lpetrich
Contributor
Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?
Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?
Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?
The flaw is the word I magnified. There are no "big" changes. Look at ACA. It took fucking the Democrat party in 2010 to pass a free market designed insurance exchange program that was about as far from UHC as could be if you just took out the subsidies.Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?
The flaw is the word I magnified. There are no "big" changes. Look at ACA. It took fucking the Democrat party in 2010 to pass a free market designed insurance exchange program that was about as far from UHC as could be if you just took out the subsidies.Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?
If you want big change, you need to wait for a disaster first because America is reactive no proactive. A country the size of the US is incapable turning on a dime without a massive fire under one's butt. The Space Race, WWII production, stuffed crust pizza.
no, because those are both examples of two things: political activism and judiciary decision making - IE the force of will of a group of people sculpting public opinion, and then a small group of individuals getting to unilaterally make a choice about it.Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counterevidentiary to that?
see above.Who saw either one coming, even 2 or 3 years before they came about? There must be other, examples of sea change I'm not thinking of. Brown v. Board of Education was certainly a game-changer in '54 -- completely shocked the South, and wasn't an obvious development in the mid-50s, considering the glacial pace of civil rights progress prior to '61.
Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counter-evidentiary to that? Who saw either one coming, even 2 or 3 years before they came about? There must be other, examples of sea change I'm not thinking of. Brown v. Board of Education was certainly a game-changer in '54 -- completely shocked the South, and wasn't an obvious development in the mid-50s, considering the glacial pace of civil rights progress prior to '61.
I can't really see either of those as big changes, though.Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counterevidentiary to that?
What about MAD? Mothers against drunk drivers? Those were sweeping law changes.no, because those are both examples of two things: political activism and judiciary decision making - IE the force of will of a group of people sculpting public opinion, and then a small group of individuals getting to unilaterally make a choice about it.Aren't Roe v Wade (1973) and gay marriage for all 50 states (2015) counterevidentiary to that?
that is very distinctly different from political change instituted by governmental structures.
see above.Who saw either one coming, even 2 or 3 years before they came about? There must be other, examples of sea change I'm not thinking of. Brown v. Board of Education was certainly a game-changer in '54 -- completely shocked the South, and wasn't an obvious development in the mid-50s, considering the glacial pace of civil rights progress prior to '61.
not a single of these examples were legislative.
Neither. In the U.S., if one wants big changes, they should start a popular movement among the population to convince and attract enough people to the idea so that elected officials seeking their votes to stay in office will express the popular movement's desires in legislation. The idea of winning office to pass legislation the majority of the public does not support is the tactics of tyrants.In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?
I'm.... utterly baffled by this sentence. What account of the 19th century did you read? Literally no part of this sentence is true in any way whatsoever, and indeed it suggests a historical trajectory very nearly opposite to what actually happened. Which, as most Americans know by the time they are seven, was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history up to that point. and ongoing regional tension that moves US politics to this very day.The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough