

Expand full comment

Exactly. Because WrongThinkers aren’t welcome on Team Unanimity.

Expand full comment

Diversity is our strength -- but not diversity of thought! That gets you banned.

Expand full comment

Über-Team Ubiquity... er, Iniquity...?

Expand full comment

Yep - he didn't obey.

Expand full comment

But then the IRS wouldn't have shown up at his house to begin with!

Expand full comment