The head of Twitter endorsed this article on eliminating the political opposition, so you might want to read it.
It's not well-argued, and there's almost nothing of value in its extremely loose historical analogies. The endorsement thus isn't based on the notion that this is a tightly argued piece that maps out a plausible way forward. The endorsement is of the overarching vision of a nation where only Democrats exercise political power, where Republicans and conservatives are as powerless as in California, and where 'the wrong side' is crushed and subordinated.
California accomplished this, the author says, so the nation as a whole can as well. There are in fact substantial road blocks to doing that in the rest of the country, but you might usefully ask how California became so reliably Democratic. The answer is straightforward: Democrats endorsed mass immigration, Republicans opposed it, and the massive number of immigrants voted for Democrats as a result. It's actually completely unlike the historical analogues chosen by the author, i.e., the Civil War and the FDR era that arose in the Great Depression. Those political outcomes were the result of calamities that persuaded people to accept a new order. In California, they just imported enough new voters to tip the scales.
California also exported a lot of Republican voters, of course, as they fled the state for Texas or other friendlier climes. In the envisioned scenario, there would be nowhere to go.
10 comments:
It's easy to imagine that essay, with a few changes, being written a century ago by the intellectuals of another countries, isn't it?
Twitter is a publicly-traded corporation. Its CEO and other executives have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
There is surely a point at which an executive's use of his company's resources in pursuit of his personal political beliefs becomes a violation of responsibility to the owners. I don't know that this has has ever been litigated, but I suspect that someday soon, it will be.
The bar for such a finding of violations would surely be set high, but it must be there somewhere.
Interesting suggestion.
California might not be as monolithically Progressive-Democrat as some believe. Newt Gingrich has a Fox News op-ed that notes that a Republican currently is polling second for the California governorship--which, if it holds, puts him on the ballot this fall, given California's jungle primary system.
Of course, he's still likely to lose that election, but this is close to a sea change--potentiated by so much of the State's citizenry (as opposed to population) disgruntlement with Sacramento's shenanigans.
Eric Hines
AVI
It's easy to imagine that essay, with a few changes, being written a century ago by the intellectuals of another countries, isn't it?
The way that some wingnuts indiscriminately throw the "Commie" label at their opponents on the left doesn't seem so deranged these days, does it?
No where is it said that the immigrant voters that have been so methodically imported and cultivated, have voted legally at California's polls. Why is it left only implied? I think Conservatives do themselves a disservice by conceding the field to alternative interpretations that benefit scofflaws. Certainly a Federal Law that requires certified photo ID's upon penalty of immediate arrest would have a profound effect upon turnout, one that would be comparable between Federal and State elections, not so?
While we exert pressure and wait for things like this to come to pass, I think it's important that Conservatives practice consistency by continuing the highlight the distinctions between Immigration and Illegal Immigration, and between Citizen Immigrants, Legal Immigrants, and Illegal Immigrants. Words can be crafted to facilitate slippery meanings, and Liberals are the practical masters of just these kinds of deceptions. Shine the Light on them.
There is a legal prohibition against usurpation of corporate opportunities for the private benefit of those who owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation. It usually falls to the shareholders to vote a board out if it stops looking after their interests, but they can sue as well, if they can show monetary damages.
Well, there you have it. We are scum, all of us, just lap dogs of those billionaires our policies create. I am a little confused though- if the policies of the republicans cheat the little guy, and let the 1% rake in all the dough, why are most of the 1% avowed leftists? Hmm. Curious.
This article clearly illustrates why they are worried about DWG's.
(Deplorable's With Guns). The forty percent of the population they intend to completely disenfranchise is not going to be happy about it. At all.
If California is so reliably prog, where did Prop 8 get its support from?
The Latter Day Saints and other religions.
California is biased towards the cities, but there are several enclaves of religious people there that people apparently don't hear much about.
It's not surprising the fate of the USA has come to what it is. Little different from what I had seen in 2007. The best is still left to be unveiled, wait for it.
Here's a hint: corpses stacked like cordwood to the moon.
The focus is not on the corpse stacking but on the moon, that will be released in the future.
Post a Comment