Hardkill

Leo, I have a question about how you understand voters’ psychology around “change” in modern U.S. politics. In the last few election cycles, it feels like the winners have almost always been the candidate who best embodied “change” against the status quo: Obama 2008 & 2012 – “Hope and Change,” post-Bush, anti-Iraq, generational shift Trump 2016 – anti-establishment wrecking ball against both parties’ elites Biden 2020 – “return to normalcy,” a change away from chaos and Trump Trump 2024 – again framed as a change away from Biden and the current direction So on the surface, voters do seem to want “change” over and over. Yet at the same time, the public still doesn’t really go for genuinely progressive / systemic change when it’s offered in a more explicit way by people like: Bernie Sanders AOC Elizabeth Warren Zohran Mamdani, etc. These people are arguably the ones proposing the deepest structural reforms (on capitalism, healthcare, labor, oligarchy, etc.), but most voters don’t rally behind them the way they do behind more “safe” change candidates like Obama or Biden — or right-wing populists like Trump. So my question to you is: How do you explain this psychologically and spiritually? Why do voters repeatedly choose symbolic or surface-level “change” (Obama, Trump, Biden/2020, Trump/2024) while rejecting the more genuinely transformative progressive candidates who would actually challenge the system at a deeper level? More specifically, I’d love to hear your take on: Survival & fear: How much of this is just survival bias — people wanting “change” but only within a narrow safety zone that doesn’t threaten their ego, identity, or material security? Stage development (Spiral Dynamics): Are progressives like Bernie/AOC/Warren/Mamdani simply too far ahead of the median voter’s stage of development, so that even people who are dissatisfied still prefer ego-flattering, tribal, or nostalgic forms of “change” (like Trump or soft-liberal change) rather than true systemic reform? Comfort with institutions: Do most Democratic voters, for example, still trust the basic institutions enough that they’ll opt for “reformist” change (Obama/Biden) instead of “revolutionary” change (Bernie-style), whereas Republicans are more willing to embrace destructive change (Trump) because their distrust has gone much deeper? Media & narrative control: To what degree are people’s “change” preferences basically manufactured by media framing — so that the only acceptable “change” on offer is the kind that doesn’t threaten corporate or elite interests too much? Why does the collective ego keep saying it wants change, then rejecting the people who actually represent deeper change, and instead choosing candidates who either offer mild reform or outright reactionary backlash? I’m curious how you’d unpack this using your frameworks around consciousness, survival, ideological bias, and Spiral Dynamics.

Actually, here's a good analysis from Pakman about why most Democratic voters in the country aren't appealed to someone like Bernie Sanders even though the policies of DSAs have really been social-democratic, aligning with Nordic models rather than advocating for abolishing capitalism like some other socialists:

Despite being in the minority, Democratic leaders continue to play not to lose instead of taking bold action or building a compelling vision for the future. Their communication strategies remain weak, clumsy, outdated, and unable to inspire or meaningfully challenge the status quo. Their style is overly cautious and focused on damage control rather than on championing bold new ideas or organizing strong, clear opposition. As a result, the Democratic Party’s current leadership is failing to rise to the challenges of the moment, both in terms of communication and policy strategy. Chuck Schumer is a prime example of an aging Democratic leader who should step aside and allow someone like Cory Booker to take over as leader of the Senate Democrats. At the same time, the Democratic establishment continues to put its thumb on the scale aggressively for other establishment candidates in many of the major upcoming elections this year, which I believe is a serious mistake. I used to be supportive of pro-establishment Democrats like Biden, but I have come to realize that establishment figures in today’s political environment have become an electoral liability. I hate to say it, but I now see them as a major reason we ended up with Joe Biden running for reelection against the wishes of most Democratic voters. We are living in a moment when public cynicism toward politicians is at historic highs and trust in institutions is at an all-time low. Beltway Democrats need to stop imposing their judgment on voters and stop intervening so aggressively against younger, outsider, and talented candidates. They must allow primary voters to choose their nominees going forward.

I never said to people to never vote Democrat. I always vote blue and tell other to always vote blue no matter what whether it's a moderate Democrat or progressive Democrat running for office. Democrats are always better than Republicans no matter what. Not voting for a certain Democrat who doesn't seem "progressive enough" for your liking is a major recipe for a disaster. If it's a progressive Democrat like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders vs. a Republican, then of course you should vote for that progressive Democrat. Even if it's a moderate Democrat like Joe Biden or Gavin Newsom vs. a Republican, then you should absolutely still vote for the moderate Democrat. Even if it's a conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin or Jared Golden vs. a Republican, then you should absolutely still vote for the conservative Democrat. However, in this day and age, we desperately need Democrats in leadership who are younger, stronger, more bold, and more talented communicators than many of the ones we have now within Democratic leadership.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I was happy that Sherrill won in a landslide. I was worried that she might lose because the polls showed that it was looking like a very tight race and she doesn't seem like a great communicator. I was very glad that Abigail Spanberger won her race in Virginia in a landslide too. However, she's another establishment type that's too afraid of playing to win instead of playing not to lose. Even the Bulwark, a center-right organization that wants Democrats to succeed have talked about how the Democratic Party still has too many leaders who are either too far to the left for most American voters or are moderate enough, but keep playing it too safe or are taking on the fight against Trump and MAGA in a way that comes off as too slick like Newsom.

Yeah, but that didn't work so great in 2020 when Dems barely beat Trump and his party then. They need to win in a landslide or close to it in 2028 if they want to defeat MAGA extremism for good. I believe that an FDR like message based on bold persistent experimentation in the way of liberalism/progressivism is the key to that. People want major change in the country. I appreciate Newsom's fight against Trump and MAGA, but what exactly does he stand for other than attacking them?

I am not sure yet, but if we come together as one then we can all figure out how to do it through civil disobedience while bearing arms.

I thought before that he was capable of becoming a true dictator, but it's now getting hard for me to see it. I just finished watching How to Become a Tyrant on Netflix. It has top experts on fascism and authoritarian leaders explain how a real tyrant gains such terrifying power in his country and the conditions needed for it to happen. Also, Peter Dinklage is the narrator of the series.

I really hate to say this, but I really think it's time that I make an exception to my wish for ending the 2nd amendment for now. It's time to stock up on all kinds of guns and ammo as much as you can. Trump and MAGA have given us no choice but to defend ourselves with guns against their tyrannical government.

Again, the right-wing media must be destroyed and a powerful centralized movement led by an inspiring firebrand leader to fight this.

This is why we desperately need to take down Fox News and every other right-wing media outlet and a charismatic leader who can unite and lead a large enough movement to stop this madness.

Most women in the West are super entitled these days. They were never taught how to be compliant with their men. Most men have been left behind including not being taught how to lead women and take risks. Many men also are running out of fair opportunities for dating.

Unfortunately, Newsom is opposed to it as well.

Dude, he has both a serious case of schizophrenia and major drug addiction. He is clearly very mentally unstable and has refused to take his antipsychotic medication for his mental instability. This was very likely not some kind of premeditated murder. It was much more likely due to insanity and an extremely poor impulse in that moment.

Yeah, I get that, but they still make a major positive difference for themselves. People with Bipolar disorder, often don't want to take mood stabilizers because they don't want to lose that "high" feeling, but taking mood stabilizers is still necessary for their own good. Patients may also have to do some trial and error with their psychiatrist to figure out which exact medicine brand and dosage is best for them.

Yeah.... It's deeply depressing. What I don't fully understand is why Nick Reiner refused to take his antipsychotic medication when he absolutely needed it.

OP, imagine you are training to prepare for a major battle or war that's coming. Are you willing to do whatever it takes to get ready for it? Are you willing to fight as if your life depends on it? Are you willing to make certain sacrifices to defeat your enemies? Another important question you should ask yourself is "Do I want to be average or below average for the rest of my life?" I know I certainly don't. To be very blunt, I want to be superior to the vast majority of people in the world who are either too weak, too frail, too unenergetic, too slow, too undeveloped, too cowardly, too ignorant, too dumb, too foolish, too dishonest, too useless, or too easily quit doing the most difficult challenges. Besides, it gets easier the more you do something hard again, again, and again. You just have to take it one small step at a time towards greatness.

It turns out that Nick Reiner has Schizophrenia and stopped taking his anti-psychotic medications for it regularly. He's also a drug addict.

We are living in very confusing and very unsettling times.

Hey Leo, About six years ago you wrote: I’ve been thinking about that after studying how the terms liberal and progressive have evolved. Historically, figures like TR and Wilson called themselves Progressives, while FDR branded himself a Liberal—yet FDR’s reforms were even more transformative and “progressive” in practice. Today the boundary between the two feels even blurrier: mainstream liberalism dominates U.S. politics, while progressivism functions as a reformist minority inside it. Do you still view progressivism as that deeper willingness to redesign the entire system rather than merely improve it? And how do you distinguish progressivism from liberalism now—from a developmental or consciousness perspective? Has your view shifted as politics has evolved since you first said that? Would like to hear your updated take

There is a big difference in intelligence on both sides. Sure, there are a lot of Democrats and leftists in the country who are stupid and naive. However, it's still asymmetrical. There are a lot more Republicans and right-wingers than Democrats and left-wingers in the country who are idiotic and primitive. Also, most Independent voters are still easily influenced by the right-wing media machine into believing that "both sides are equally bad." Furthermore, most people in America are still tradition-oriented, and the Republican Party is still very much the party that represents traditional values more than the Democratic Party does.

This is so heartbreaking. I never would've thought that an Arab would save many jews in that situation like this.

Doesn't mean that the Democrats will win the midterms in 2026 let alone the presidency in 2028. The midterms have an even greater percentage of less informed, less educated voters who are easily swayed by the right-wing propaganda and anti-mainstream messaging than special elections and off-year elections do. Presidential elections, especially have the greatest percentage of voters who are so stupid, so simple-minded, and so uninformed about what the fuck is really going on in the world that they are the most easily seduced by the devilry of the right-wing propaganda, anti-mainstream propaganda, and a charismatic demagogue into still voting Republican over Democrat. What if Tucker Carlson, Dan Bilzerian, or some other charismatic right-wing figure like them actually runs for president in 2028 and runs as another "outsider" populist who promises to burn down the entire system and make "real change"?

That's good to know. I'd like to see how much of a change this will make many years from now.