That’s just it, I don’t think they see themselves as “good guys” or “bad guys” because that implies some kind of moral dynamic, and they see themselves as above such things. They’re technocrats, I think they see themselves as scientists, in a way. I don’t think they care so much whether or not a course of action is “moral” only that it achieves the desired results.

I think people misunderstand nihilism. It isn’t the total absence of belief, it’s a rejection of meaning and morality. It’s not that the liberals don’t believe in anything, they believe in free markets, they believe in the fully atomized, wholly self-interested, utility maximizing individual. They believe in those things, they just don’t care if that individual, or, god forbid, a group of people, hold any moral positions, unless or until those moral positions start interfering with the functioning of "free markets.’

If you think the next US civil war will be fought between Nazis and Marxism-Leninists, you don’t understand American politics very well. The US in 2025 isn’t Stalingrad in 1942.

They don’t want to admit that their precious rule of law is dead and buried. They want to keep a semblance of normalcy alive, in part because it helps their financial backers

It’s because they’re nihilists. They don’t have a moral ethos. These are the same people who installed a ruthless dictator in Chile to protect liberalism from the Chilean people. They believe that the ends justify the means, the ends in that case being to bring neoliberalism to Chile. Remember what Friedrich Hayek, one of the architects of neoliberalism, said:

At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism.

Welcome to back pain, Mario.

Except these are states that explicitly signed on to this constitution

When most of the states “signed on,” women couldn’t vote and black slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person.

It’s not problematic at all to collectively enforce what they’re constantly trying to weasel out of.

Until the people you consider “weasels” decide they’re tired of a government forcing them to comply with policies they don’t agree with and so they take over said government and start using it to enforce their ideas on the populace.

Let’s absolutely have armed poll watchers ensuring the voting rights of minorities.

A strong central government that can be used to enforce the voting rights of minorities can also be used to oppress said minorities. A strong state is only as good as the people who control it.

race and ethnicity are unscientific social constructs

Race and ethnicity are not the same thing. Ethnicity is very real and it’s defined by shared culture, shared history, shared beliefs, shared language, etc. Outward physical characteristics, like eye, hair, and skin color, can also be a part of ethnicity, but only a part and I think those things are less important than all of the other characteristics that define an ethnic group. It’s socially constructed, sure, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

Race, on the other hand, is the idea that you can take those outward physical characteristics, group together arbitrarily all the people who share some or all them, and define these groups as racial subspecies of human. It’s nonsense, with absolutely no basis in what we understand about human genetics and taxonomy today. Humans are a very genetically homogeneous species. Despite our different outward appearances, we are all relatively genetically similar.

But that doesn’t mean our ethnic differences don’t matter. They do, inspite of our general genetic similarities. They matter because humans are very tribal, by our nature. We evolved to live in tightly bonded communities of like people.

You say that civic nationalism is ok but ethnic nationalism is not, but you can’t separate them. No civic system can be entirely culturally or ethnically impartial, and where there is ethnic diversity, the civic sphere will always be controlled by the dominant ethnic group. That’s why I advocate so strongly for ethnic independence, I don’t think any ethnic group should be dominated by another. I believe that every ethnic group, every nation of people deserves their autonomy and their independence.

For me the wisdom is that for all the good a strong federal government could do, it inevitably was going to be used for ill

Absolutely.

But to a point I do think the founding sin was writing in the constitution that all men are created equal and still allowing slavery…all of American history has been the shockwaves of allowing slavery instead of making it illegal from the very beginning, and to this day it is still playing out.

Definitely. So much so that many people today directly associate greater state autonomy with the institution of slavery, as though if states were granted even slightly more autonomy, slavery would inevitably return and that they two things cannot exist without one another.

This country’s best moments imo has been the rare instances we get decent and capable people in the federal government who are able to push progress all the way out into rural backwaters

Listen to yourself, you sound like the European colonizers who justified their takeover of territory that was not theirs by claiming that they were “bringing civilization and enlightenment to backward savages.” “Progress” through force and violence is a concept that needs to be left in the past.

What are you advocating for?

I’m advocating for nations of people to have their autonomy and independence. I think that’s better than a strong, central state forcing integration.

For instance, I would advocate for the indigenous nations of North America to finally have their independence from settler colonialists. But, I suppose you wouldn’t support indigenous independence because that might mean the establishment of an indigenous “ethnostate.” No, it’s much better for a strong central government to force the indigenous people to allow non-indigenous people to move into their territory, become the majority and take over.

Worked ok for a few hundred years

A few hundred years? You’re counting years in which large portions of the population could not vote and had essentially no rights. So, yeah, I guess ethnic diversity isn’t a problem when ethnic minority groups aren’t allowed to participate. Is that what you’re advocating for?

I think democracy works best at smaller scales. I think it works best when the population is relatively small, and where there is relatively high social cohesion or harmony. So, it’s not that democracy can’t work, it’s that it requires the right set of circumstances to work, and I think those circumstances have been challenged by globalization.

I think countries like the United States are just too darn big to be functional democracies. Too ethnically and culturally diverse and too large and geographically diverse to be a single, functioning democracy. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be democracy on the North American continent, it just means there can’t be only one democracy that spans from sea to sea. I think the US should be broken up into maybe a few dozen autonomous, independent democratic nations.

It always has been! Do people not read history books?

No surprise for a nation that thinks ignorance is a virtue, and that disseminating misinformation is a sacred human right.

They have to, it’s the only way they can justify the system they love so much. If poverty is a systemic failure, then they might have to change something, but if poverty is a personal choice, all’s fair.

Finally, my like of a Kony2012 Facebook post is paying off.

Leaving is what they want you to do, self deport as they say.

I know, but if it can avoid violence then I think self deporting is a good alternative to civil war. I’d rather a peaceful split up than a bloody fight. I don’t want to kill conservatives, I just don’t want to be ruled by them.

Edit: but I also don’t feel overly attached to the state I’m in because I didn’t grow up here. Although, the state I did grow up in is also a deep red state, but I didn’t feel any great loyalty to that state either. IDK, I can understand why some people don’t want to give up their home, but war is so destructive. I mean, how much of your state would you be willing to destroy in your war for it?

Outside of Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis, Oregon is surprisingly* backwards.

I don’t doubt it, but even still Oregon generally is much more aligned with my values than any red state I can think of. Plus, if there is a large exodus of leftists and liberals out of red states, I think many will choose to go to the Pacific coast states, and that will only increase the ratio in those states in favor of “us.” If those folks would rather be a part of Idaho, they can move to Idaho. No one’s stopping them.

I’m a leftist living in a deep red state. I’m prepared to leave if things get bad enough. I’ll move to Oregon. Sure, it’s more expensive, but I think it will be well worth it.

The research — which tested populist-based messages versus the cutting-red-tape “Abundance” agenda

Like the article said elsewhere, the two messages are not mutually exclusive. I’m perfectly fine with “cutting-red-tape,” where appropriate. By all means. I just don’t think that will be the panacea that people like Klein seem to think it will be. Plus, I don’t think it’s going to be all that easy. Much of the “red-tape” exists for a reason, often to protect the interests and assets of the wealthy. Does Klein think they’re just going to let him get rid of, for instance, zoning laws that many land owners believe are protecting their property values? Not likely.

So, yeah, the Democrats have got to do better than their (I believe to be naive and out-of-touch) “Abundance” agenda to win me over. Honestly, it just kind of sounds like a recommitment to neoliberalism, as if the neoliberal paradigm that’s been in place for the last fifty years hasn’t been neoliberal enough, and that despite the many failures of neoliberalism, we need to double down on it. I mean, if they want me to stop worrying and learn to love neoliberalism, they must, at a minimum acknowledge the ways in which neoliberalism has failed, and the ways in which the neoliberal technocrats have failed. I want to know that they understand that they’ve gotten some really important stuff wrong, that they’re contrite, and that they’ve learned from their mistakes and that they are wiser now.

I think people like Klein think we should all just do what they tell us because they’re the smartest kids in the room, but they’ve inherited a lot of mistrust. I just don’t trust the neoliberal technocrats anymore, and I haven’t for a while. If they don’t understand why that is, well, that’s the problem.

It’s happening…