Can’t say I’m a fan of this in any sort of ‘universally true’ sense. I mean, if you want to go after corporate democrats, poor message-making from dems, or dems uselessly trying to aim for bipartisanship in the past, then IMO you’re in to some strong points that can and should be addressed and dissected.
OTOH, I feel like painting everything with ‘the whole system is the same’ type-message is one of the most inaccurate and disempowering things you can possibbly do as a potential voter or agent of democracy. It may seem clever, it may seem edgy, it may express a certain reality in terms of one’s outlook, and in some cases I do agree that it’s very much true. But ultimately, going hard in to this message is to me like saying… “well, there’s no point in doing anything, so let’s just sit back and watch our rights continue to erode by the workings of late-stage capitalism.”
The reality as I currently see it is this-- the modern “GOP” is now the complete antithesis of everything that it was founded for, and it’s always worth remembering that it was the nation’s most progressive major party for its first ~50yrs or so. (feel free to look that up if you need to) Point is, nowadays it’s little more than a fusion of corporate interests, extreme right-wingers, and a voting base that’s… I can’t even find the words to describe.
Meanwhile, the dems indeed have problems at the top, much of it arguably based on establishment politicians being pretty much neutered by the flow of money. Or worse. OTOH, you look at federal-level voting records, and it’s in fact the dems who still commonly vote for the interests of the body of American citizens. So the whole idea of ‘both sides are the same’ is ludicrous when the above info is added to the mix.
Fortunately, there’s hope on the horizon if you really do believe in hopefulness and useful politicians truly representing the people. National examples would of course be AOC, Mamdani, and the rising El-Sayed, on top of others already in congress, doing their thing a little more quietly.
As I see it, these midterms are basically the very last chance for the nation to recover itself from the awful, self-damaging, 50-60yr history of the nation leaning in to republicans message-makers and button-pushers, who did a tremendous job of stoking up voters on various hot-button topics, but who were ultimately corporate sellouts to the nation.
Lastly, for whatever the truth and limited usefulness of the OP message, you should know that it’s exactly the kind of thing that Russia, the CPC, N.K., and other hostile entities are cheerfully willing to flood online spaces with. Because they’re doing it for a reason, and it’s working, sadly.
Just for the record, much of their known method is to reduce a complicated issue in to a *gotcha* kind of thing that makes the reader feel clever, reducing them as much as possible in to a single-issue voter, or hopefully non-voter if the message worked.
Thank you for a long post that I’m too lazy to write.
As for the voting base you have trouble describing: I think of it as a spectrum from misinformed/disinformed to unhinged.
I think of it as a spectrum from misinformed/disinformed to unhinged.
You are too kind, mssr. I would have to say there’s also a large, intentionally-ignorant, entitled, hateful, toxic component of the base as well. At this point kind of a grand ol’ tradition that dates back… *phew*
It’s actually not hard to see how it developed over the decades (and more), for a specific set of reasons, but over time it’s become so normalised that we all have to kind of pretend it’s okay when it’s really nawt. The whole situation’s bloody well terrible IMO, altho of course every region and nation has their share of somewhat similar deplorables, I reckon.
So the whole idea of ‘both sides are the same’ is ludicrous when the above info is added to the mix
This is not the meaning of the meme. Even if you take it in the most literal sense.
Many countries with parliamentary systems have two major parties who serve similar functions, but I think the america experience is really unique. Sure, a system with n number of parties could end up with the same effect but one of the biggest differences is that you don’t have one party (successfully) dodging accountability because they are “better option.”
In the 2021 canadian election no party got > 50% of the seats so a confidence and supply agreement had to be made. The center right party (Liberal) made an agreement with the slightly more left NDP. We got universal coverage for drugs started. There is no way that would have happened without the NDP making that agreement. At any time until the 2025 election, the NDP could have forced an election if they didn’t like what was happening.
Another way to look at what the meme represents is an edge reinforced random walk. Imagine a tug of war with a rope of infinite length so it can’t end. If you assume each election is random but the chance of winning increases ever so slightly for the next election (like an incumbent). Each election win pulls the rope in your direction. Because of the slight advantage to the previous winner, the rope will move in one direction over time and it will never return to the start.
When elections can happen because the government can’t agree enough to pass legislation this gives parties the chance to run hard on a certain topic they know people care about. Yes, the promises are often not realistic but people also take away their votes from the main parties when they are mad. It’s a lot harder to say “vote for me or bad things will happen” when you know you’re not signing up for a set term.
In a two party system elections are a zero sum game. The parties need to try to appeal to everyone to win elections and the people are agreeing to let the elected officials govern the for a set term no matter what. It cannot reflect the desires of the population as new issues come up and there is no motivation to push for anything people who vote for the other party night not like. That means you can’t win them over.
You make many good points IMO, and you also cover a greater political scope than this ‘meme’ / insight (or whatever) specifically addresses, and that’s cool and educational for the likes of me, and whoever else.
…BUT…
This is not the meaning of the meme. Even if you take it in the most literal sense.
IMO you’re wrong when you say that in an absolutist sense. In fact, it very much *IS* the meaning of the graphic when it comes to the USA, if at least only in part. I.e., the concerns I wrote about weren’t artificial, and memes / useless promotion of thinking as in the OP aren’t purely illusionary. And yes, I get that the message may indeed by multifactorial or a bit more nuanced than I fully addressed.
Mate-- the bottom line when it comes to the upcoming USA midterms is that the things I describe are real, known, serious problems in the States in recent-ish years, even if in your opinion the graphic doesn’t precisely represent the toxic-thought mechanisms involved.
IMO you’re wrong when you say that in an absolutist sense.
What do you see as the most literal interpretation?
I think it’s pretty clear, closely following the words in the OP message.
You could be a casual or someone who doesn’t follow US politics very closely, and come away with the message “ah, so that’s how it works. Good to know!”
It did seem clear to me originally, but your first reply to me makes me think you are seeing it very differently than I do, and I’d like to understand what you are seeing. It sounds like I fell into the trap of thinking that even without adding analysis the words and images would have the same literal meaning to all.
You’re obviously under no obligation to respond but maybe my question will be more clear if I am explicit in what the most literal interpretation is to me. I’ll include the text in the meme because you have mentioned it.
The Ratchet Effect How you are being duped by the fake two party system
I read this as an introduction to the image below, and that the image intended to demonstrate how the two party system is not what it seems.
Democrats block movement back to the left (Image of a pawl)
Democrats are the force that prevent the policy of the government from moving left.
Republicans turn everything to the right (Image of a ratchet gear)
Republicans are the force that drive movement of government policy to the right.
My most literal interpretation is that this meme is describing the two parties as different. A pawl and a ratchet gear serve different functions. They are not the same thing. Driving policy to the right is not the same as preventing policy from moving back left. This is what I meant when I said “both sides are the same” is not the most literal meaning.
The next thing I am going to say is an interpretation of the implied meaning of the heading, so it’s no longer literal.
How you are being duped by the fake two party system
Taken with the images below I understand this to be implying that people may believe that the two party system is intended to move policy in either direction depending on which group is in power. The meme is saying this isn’t accurate and describes the way the system works.
The meme is saying this isn’t accurate and describes the way the system works.
It really doesn’t, though. In reality, it describes a chronic problem with corporate and sellout-style dems as I see it, but not the whole of the system.
That’s the problem, and that’s essentially my main point.
And I do appreciate your efforts to reach out and clarify things. Respect.
In reality, it describes a chronic problem with corporate and sellout-style dems as I see it, but not the whole of the system.
Can you help me see how this is a literal interpretation?
Oh yeah that time when Democrats had more than 48 seats over 13 years ago and only passed medical coverage for 70 Million people. Those damn Democrats! They should have sucked Independent Joe Leiberman’s Dick Harder!
Nevermind all the good shit they did under Biden including auditing the rich, pardoning and commuting thousands of marijuana convictions, protected more woodlands than any president in US History, protecting gay marriage, etc.
Never mind the 2013 tax plan under Obama which lowered taxes for the lowest earners and raised taxes on the top 1% of earners.
No, progress is when:
.
.
.
.
???FB, would you disagree or amend what I said in the sister-comment here?
As a non American, I would say that the biggest reason for this ratchet effect is not the parties but the voters. Biden was by all metrics inching things along for the average population but they chose to vote Trump in again even though history would suggest that he would use the Presidency to enrich himself. Every time the GOP make things bad enough that the Dems get voted in, the Dems are held to blame for not being able to fix everything in 2 short years and the VOTERS usually take any advantage away by returning Congress or Senate to the GOP. And then the GOP not letting a single progressive action happen get off scot free and Dems are held to account. That is my summary of watching the US elections for 40+ years. It was a good democracy but American voters voting against their own best interest for decades have destroyed it.
Every four years or so they flip that little switch on the back. It’s been seesawing like that for decades, generations even, while those above that fray are pulling the real strings. That’s why citizens can starve and be homeless in this “land of plenty”.
Never been a fan of bOtH sIdEs, won’t be one in the future. Having only two parties is a nightmare but I don’t know how you change it. I’m highly doubtful that implying there’s a grand conspiracy of all of government to go right, with Democrats equally involved, could ever be helpful even in the slightest.
You fix it with ranked choice voting.
Now how can you get that when the people who’d need to pass it are the people benefitting from you not having it?
what i don’t get is: who names a community “AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND”. first of all, what do these things have to do with each other? secondly, why all caps?
