are most people really sick and tired of the establishment and status quo?

[Hardkill]

You know how most people around the world have been saying for decades that they are sick and tired of all of these typical politicians who say a lot of things but then always let them down by not following through with so many of their campaign promises?

If that’s true, then why do most people still end up usually electing either conservatives, centrists, or establishment center-left politicians who we know most  never fundamentally change the overall status quo of government and politics?

[Yarco]

In most places there's no other option, you have 2 - 4 parties to choose from that are roughly the same.

People live busy lives, suffering and tired, barely scraping by. They don't have time to get involved deeply with the political process or run for office themselves, or even attend schoolboard meetings to improve their own kid's lives. They don't have time to protest or write to their representatives (and it feels completely futile anyway.)

National politics doesn't have a significant enough impact on most people's lives to give them enough incentive to be more invested in it. The difference between electing a conservative or liberal might be a 5% change in your taxes, or some minor societal change. Politicians lie and you're just as likely to not get what you voted for, even if your desired party wins.

Even in your preferred political party, there's still no way that the leader can actually be the most qualified or competent person. In America, arguably still the most powerful country on Earth.... How can people like Biden, Trump, George Bush, Bill Clinton really be the absolute best we have to elect to our top position out of 300+ million people? The same is true of congressmen, senators, all levels of government. There is too much obvious corruption at work to change the status quo, when unqualified people keep getting elected across the board. 

In that situation, what can you do, besides either voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all?

Personally I think one solution is going ultra-local. Forget about national and state-level politics. You can even ignore city politics to a large degree. Start off by building good relationships with your neighbors and immediate community. Do what you can to independently start building yourself up, because there is no guarantee that any politician will be able to help you. Make friends, barter and trade with each other outside of the financial system entirely, make people in your immediate area more self-sufficient and self-reliant. Work together to create a safe and cohesive neighborhood. Then you can be an example and start building outward.

[Hardkill]

14 minutes ago, Yarco said:

In most places there's no other option, you have 2 - 4 parties to choose from that are roughly the same.

People live busy lives, suffering and tired, barely scraping by. They don't have time to get involved deeply with the political process or run for office themselves, or even attend schoolboard meetings to improve their own kid's lives. They don't have time to protest or write to their representatives (and it feels completely futile anyway.)

National politics doesn't have a significant enough impact on most people's lives to give them enough incentive to be more invested in it. The difference between electing a conservative or liberal might be a 5% change in your taxes, or some minor societal change. Politicians lie and you're just as likely to not get what you voted for, even if your desired party wins.

Even in your preferred political party, there's still no way that the leader can actually be the most qualified or competent person. In America, arguably still the most powerful country on Earth.... How can people like Biden, Trump, George Bush, Bill Clinton really be the absolute best we have to elect to our top position out of 300+ million people? The same is true of congressmen, senators, all levels of government. There is too much obvious corruption at work to change the status quo, when unqualified people keep getting elected across the board. 

In that situation, what can you do, besides either voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all?

Personally I think one solution is going ultra-local. Forget about national and state-level politics. You can even ignore city politics to a large degree. Start off by building good relationships with your neighbors and immediate community. Do what you can to independently start building yourself up, because there is no guarantee that any politician will be able to help you. Make friends, barter and trade with each other outside of the financial system entirely, make people in your immediate area more self-sufficient and self-reliant. Work together to create a safe and cohesive neighborhood. Then you can be an example and start building outward.

Okay, so then why do most people in 1st world countries complain about politicians not doing enough for them instead of joining a real revolution to upend the entire government and the entire political system?

[Yarco]

Because taking part in a revolution is inherently risky. Look at January 6th protestors -- many are now facing felonies and are going to be imprisoned for years. Ashli Babbitt lost her life for taking part. Same thing (deaths and arrests) have even happened to BLM protestors.

Injury, imprisonment, or death are real risks of taking part in a political upheaval.

If you live in a 1st world country, you might have grievances and are angry about the direction your country is going. But at the end of the day you still have it pretty good. Your fridge is stocked with food, you can go home and watch Netflix for hours a night. That's a lot to risk or give up. Do you hate what politicians are saying enough to risk going and getting your head stomped in?

We are the boiling frog. Politicians and world leaders are experts at knowing how to slowly crank the temperature up, just slowly enough that they can boil us without us jumping out of the pot first. Last few years they've maybe just accelerated it a bit too fast, hopefully they're smart enough to tone it back down and placate the masses for a bit.

If you live in a 2nd or 3rd world country you have less to lose so the chances of revolution are greater. So you're going to have to wait for the US to basically collapse to an extent before people become that desperate.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Yarco

[vizual]

The problem with overthrowing the status quo is that the alternative is worse, most of the time.

I live in a democracy with a multi-party system, and I have experienced multiple political parties that quickly rose to having prominent power in national politics. And the problem with these 'revolutionary' parties is that they are usually filled with 'cowboys'. They don't have the skills, knowledge nor experience to properly govern a country. And movements like these also attract people that come from unstable backgrounds and they are opportunistic bandwagon jumpers. They don't care about the movement or the message, just that this new movement creates new opportunities for vultures to come in. A good example of this is the BLM movement. Which in essence uses a noble message for vultures to come in and abuse it for self enrichment.

A revolution really only has a chance of succeeding if there are legitimate people, with legitimate skills and experience in leading and governing, that are willing to back the movement.

[Rokazulu]

Third party would be nice, but we are told that this isn't an "effective strategy" for change. Most people would have voted for Sanders, but chose to vote for our 45th president instead, as an example of how much people don't like corporate leaders (Just out of rhetoric alone).  But, many are swayed by the unusual idea that the "other side" would win more easily unless they vote for their corporate pawn. (And if the other more dangerous corporate pawn wins! Oh no! It is the going to be the end times!!).

Third-party often require grassroots funding (so we know they aren't corporate controlled), a significant amount of signatures for ballot access (which gets increased by law through Democrats or Republicans to keep them out of the polls; and often they won't even accept legitimate signatures on grounds that the signatures are 'unreadable'), as well as they have to fend off righteous apathy on the moral ground that it is better not to vote because it doesn't matter who wins (thus better not to legitimize that whole system).

And who can blame anyone for having moral apathy? We can definitely trust grass roots financing, but can we trust individuals themselves to not take hold of too much power? Green Party supported the mandates for example, and extremely strict price controls on the market. Even though, all their other policies are just common sense perspectives at this point. Yet, they will still be labeled as radical "extremists" that if elected, would be the end times for America.

Real, significant, and powerful positive change would take a monumental amount of organization towards a new system or at the very least a willingness from our main influencers to say they are all voting for the non-corporate funded candidate.

[Hardkill]

6 hours ago, Yarco said:

Because taking part in a revolution is inherently risky. Look at January 6th protestors -- many are now facing felonies and are going to be imprisoned for years. Ashli Babbitt lost her life for taking part. Same thing (deaths and arrests) have even happened to BLM protestors.

Injury, imprisonment, or death are real risks of taking part in a political upheaval.

If you live in a 1st world country, you might have grievances and are angry about the direction your country is going. But at the end of the day you still have it pretty good. Your fridge is stocked with food, you can go home and watch Netflix for hours a night. That's a lot to risk or give up. Do you hate what politicians are saying enough to risk going and getting your head stomped in?

We are the boiling frog. Politicians and world leaders are experts at knowing how to slowly crank the temperature up, just slowly enough that they can boil us without us jumping out of the pot first. Last few years they've maybe just accelerated it a bit too fast, hopefully they're smart enough to tone it back down and placate the masses for a bit.

If you live in a 2nd or 3rd world country you have less to lose so the chances of revolution are greater. So you're going to have to wait for the US to basically collapse to an extent before people become that desperate.

 

6 hours ago, vizual said:

The problem with overthrowing the status quo is that the alternative is worse, most of the time.

I live in a democracy with a multi-party system, and I have experienced multiple political parties that quickly rose to having prominent power in national politics. And the problem with these 'revolutionary' parties is that they are usually filled with 'cowboys'. They don't have the skills, knowledge nor experience to properly govern a country. And movements like these also attract people that come from unstable backgrounds and they are opportunistic bandwagon jumpers. They don't care about the movement or the message, just that this new movement creates new opportunities for vultures to come in. A good example of this is the BLM movement. Which in essence uses a noble message for vultures to come in and abuse it for self enrichment.

A revolution really only has a chance of succeeding if there are legitimate people, with legitimate skills and experience in leading and governing, that are willing to back the movement.

So, then how explain how and why the civil rights movements succeed with ending Jim Crow laws in the US and why the massive amounts of new beneficial social programs got passed during Lyndon B. Johnson's era? 

 

 

[Ulax]

I suppose the question can be taken to be: Why do people still choose to vote for these people?

Well, I'd ask the degree one is able to choose to vote for these people. In the sense of whether they choose in a manner that is self-generated, i.e. the source of the choice at its deepest level is from the self.

However, I don't think that is the source of a person's choice. We are manipulated into who we vote for. We are marketed better to by one party, and the parties that command the most ability to market/ manipulate are the parties who have the most success. Therefore, the choice is not made by us. Our very choice is a choice made upon us. We are inflicted with the choice.

[vizual]

48 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

 

So, then how explain how and why the civil rights movements succeed with ending Jim Crow laws in the US and why the massive amounts of new beneficial social programs got passed during Lyndon B. Johnson's era? 

What do you mean? Lyndon B Johnson had been a career politician for the best part of his adult life, he was as status quo as it gets. He wasn't some social revolutionary.

Status quo =/= anti-change

[Hardkill]

5 minutes ago, vizual said:

What do you mean? Lyndon B Johnson had been a career politician for the best part of his adult life, he was as status quo as it gets. He wasn't some social revolutionary.

Status quo =/= anti-change

He may have not be a revolutionist in the traditional sense but look at how much he and the 89th Congress back then got done. It was on the level of FDR:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress

[sholomar]

The best thing to have is plenty of checks and balances to keep human nature in check. It's human nature that is the problem, and unlike some here I don't believe that voting for leftist candidates will solve all the world's problems, due to human nature. There's plenty of examples of socialism ending up in disaster with dictators carting away anyone who doesn't comply to camps, and things of that sort. Look at modern day China's covid zero policies...

Making sure power and wealth do not concentrate, that too much policy isn't implemented from the hands of too few individuals, no matter how good their intentions seem to be... for example the WHO or CDC trying to override our constitution and implement covid mandates that bypass our checks and balances. The person who said the road to hell is paved with good intentions is right.

I don't trust human nature, so checks and balances are good. No authoritarians. No dictators. Plenty of choice. You will never please everyone, and you will never be able to save everyone, no matter how hard you try. The best we can do is come up with a system of government that works for most, and maybe have different forms of government for people with differing beliefs. This is why I love the US... state's rights being such a large part of the makeup of the country governors can decide to issue executive orders nullifying the federal government, and to me that's powerful. Someone who is left leaning can move to CA, someone who is right leaning can move to Florida or Tennessee or wherever, and each can be happy. No dictators trying to implement one size fits all policy on unwilling populace.

Bottom line, if you want the entire planet to assimilate into your collective mindset, you are part of the problem. You have unrealistic expectations. Live and let live, within reason.

Edited April 30, 2022 by sholomar