They told conservatives to fear liberals. They told liberals to fear conservatives. Meanwhile the same incentives kept getting richer. Here's how the game works.
I think that's the million-dollar question, Liz. One thing I've realized is that truth and certainty aren't the same thing. There are facts, there are interpretations of those facts, and then there are the stories we build around them.
That's why I spend so much time digging into primary sources, data, transcripts, and opposing viewpoints. Not because I think I'll ever find perfect objectivity, but because I'd rather be approximately right than passionately wrong.
The George Floyd case is a good example. People often act like there are only two acceptable conclusions. Either Chauvin was solely responsible, or Floyd's drug use explains everything. Reality is often more complicated than that. Multiple factors can be true at the same time, and acknowledging complexity shouldn't be controversial.
That's become my biggest frustration with both corporate and independent media. Too many people start with the conclusion they want and work backward. I'd rather start with the evidence and let it make me uncomfortable if it has to.
I don't always get it right, but I'd rather change my mind when the facts change than spend my life defending a team. I think we'd all be a little better off if more people were willing to say, "I don't know yet... let's keep looking."
I agree with much of this. I’d only add that discernment isn’t just following the evidence, it’s also knowing what the evidence can and cannot establish. The hardest part isn’t changing our minds when the facts change. It’s resisting the urge to claim more certainty than the facts actually justify. That’s where discernment begins.
Wow!!! That's a sharper addition than most comments manage, thank you.
You're pointing at something the piece doesn't fully say but should have: overclaiming certainty isn't just a personal failing, it's an incentivized one.
Think about what actually gets rewarded in political media. "Here's what the evidence suggests, and here's where it runs out" doesn't clip well. "Here's the definitive truth they don't want you to know" does. Every platform, every cable segment, every fundraising email is optimized for confident conclusions, not calibrated ones. So the discernment you're describing isn't just a personal discipline problem. It's a skill the entire attention economy actively punishes, the same way it punishes nuance on any topic that could otherwise generate outrage.
Which means your point and the piece's point are really the same argument at two different scales. Manufactured division profits from people picking a side and staying there. Manufactured certainty profits from people claiming to know more than the evidence supports, because "I'm not sure yet" doesn't generate shares. Both are symptoms of the same underlying incentive: resolution sells, uncertainty doesn't.
Appreciate you naming where discernment actually starts. Most people think it's about being right. You're describing something harder, and more honest.
I would love it for this to be a Manifesto required for every member of each political tribe to read before they join substack. It's very clearly the unbiased goal of at least 70% of the citizenry, meaning basically our Collective right. You are a Visionary, sir. Just hope you aren't screaming into a void
Hi, Ryan, my name is Brandon, we're both part of the World Peace Coalition with St. Badhon. I enjoyed your article. I wrote something similar regarding partisan loyalty.
Hey Brandon I was on the last call and I spoke of you. I'm really glad that you reached out this was actually one of the first articles I wrote I just kind of modernized it and put my voice behind it i have a few like it and a few more to come so I'm going to be flooding substack with them for the next month. Let me know if there's anything you want to talk about
Fighting for democracy, for our rights, is a constant struggle. The reactionaries hate free government & the Peoples exercise of their rights, “…among which…”
The MAGAt’s foot soldiers believe they are Patriots defending their fundamental rights & at a certain level, this is true. Never forget that.
Yes, the fundamental fight is the People vs the Power.
The 30% are those who don't vote, despite battles fought twixt rulers & ruled & nasty guys in other countries, for 1,000years.
Is that 30% stupid to reject the Privilege of choosing our kings every few years -voting- or wiser than the 70% who let the billionaires build destructive Debt that will bankrupt our grandchildren, by promising us goodies to re-elect them ...?
We don't run our homes & businesses that way - why do we let them run our country into Debt, and waste $$ on Interest ?!
My advice: don't fall into the trap of class warfare, the classic Marxist “divide and rule” strategy that dates back to the demise of the Roman Republic.
Needs to be shared 🔝 time to WTFU! We the People, all of Us, are not at a football game hating ‘the other team,’ We are all Americans, and it’s so important to stick together, and fight like Hell to keep America 🇺🇸 For the People 🇺🇸✅
Thank you so much. Share it with as many people as you can... I really want to work out that this is the proven way to repair. Neither party would even know what to do if we stopped being divided. They count on this. They'd have to actually acknowledge and represent us. Right now, we'll protect one side and criticize the other. Party won't change on you protect them unconditionally.
The boldest of one can make in 2026 is not voting for a different party the right party or the wrong party. It's demanding that your party stops trying to set the tire doesn't tell you what the issues are. Wait till them what they've done wrong for too long that we will no longer accept.
Fighting data centers is most definitely bringing people from both sides of the aisle and people from all backgrounds and cultures together.
I’ve been at the township meetings and I have met people who told me they are republicans but were joining us they thought we were all democrats until they realized that only the organizers started as democrats, but were joined by every party. I told him I was an independent.
Another lady told him she was a die hard democrat and welcomed him.
We all concluded together that we are first and foremost AMERICANS.
AMERICANS can hate each other all we want.
We fuss and fight like siblings rivaling, but when it comes down to the government fighting against us, we stop of sibling rivalry, stand together and beat the crap out of our enemies.
It’s just taking EVERYONE a while to realize that the power of the rich has bought our government and are actually utilizing what they’ve purchased over all this time.
People need to wake up and stop fighting against each other and start fighting the government.
Rxan, Good thoughts! Absolutely agree that we must unite to fight the “shystem.” United we stand, divided we fall. Rage Against the Machine!
But what are going to replace it with? This is where there is a fundamental difference between left and right.
I see the left – all the way to the left – being totalitarianism, wanting government to control everything (Stalin said socialism is a method to achieve full communism) and the right – all the way to the right - as anarchy – no government control at all. Conservatives are right of center and libertarians are right of conservatives, but not full on anarchists.
Conservatives and libertarians can’t even agree. For example, conservatives don’t want abortion to be legal where libertarians (where I fall) don’t want the government to decide that and believe that we can’t legislate morality…but, we do want safe medical standards, so hacks don’t become “doctors” – so how do we do this without some form of government regulating doctors? Some anarchist-capitalists say it can be done with insurance companies and HOAs. I’m not seeing it, but that’s just me.
And we can’t even agree on what is right and left b/c a lot of people believe that fascism (corporatism) is on the right, when it’s a totalitarian government - with the government controlling/interlocked with corporations/oligarchs, which seems like where America is now.
So, then we have the anarchist-capitalists who make a lot of sense b/c they believe no democracy can be reformed, basically on a principal many libertarians believe. Frank Herber summed it up well:
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
I believe human nature is self-serving, and it is a survival instinct, so it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but when we get people in government – back to the Herber quote.
So, then we come to another fundamental difference between left and right. The left want the people to be taken care of – by the government – which is comprised of pathological personalities.
So, can we all agree that Americans should be self-reliant first, and for those who are mentally ill/indigent/unable to work, let the states figure that out with state/local funds. The rich used to fund charities, but that can’t be forced, so will it work? And, now we have AI coming into play taking away white-collar type jobs. Now what?
So, if we can agree that we do need each other to function as well as possible, thus I think the libertarian way seems the most viable – very Limited government – kind of like the Articles of the Confederation, that had excellent language for term limits, free speech, amicable relationships between the states, with free trade/free markets. It worked to free us from King George.
A lot of people see this as going backwards; I see it as our first instinct to free ourselves from King George and his tyrants, and it just needed to be amended – not consolidated into one big government that got way too big – as was predicated by the many Anti-Federalists who seemed to have been memory-holed from our history books.
Or, maybe our disconnect is based on what our definition of what freedom means?
IDK, but we need to do something, and so back to your thoughts of uniting with each other. We’re Americans, after all. We should not willingly walk to our gulag without a fight.
Hey Liz! Thank you so much for your comment. You are definitely my type of subscriber. This is a great comment because it gets to the question that inevitably follows: "Okay, if we're united, then what?"
My answer is that I don't think unity requires agreement on the destination... We got one to plan too many things because we don't know what the future brings. Unity requires agreement on a handful of rules and principles that allow us to debate the destination without destroying each other in the process.
Where I might differ from you is that I think the biggest divide today isn't left vs. right. It's centralized power vs. distributed power. If we could get back to left versus right that would mean that we got to the government to cut their corruption in half. If you've noticed, since Obama left the office, the Democrats haven't really discussed a single important issue, and haven't even addressed the transparency and Corruption issues or the mess within their party let's struggles to find an identity.
I know people on the left who distrust corporations, intelligence agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and concentrated wealth. I know people on the right who distrust those same institutions. They disagree on solutions, but often agree on the diagnosis.
Likewise, I know people on the right who support government intervention when it comes to abortion, immigration, trade, or national security, and people on the left who are fiercely protective of civil liberties and skeptical of state power. Reality tends to be messier than the labels.
One thing I strongly agree with is Herbert's observation about power attracting the corruptible. That's one reason I believe every institution, whether government, corporations, media, unions, NGOs, or political parties, should face constant scrutiny. Concentrated power has a habit of serving itself regardless of ideology.
The challenge I wrestle with is that some problems seem too large for individuals alone to solve, while others become worse when bureaucracies try to solve them. Finding that balance may be the real debate.
What I hope Americans can unite around is not a specific ideology, but a shared commitment to free speech, due process, transparency, accountability, decentralization where possible, and human dignity regardless of political tribe.
If we can agree on those foundations, we can have the arguments about policy without treating each other like enemies.
Absoultely agree that we need to move beyond specific ideology, but focus on "shared commitment to free speech, due process, transparency, accountability, decentralization where possible, and human dignity regardless of political tribe."
Thanks for the motivation to move beyond the madness!
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
Liz LaSorte, cbc.ca/ideas once broadcast a question about what causes Longevity - who lives longest?
Quickly, what's your 1word answer to that?Everyone has a different answer.
The answer of the sociologist researchers changed the way I look at 'the sport of politics'. I was a student of anthropology & worldwide cultures, and I guessed Wealth, to afford good food, shelter, healthcare.
The researchers said :
1. Those people with the highest ... Status, Prestige & Hierarchy, and ...
2. This is the same in every (... I expected 'human' society ...) Mammalian society! (mice, deer, wolves, elephants, gorillas, humans, etc)
They aren't "pathological personalities".
It's the 'divine design' of life on Earth!
All of us compete for Status, Prestige & Hierarchy.
Fair point, and the research holds up. Status-seeking isn't a personality defect, it's mammalian wiring. Wolves, elephants, mice, us. Nobody's pathological for wanting rank.
But here's what the deer and the gorillas don't have: a Senate, a standing army, a printing press for currency, or the legal authority to decide who gets healthcare. A silverback that abuses status gets challenged by the next silverback. A president or CEO that abuses status gets a legal team, a PR firm, and a base that treats the challenge itself as the enemy.
That's the whole argument for institutions. We didn't build courts, term limits, and a free press because we expected saints to show up. We built them because we knew status-hungry primates would show up every single time, and the only fix that scales is a system that works anyway.
So the CBC researchers are right that hierarchy-seeking is divine design. The question "Uncomfortable" keeps asking isn't why people chase power. It's why we keep dismantling the only things that ever made that chase survivable, and then act surprised when the alpha bites.
“We didn't build courts, term limits, and a free press because we expected saints to show up.”
Men are no angels, we all agree there and the same argument for government rule or (genuine) anarchy is that very sentiment.
And therein lies a problem. We haven’t had congressional (delegate) term limits since 1787. Those delegates who served per the AOC, did it b/c they were passionate about maintaining their/our freedom and they received no salary, and their term was limited in the AOC:
“No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.”
We need that language in our Constitution again - and good luck with that.
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
Love it. If we could just figure out how to make punishment of corruption exceed rewarding the corrupt, it would restore the balance. An old wise man told me that politicians used to steal one out of $3 and now they steal two. That is crazy that we accept the norm but we're never going to eliminate it and be perfect so we can see how much of a difference 1/3 and 2/3 makes. It literally shows that with one model, corruption is the norm
I'd like to understand your thinking. You said you are on the left but fully agree with the quote - that essentially dooms the idea of big government, and I'd argue that it includes limited government as well. So, if you are from the left, doesn't that mean you want the government (taxpayers) to take care of the people - i.e., providing welfare, SS, medicaid, medicare, etc?
Oh my God Liz I just replied to you and reread it and saw that you weren't even talking to me.... lol... I guess I better stick to writing and not try to read too much.
No worries, dude, and that was a good response. I really want to understand the ideas of “the left” – especially when we understand the nature of people who are attracted to power.
I do think we make the left/right spectrum far too complicated. It does not need to have a gazillion quadrants.
I agree. The better question is – what do we believe is the function of federal government? Is it to protect the people or take care of the people? And what does protection mean? Spending a gazillion dollars on a military when no other adversary even closely mirrors that amount? And, if we didn’t meddle in other countries affairs, how much would that reduce that miliary spending?
My thought is to reduce the size of the federal government right down to pure protection and use that really good term limits language that was in the Articles of the Confederation so a public servant was exactly that – they were limited in terms, (they did not get a pay check either) and that government would specifically protect the borders, lands, environment, infrastructure and let the states each figure out how they want to take care of their people. That way, taxpayer spending is much closer to the people's watchful eyes.
But that’s where Alexander Tytler’s cycle of democracy comes into play, b/c he studied the various failures of former democracies and republics throughout history (in 1770s and 1780s) and found that the common denominator of every failed democracy was creating dependency of the people on the government. It makes sense b/c the government that gives us everything is the same government that can take it all away. And, that lines up with what Alexis de Tocqueville said in Democracy in America, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
I think you're touching on one of the oldest debates in political history: how do we prevent government from becoming too powerful without leaving citizens vulnerable to concentrated private power?
My hesitation with reducing federal government to little more than defense & border protection is that history shows power doesn't disappear when government shrinks. It shifts elsewhere, into monopolies, oligarchies, cartels, and institutions that are even less accountable to voters.
The question I keep coming back to isn't "How small should government be?" but "What problems can only government solve, and where should its power end?"
I agree dependency can be dangerous. But so can allowing healthcare, education, infrastructure, environmental protection, or economic opportunity to depend entirely on geography and ZIP code.
For me, the goal is neither dependency nor abandonment. It's a government strong enough to protect opportunity, rights, competition, and the public interest, while limited enough that it can't become the thing we're trying to protect ourselves from.
Ironically, both the far left and far right often end up concentrating power somewhere. They just disagree about who gets to hold it.
That's why I think the real divide isn't left vs. right. It's accountability vs. unaccountable power, regardless of whether that power sits in Washington, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, or somewhere else.
You make good points. But, I still believe it’s fairly simple math - the bigger the government, the more corruptible it can be and the government can end up being the middle man that is unnecessary. But, agree 100% that the power will also go elsewhere and that is the biggest stumbling block I have with the an-cap ideas.
I think too many are focused on their own perceptions of what our government should do relative to humanity , needs of the people and the massive amount of insecurity, and actual social norms . When you have an insurmountable lack of power fighting those who have ALL the power ! Due to the increase of millionaires and billionaires in this Nation, with an absolute monopoly on all things , pushing and pulling and creating the ugliness that is embedded in this Nation due to the absolute ugliness that an over abundance of wealth, Feeling of superiority , and distain that comes off the arrogance of the people ruining and destroying all that made America Great…
Ie: The Heritage Foundation, Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society ,People of vast Wealth from other Countries , invading the United States of America , tainting ALL the was the Greatest Country in the World !
Case in Point , Elon Musk and his minions stealing from the American People , with an ok from POTUS , because Musk put DJTrump in this Whitehouse ! Then you have media giant Rupert Murdock another foreigner with his far right lunacies promoted Fox entertainment , now encased in DJTs administration full of crazies and looney tunes . Throw in The White Christian??? 🤮 Nationalists encased in every part of this nation via DJT and his MAGA buddies of great power and Wealth .
Now all can see the result
Of a Nation overtaken by unrelenting greed ..
we once had a Nation that lived , cared for, the people , and both people and Government looked to each to solve these issues …
“ He’s not Heavy , he’s my brother “
To a place now where DJT gets into office and destroys “ The People’s White House”
As well as “ The People’s Rose Garden “
A mere tenant in people’s house , for his term only ! When the Hell did that become OK !
I think you're touching on something real, even if we may disagree on some of the causes.
The concentration of wealth, power, and influence in the hands of a relatively small number of people is a legitimate concern regardless of whether those people are billionaires, corporations, political parties, media companies, activist groups, or government officials.
Where I sometimes differ is that I don't see the problem as belonging exclusively to the left or the right, or to any one person. I see a system that increasingly rewards division, tribalism, and power accumulation while ordinary people feel less represented and less heard.
The question that interests me most isn't who we should hate. It's how we build institutions that are accountable to the public no matter who is in office.
Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.
I think the disconnect is treating "left" and "big government" as synonymous, because I don't think they're necessarily the same thing…
Wanting Medicare, Social Security, public education, infrastructure, environmental protections, or a social safety net doesn't automatically mean wanting unlimited government power any more than wanting a military, police force, and border security means wanting authoritarianism…. I
I certainly don't want to RELY on the government to take care of me… I know son of government workers living in DC and I wouldn't count on them to be reliable for anything important. What I do think is that government needs to make sure that we all rise with the tides and reinstate opportunity for the people.
For me, the real question isn't whether government is big or small.
The question is whether it's effective, accountable, transparent, and focused on solving problems.
A government can be large and ineffective. A government can be small and ineffective.
Likewise, a government can be large and highly functional, or limited and highly functional.
The left-right framework often breaks down because most people hold views that don't fit neatly into either box. Someone can support universal healthcare and also support free speech protections, fiscal responsibility, local control, and limits on government overreach.
That's why I think the more useful question isn't "How much government?" but "What should government do, what shouldn't it do, and how do we hold it accountable when it fails?"
I hadn’t read this prior to my reply to Liz. That’s it in a nutshell. How do we hold them accountable? The swamp has obviously not yet been drained. They drained the qualified, knowledgeable, effective people and added their own corrupt swamp creatures. Government only works if it is stocked with honest people.
A lot of the people in my shoes need to consider running even if we never thought about it. I don't know if I'm talking about myself but you know if I find some other like-minded people… that will be my pitch to them
I don’t think that believing that power attracts pathological personalities dooms big government, I think it just means that we have to have more oversight to prevent it. And as Ryan suggested, find a deterrent that makes the corruption not worth the risk, and enforce it. The personalities will be attracted to whatever power structure is available to them. Without government oversight, I fear that the corporations would be even more out of control than they are now, led by these pathological personalities. I don’t see how the country could function with limited government. Look what is happening now that government and corporations have been allowed to run amok.
As for my designation as “left”, I don’t really know what I am actually. I consider myself a populist with left leaning tendencies. I’ve been calling myself a Democratic Socialist because I believe that we all deserve the very basics as American citizens including a roof over our heads, clean water, healthcare and enough to eat. I also believe that we deserve what we’ve paid into all our working lives, including Medicare and Social Security, and Medicaid if it comes to that and we have nowhere else to turn, yes. These are not “entitlement” programs. They are programs to which we are entitled because we DID pay into them. The unearned ones are negotiable.
I believe that we need government to administer these programs. I don’t mind paying taxes if what I pay into is used to do just that as well as build and maintain infrastructure, keep us safe in terms of fire, police, ambulance services, etc. Government, in theory, makes sense.
Capitalism, in theory, is fine as well. But there needs to be government oversight and guardrails in order to function optimally. I believe that if we work hard, we should be able to have a decent life we can be proud of. And if someone has a great idea, they should be able to profit off of that. But I don’t think they should be able to do so off of the backs of their workers without it benefitting those workers as well. As the company grows and the owner/ CEO’s pay increases, so should the workers. There should be a max percentage that a CEO can make in proportion to what his or her workers make. And EVERYONE should pay taxes and pay into social security (without a cap). And NO ONE should be allowed to become a Billionaire let alone a trillionaire. No one should have the ability to buy elections, or be more powerful than the government under which they live. It is abundantly clear that they are not able to police themselves and their judgement seems to be inversely proportional to their salary. Not a good combination.
I think education (college/trade school) should be free as well, as an educated public is more likely to be able and inclined to contribute to society.
So, yes, I do believe in big government. And in theory, the people who choose to be a part of that government would be people who want to serve the people. And that is true in a lot of cases. But unfortunately, it also tends to attract the ones who want to take advantage. And the rest of us just assume that it’s all being taken care of by those wonderful souls who want to serve and so we go on our merry ways and live our lives, not paying attention, until it’s too late and corruption becomes the norm. Our government was bloated and wasteful before Trump, yes. But each part was put in place for a reason. Tearing it down the way Trump and Doge have done has made it ineffectual as well now.
But, it now leaves room to be built back up, a better way. I know, “Build Back Better” doesn’t inspire confidence at this point. But if we can fill the house and senate with progressives and populists, I believe it can be done. But it needs a lot of oversight. I just hope that we aren’t so far gone at this point, with a corrupt Supreme Court, that it is impossible. Oversight requires good honest people who really want to make a difference.
Sounds naive, doesn’t it? There were a lot of good solid people working for the government before Trump kicked them all out of office. They generally didn’t want power. They just wanted to do their part. They’re still out there. The key is to find good people with the ability to lead and inspire. And THAT is a tough combo to find. It always seems that the corrupt are attracted to power. Which is why I highlighted your quote. I believe it can be done. But we have to be vigilant and choose wisely. And pay attention.
I think we're actually much closer in our views than our labels might suggest.
One thing I've become increasingly convinced of is that pathological personalities don't care whether power sits in government, corporations, media, unions, or religious institutions. They go where the power is. That's why I've never been comfortable with the simplistic "government bad, market good" or "market bad, government good" arguments.
To me, the real question is: How do we prevent any institution from becoming powerful enough to operate without meaningful accountability?
I agree that healthcare, clean water, infrastructure, and a basic safety net are legitimate functions of a modern society. Where I think the debate gets interesting is how we design those systems so they remain effective, transparent, and resistant to capture by the very interests they're supposed to regulate.
What concerns me most isn't big government or big business in isolation. It's when big government and big business become so intertwined that ordinary citizens can no longer tell where one ends and the other begins.
That's usually where corruption gets its best work done. Human beings really do have a remarkable talent for turning every institution into a vehicle for self-interest if nobody's watching.
big government + big business = fascism = totalitarianism. Juvenal was writing about this corruption in the late 1st/2nd century Rome and nailed it when asking "who is watching the gate keepers." Human nature will always be self-serving, b/c it's our survival mechanism. What seems to be missing is that spiritual connection that we are all ultimately interconnected, so what harms X, actually ends up harming all of us. But, I digress.
We the People should be the gate keepers, but with DC being so far away, it's out of sight/out of mind for most us, which is why I believe we would be way better off (not perfect- there is no utopia as long as people suck) - but at least at the state level, we would have a better handle on watching the gate keepers, and let the states decide most of the issues, allowing people to decide where they would rather live, most according to their beliefs.
If you haven't read our original constitution, the Articles of the Confederation - just the term limits language alone is worth the read and we can thank Alexander Hamilton and his boys for taking it out - despite the arguments against taking it out. And, then reading the arguments of the "Anti-Federalists" and it really makes more sense, but it's been lost for most people around my age (old GenX), let alone younger generations.
I’m a very late boomer, so just ahead of you. And much less well-read on the subject so maybe I shouldn’t even be chiming in. But I find it all fascinating.
I just did a search on ways to prevent these types of people from seeking office in the first place. Most of it is just common knowledge but this one I thought was a good addition:
Sortition (Citizens' Assemblies): Some political theorists advocate integrating sortition—selecting everyday citizens via a lottery system to form advisory councils or legislative bodies, similar to jury duty. Because participants do not campaign or seek power, the presence of predatory personalities is diluted down to baseline population levels (less than 1-5%).Active Recruitment: Civic groups can proactively recruit community leaders, educators, and scientists who have a demonstrated track record of selfless community service but have never shown personal political ambition.
We are probably about the same age; I’m using Howe and Strauss generations (1961-1981), however, I think GenX is 1961-1979 (18 years is a generation, traditionally) and that a generation should never include three decades, since the whole point of grouping cohorts who have nothing in common is because they grew up in a similar world. I think the decades change so much that it’s more accurate to say born in the 1960s, born in the 1970s, etc. v specific generation.
For example, someone born in 1946 or ‘47 grew up in a more similar world with someone born in 1942 or 1943 than someone born in 1964 (and looking at the US birth chart graph shows a boomlet in 1943, so I understand why they put boomers at 1943-1960). The traditional Boomer is based on the census population number of births at 4 million, but that’s not accurate either. What would be more accurate is the graph, not the numbers, and there is clear decline in births post 1960 births with 1957 as the peak of the baby boom.
I much prefer your categories! I’ve always thought that those categories were a bit misleading. And I’ve never understood why they varied so much in range. I was born in November 1964 and so honestly do resent being categorized as a boomer. I don’t feel that my politics or thinking in general fits into that category. Gen X seems more appropriate. Even saying I was born in the 1960s feels too broad. Why do we even need categories really?
Great article! I agree with everything you said, whole-heartedly. I love this line: “Division is not the natural American condition. It is the manufactured one”. That is it in a nutshell. And then: “Park the policy debates until after the machine blocking all of them is repaired. You will have better fights once the playing field is level.” I agree fully. I think I have been waiting for the messenger that most will listen to. Bernie Sanders was (and still is) good but somehow is still considered left. Graham Platner may have a wider appeal. But that will take too long. The partisan divide is huge. We have to start locally, one person at a time.
Everyone should go outside and read this with anyone they know the experience that you would have together, would be the closest thing to Unity that we've experienced in a long time and it wouldn't show you how close we are in reality, vs what the internet makes you think we are.... Like you said in the post... you are we already know that we want the same things, I mean you just need to realize it and that will require talking.
ANYONE that, "Goes No Contact," with people in the opposite tribe... are clearly a bigger threat to democracy than any extremists could be. They certainly prevented us from winning 2024.
yeah, it's called the 'rally around the flag effect' and it's what we end up inadvertently doing to all these countries that we end up bombing or putting sanctions on and starving their children, or blocking medicine from getting to their countries. When Madeline Albright said it was worth it to starve 500,000 Iraqi children, the people of Iraq didn't want to overthrow Saddam, they wanted to blow up America. It's the excuse that Osama bin laden used when he recruited people, 'America is killing our children, America is supporting Israel, a country that is killing our children. Don't you want to eliminate this threat?' Our government is the reason 2,000 people died on 9/11, we had a 'rally around the moment' instead of expecting our politicians to take accountability for their failures.
It’s 984 billionaires vs 343 million Americans at 4:1. Because the Reagan tax cuts allowed the warping of US government space-time.
Speaking of space; the US space program. A massive national endeavour that led to a cascade of new tech. Man on the moon by ‘69. That is mind blowing the US set that task and got there. And that was before I was born.
The solution seems simple: tax the rich until they scream.
I think that's the million-dollar question, Liz. One thing I've realized is that truth and certainty aren't the same thing. There are facts, there are interpretations of those facts, and then there are the stories we build around them.
That's why I spend so much time digging into primary sources, data, transcripts, and opposing viewpoints. Not because I think I'll ever find perfect objectivity, but because I'd rather be approximately right than passionately wrong.
The George Floyd case is a good example. People often act like there are only two acceptable conclusions. Either Chauvin was solely responsible, or Floyd's drug use explains everything. Reality is often more complicated than that. Multiple factors can be true at the same time, and acknowledging complexity shouldn't be controversial.
That's become my biggest frustration with both corporate and independent media. Too many people start with the conclusion they want and work backward. I'd rather start with the evidence and let it make me uncomfortable if it has to.
I don't always get it right, but I'd rather change my mind when the facts change than spend my life defending a team. I think we'd all be a little better off if more people were willing to say, "I don't know yet... let's keep looking."
I agree with much of this. I’d only add that discernment isn’t just following the evidence, it’s also knowing what the evidence can and cannot establish. The hardest part isn’t changing our minds when the facts change. It’s resisting the urge to claim more certainty than the facts actually justify. That’s where discernment begins.
Wow!!! That's a sharper addition than most comments manage, thank you.
You're pointing at something the piece doesn't fully say but should have: overclaiming certainty isn't just a personal failing, it's an incentivized one.
Think about what actually gets rewarded in political media. "Here's what the evidence suggests, and here's where it runs out" doesn't clip well. "Here's the definitive truth they don't want you to know" does. Every platform, every cable segment, every fundraising email is optimized for confident conclusions, not calibrated ones. So the discernment you're describing isn't just a personal discipline problem. It's a skill the entire attention economy actively punishes, the same way it punishes nuance on any topic that could otherwise generate outrage.
Which means your point and the piece's point are really the same argument at two different scales. Manufactured division profits from people picking a side and staying there. Manufactured certainty profits from people claiming to know more than the evidence supports, because "I'm not sure yet" doesn't generate shares. Both are symptoms of the same underlying incentive: resolution sells, uncertainty doesn't.
Appreciate you naming where discernment actually starts. Most people think it's about being right. You're describing something harder, and more honest.
Fabulous idea. Count me in. 😁
Primary sources are the best sources, when possible.
Thanks for the restack @Ed Darrell
I would love it for this to be a Manifesto required for every member of each political tribe to read before they join substack. It's very clearly the unbiased goal of at least 70% of the citizenry, meaning basically our Collective right. You are a Visionary, sir. Just hope you aren't screaming into a void
Hi, Ryan, my name is Brandon, we're both part of the World Peace Coalition with St. Badhon. I enjoyed your article. I wrote something similar regarding partisan loyalty.
https://brandonbedard.substack.com/p/hot-take-why-i-refuse-to-pick-a-side?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7qos2e
Hey Brandon I was on the last call and I spoke of you. I'm really glad that you reached out this was actually one of the first articles I wrote I just kind of modernized it and put my voice behind it i have a few like it and a few more to come so I'm going to be flooding substack with them for the next month. Let me know if there's anything you want to talk about
Fighting for democracy, for our rights, is a constant struggle. The reactionaries hate free government & the Peoples exercise of their rights, “…among which…”
The MAGAt’s foot soldiers believe they are Patriots defending their fundamental rights & at a certain level, this is true. Never forget that.
Yes, the fundamental fight is the People vs the Power.
Not the Right vs the Left.
Avance la Lucha
Agree. It sounds as though 70% is like the notorious 1% & Congress. A club only 70% can join. Talk about stupid. Division is not the answer.
The 30% are those who don't vote, despite battles fought twixt rulers & ruled & nasty guys in other countries, for 1,000years.
Is that 30% stupid to reject the Privilege of choosing our kings every few years -voting- or wiser than the 70% who let the billionaires build destructive Debt that will bankrupt our grandchildren, by promising us goodies to re-elect them ...?
We don't run our homes & businesses that way - why do we let them run our country into Debt, and waste $$ on Interest ?!
We're ruled by dark money.
My advice: don't fall into the trap of class warfare, the classic Marxist “divide and rule” strategy that dates back to the demise of the Roman Republic.
Republics that fail to stand united fall divided.
Needs to be shared 🔝 time to WTFU! We the People, all of Us, are not at a football game hating ‘the other team,’ We are all Americans, and it’s so important to stick together, and fight like Hell to keep America 🇺🇸 For the People 🇺🇸✅
Thank you so much. Share it with as many people as you can... I really want to work out that this is the proven way to repair. Neither party would even know what to do if we stopped being divided. They count on this. They'd have to actually acknowledge and represent us. Right now, we'll protect one side and criticize the other. Party won't change on you protect them unconditionally.
The boldest of one can make in 2026 is not voting for a different party the right party or the wrong party. It's demanding that your party stops trying to set the tire doesn't tell you what the issues are. Wait till them what they've done wrong for too long that we will no longer accept.
Fighting data centers is most definitely bringing people from both sides of the aisle and people from all backgrounds and cultures together.
I’ve been at the township meetings and I have met people who told me they are republicans but were joining us they thought we were all democrats until they realized that only the organizers started as democrats, but were joined by every party. I told him I was an independent.
Another lady told him she was a die hard democrat and welcomed him.
We all concluded together that we are first and foremost AMERICANS.
AMERICANS can hate each other all we want.
We fuss and fight like siblings rivaling, but when it comes down to the government fighting against us, we stop of sibling rivalry, stand together and beat the crap out of our enemies.
It’s just taking EVERYONE a while to realize that the power of the rich has bought our government and are actually utilizing what they’ve purchased over all this time.
People need to wake up and stop fighting against each other and start fighting the government.
Rxan, Good thoughts! Absolutely agree that we must unite to fight the “shystem.” United we stand, divided we fall. Rage Against the Machine!
But what are going to replace it with? This is where there is a fundamental difference between left and right.
I see the left – all the way to the left – being totalitarianism, wanting government to control everything (Stalin said socialism is a method to achieve full communism) and the right – all the way to the right - as anarchy – no government control at all. Conservatives are right of center and libertarians are right of conservatives, but not full on anarchists.
Conservatives and libertarians can’t even agree. For example, conservatives don’t want abortion to be legal where libertarians (where I fall) don’t want the government to decide that and believe that we can’t legislate morality…but, we do want safe medical standards, so hacks don’t become “doctors” – so how do we do this without some form of government regulating doctors? Some anarchist-capitalists say it can be done with insurance companies and HOAs. I’m not seeing it, but that’s just me.
And we can’t even agree on what is right and left b/c a lot of people believe that fascism (corporatism) is on the right, when it’s a totalitarian government - with the government controlling/interlocked with corporations/oligarchs, which seems like where America is now.
So, then we have the anarchist-capitalists who make a lot of sense b/c they believe no democracy can be reformed, basically on a principal many libertarians believe. Frank Herber summed it up well:
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
I believe human nature is self-serving, and it is a survival instinct, so it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but when we get people in government – back to the Herber quote.
So, then we come to another fundamental difference between left and right. The left want the people to be taken care of – by the government – which is comprised of pathological personalities.
So, can we all agree that Americans should be self-reliant first, and for those who are mentally ill/indigent/unable to work, let the states figure that out with state/local funds. The rich used to fund charities, but that can’t be forced, so will it work? And, now we have AI coming into play taking away white-collar type jobs. Now what?
So, if we can agree that we do need each other to function as well as possible, thus I think the libertarian way seems the most viable – very Limited government – kind of like the Articles of the Confederation, that had excellent language for term limits, free speech, amicable relationships between the states, with free trade/free markets. It worked to free us from King George.
A lot of people see this as going backwards; I see it as our first instinct to free ourselves from King George and his tyrants, and it just needed to be amended – not consolidated into one big government that got way too big – as was predicated by the many Anti-Federalists who seemed to have been memory-holed from our history books.
Or, maybe our disconnect is based on what our definition of what freedom means?
IDK, but we need to do something, and so back to your thoughts of uniting with each other. We’re Americans, after all. We should not willingly walk to our gulag without a fight.
Hey Liz! Thank you so much for your comment. You are definitely my type of subscriber. This is a great comment because it gets to the question that inevitably follows: "Okay, if we're united, then what?"
My answer is that I don't think unity requires agreement on the destination... We got one to plan too many things because we don't know what the future brings. Unity requires agreement on a handful of rules and principles that allow us to debate the destination without destroying each other in the process.
Where I might differ from you is that I think the biggest divide today isn't left vs. right. It's centralized power vs. distributed power. If we could get back to left versus right that would mean that we got to the government to cut their corruption in half. If you've noticed, since Obama left the office, the Democrats haven't really discussed a single important issue, and haven't even addressed the transparency and Corruption issues or the mess within their party let's struggles to find an identity.
I know people on the left who distrust corporations, intelligence agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and concentrated wealth. I know people on the right who distrust those same institutions. They disagree on solutions, but often agree on the diagnosis.
Likewise, I know people on the right who support government intervention when it comes to abortion, immigration, trade, or national security, and people on the left who are fiercely protective of civil liberties and skeptical of state power. Reality tends to be messier than the labels.
One thing I strongly agree with is Herbert's observation about power attracting the corruptible. That's one reason I believe every institution, whether government, corporations, media, unions, NGOs, or political parties, should face constant scrutiny. Concentrated power has a habit of serving itself regardless of ideology.
The challenge I wrestle with is that some problems seem too large for individuals alone to solve, while others become worse when bureaucracies try to solve them. Finding that balance may be the real debate.
What I hope Americans can unite around is not a specific ideology, but a shared commitment to free speech, due process, transparency, accountability, decentralization where possible, and human dignity regardless of political tribe.
If we can agree on those foundations, we can have the arguments about policy without treating each other like enemies.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Absoultely agree that we need to move beyond specific ideology, but focus on "shared commitment to free speech, due process, transparency, accountability, decentralization where possible, and human dignity regardless of political tribe."
Thanks for the motivation to move beyond the madness!
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
Liz LaSorte, cbc.ca/ideas once broadcast a question about what causes Longevity - who lives longest?
Quickly, what's your 1word answer to that?Everyone has a different answer.
The answer of the sociologist researchers changed the way I look at 'the sport of politics'. I was a student of anthropology & worldwide cultures, and I guessed Wealth, to afford good food, shelter, healthcare.
The researchers said :
1. Those people with the highest ... Status, Prestige & Hierarchy, and ...
2. This is the same in every (... I expected 'human' society ...) Mammalian society! (mice, deer, wolves, elephants, gorillas, humans, etc)
They aren't "pathological personalities".
It's the 'divine design' of life on Earth!
All of us compete for Status, Prestige & Hierarchy.
Fair point, and the research holds up. Status-seeking isn't a personality defect, it's mammalian wiring. Wolves, elephants, mice, us. Nobody's pathological for wanting rank.
But here's what the deer and the gorillas don't have: a Senate, a standing army, a printing press for currency, or the legal authority to decide who gets healthcare. A silverback that abuses status gets challenged by the next silverback. A president or CEO that abuses status gets a legal team, a PR firm, and a base that treats the challenge itself as the enemy.
That's the whole argument for institutions. We didn't build courts, term limits, and a free press because we expected saints to show up. We built them because we knew status-hungry primates would show up every single time, and the only fix that scales is a system that works anyway.
So the CBC researchers are right that hierarchy-seeking is divine design. The question "Uncomfortable" keeps asking isn't why people chase power. It's why we keep dismantling the only things that ever made that chase survivable, and then act surprised when the alpha bites.
“We didn't build courts, term limits, and a free press because we expected saints to show up.”
Men are no angels, we all agree there and the same argument for government rule or (genuine) anarchy is that very sentiment.
And therein lies a problem. We haven’t had congressional (delegate) term limits since 1787. Those delegates who served per the AOC, did it b/c they were passionate about maintaining their/our freedom and they received no salary, and their term was limited in the AOC:
“No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being delegate for more than three years, in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.”
We need that language in our Constitution again - and good luck with that.
My question is not who lives the longest, but who lives the happiest: https://substack.com/@lizlasorte/note/p-146753789?r=76q58&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I am on the left but agree fully with the quote:
You should check out the post that I wrote that brings it home.... You can listen, watch, or read. https://uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com/p/the-common-republic-declaration-of
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
Love it. If we could just figure out how to make punishment of corruption exceed rewarding the corrupt, it would restore the balance. An old wise man told me that politicians used to steal one out of $3 and now they steal two. That is crazy that we accept the norm but we're never going to eliminate it and be perfect so we can see how much of a difference 1/3 and 2/3 makes. It literally shows that with one model, corruption is the norm
Hi Claire,
I'd like to understand your thinking. You said you are on the left but fully agree with the quote - that essentially dooms the idea of big government, and I'd argue that it includes limited government as well. So, if you are from the left, doesn't that mean you want the government (taxpayers) to take care of the people - i.e., providing welfare, SS, medicaid, medicare, etc?
Oh my God Liz I just replied to you and reread it and saw that you weren't even talking to me.... lol... I guess I better stick to writing and not try to read too much.
No worries, dude, and that was a good response. I really want to understand the ideas of “the left” – especially when we understand the nature of people who are attracted to power.
I do think we make the left/right spectrum far too complicated. It does not need to have a gazillion quadrants.
I agree. The better question is – what do we believe is the function of federal government? Is it to protect the people or take care of the people? And what does protection mean? Spending a gazillion dollars on a military when no other adversary even closely mirrors that amount? And, if we didn’t meddle in other countries affairs, how much would that reduce that miliary spending?
My thought is to reduce the size of the federal government right down to pure protection and use that really good term limits language that was in the Articles of the Confederation so a public servant was exactly that – they were limited in terms, (they did not get a pay check either) and that government would specifically protect the borders, lands, environment, infrastructure and let the states each figure out how they want to take care of their people. That way, taxpayer spending is much closer to the people's watchful eyes.
But that’s where Alexander Tytler’s cycle of democracy comes into play, b/c he studied the various failures of former democracies and republics throughout history (in 1770s and 1780s) and found that the common denominator of every failed democracy was creating dependency of the people on the government. It makes sense b/c the government that gives us everything is the same government that can take it all away. And, that lines up with what Alexis de Tocqueville said in Democracy in America, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
I think you're touching on one of the oldest debates in political history: how do we prevent government from becoming too powerful without leaving citizens vulnerable to concentrated private power?
My hesitation with reducing federal government to little more than defense & border protection is that history shows power doesn't disappear when government shrinks. It shifts elsewhere, into monopolies, oligarchies, cartels, and institutions that are even less accountable to voters.
The question I keep coming back to isn't "How small should government be?" but "What problems can only government solve, and where should its power end?"
I agree dependency can be dangerous. But so can allowing healthcare, education, infrastructure, environmental protection, or economic opportunity to depend entirely on geography and ZIP code.
For me, the goal is neither dependency nor abandonment. It's a government strong enough to protect opportunity, rights, competition, and the public interest, while limited enough that it can't become the thing we're trying to protect ourselves from.
Ironically, both the far left and far right often end up concentrating power somewhere. They just disagree about who gets to hold it.
That's why I think the real divide isn't left vs. right. It's accountability vs. unaccountable power, regardless of whether that power sits in Washington, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, or somewhere else.
You make good points. But, I still believe it’s fairly simple math - the bigger the government, the more corruptible it can be and the government can end up being the middle man that is unnecessary. But, agree 100% that the power will also go elsewhere and that is the biggest stumbling block I have with the an-cap ideas.
I think too many are focused on their own perceptions of what our government should do relative to humanity , needs of the people and the massive amount of insecurity, and actual social norms . When you have an insurmountable lack of power fighting those who have ALL the power ! Due to the increase of millionaires and billionaires in this Nation, with an absolute monopoly on all things , pushing and pulling and creating the ugliness that is embedded in this Nation due to the absolute ugliness that an over abundance of wealth, Feeling of superiority , and distain that comes off the arrogance of the people ruining and destroying all that made America Great…
Ie: The Heritage Foundation, Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society ,People of vast Wealth from other Countries , invading the United States of America , tainting ALL the was the Greatest Country in the World !
Case in Point , Elon Musk and his minions stealing from the American People , with an ok from POTUS , because Musk put DJTrump in this Whitehouse ! Then you have media giant Rupert Murdock another foreigner with his far right lunacies promoted Fox entertainment , now encased in DJTs administration full of crazies and looney tunes . Throw in The White Christian??? 🤮 Nationalists encased in every part of this nation via DJT and his MAGA buddies of great power and Wealth .
Now all can see the result
Of a Nation overtaken by unrelenting greed ..
we once had a Nation that lived , cared for, the people , and both people and Government looked to each to solve these issues …
“ He’s not Heavy , he’s my brother “
To a place now where DJT gets into office and destroys “ The People’s White House”
As well as “ The People’s Rose Garden “
A mere tenant in people’s house , for his term only ! When the Hell did that become OK !
Three branches of Government!!
“ For the People, By the People “.
Something is very wrong here….
Hi Liz,
I think you're touching on something real, even if we may disagree on some of the causes.
The concentration of wealth, power, and influence in the hands of a relatively small number of people is a legitimate concern regardless of whether those people are billionaires, corporations, political parties, media companies, activist groups, or government officials.
Where I sometimes differ is that I don't see the problem as belonging exclusively to the left or the right, or to any one person. I see a system that increasingly rewards division, tribalism, and power accumulation while ordinary people feel less represented and less heard.
The question that interests me most isn't who we should hate. It's how we build institutions that are accountable to the public no matter who is in office.
Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.
Hi Liz,
I think the disconnect is treating "left" and "big government" as synonymous, because I don't think they're necessarily the same thing…
Wanting Medicare, Social Security, public education, infrastructure, environmental protections, or a social safety net doesn't automatically mean wanting unlimited government power any more than wanting a military, police force, and border security means wanting authoritarianism…. I
I certainly don't want to RELY on the government to take care of me… I know son of government workers living in DC and I wouldn't count on them to be reliable for anything important. What I do think is that government needs to make sure that we all rise with the tides and reinstate opportunity for the people.
For me, the real question isn't whether government is big or small.
The question is whether it's effective, accountable, transparent, and focused on solving problems.
A government can be large and ineffective. A government can be small and ineffective.
Likewise, a government can be large and highly functional, or limited and highly functional.
The left-right framework often breaks down because most people hold views that don't fit neatly into either box. Someone can support universal healthcare and also support free speech protections, fiscal responsibility, local control, and limits on government overreach.
That's why I think the more useful question isn't "How much government?" but "What should government do, what shouldn't it do, and how do we hold it accountable when it fails?"
I hadn’t read this prior to my reply to Liz. That’s it in a nutshell. How do we hold them accountable? The swamp has obviously not yet been drained. They drained the qualified, knowledgeable, effective people and added their own corrupt swamp creatures. Government only works if it is stocked with honest people.
A lot of the people in my shoes need to consider running even if we never thought about it. I don't know if I'm talking about myself but you know if I find some other like-minded people… that will be my pitch to them
Wow, a lot going on since I commented.
I don’t think that believing that power attracts pathological personalities dooms big government, I think it just means that we have to have more oversight to prevent it. And as Ryan suggested, find a deterrent that makes the corruption not worth the risk, and enforce it. The personalities will be attracted to whatever power structure is available to them. Without government oversight, I fear that the corporations would be even more out of control than they are now, led by these pathological personalities. I don’t see how the country could function with limited government. Look what is happening now that government and corporations have been allowed to run amok.
As for my designation as “left”, I don’t really know what I am actually. I consider myself a populist with left leaning tendencies. I’ve been calling myself a Democratic Socialist because I believe that we all deserve the very basics as American citizens including a roof over our heads, clean water, healthcare and enough to eat. I also believe that we deserve what we’ve paid into all our working lives, including Medicare and Social Security, and Medicaid if it comes to that and we have nowhere else to turn, yes. These are not “entitlement” programs. They are programs to which we are entitled because we DID pay into them. The unearned ones are negotiable.
I believe that we need government to administer these programs. I don’t mind paying taxes if what I pay into is used to do just that as well as build and maintain infrastructure, keep us safe in terms of fire, police, ambulance services, etc. Government, in theory, makes sense.
Capitalism, in theory, is fine as well. But there needs to be government oversight and guardrails in order to function optimally. I believe that if we work hard, we should be able to have a decent life we can be proud of. And if someone has a great idea, they should be able to profit off of that. But I don’t think they should be able to do so off of the backs of their workers without it benefitting those workers as well. As the company grows and the owner/ CEO’s pay increases, so should the workers. There should be a max percentage that a CEO can make in proportion to what his or her workers make. And EVERYONE should pay taxes and pay into social security (without a cap). And NO ONE should be allowed to become a Billionaire let alone a trillionaire. No one should have the ability to buy elections, or be more powerful than the government under which they live. It is abundantly clear that they are not able to police themselves and their judgement seems to be inversely proportional to their salary. Not a good combination.
I think education (college/trade school) should be free as well, as an educated public is more likely to be able and inclined to contribute to society.
So, yes, I do believe in big government. And in theory, the people who choose to be a part of that government would be people who want to serve the people. And that is true in a lot of cases. But unfortunately, it also tends to attract the ones who want to take advantage. And the rest of us just assume that it’s all being taken care of by those wonderful souls who want to serve and so we go on our merry ways and live our lives, not paying attention, until it’s too late and corruption becomes the norm. Our government was bloated and wasteful before Trump, yes. But each part was put in place for a reason. Tearing it down the way Trump and Doge have done has made it ineffectual as well now.
But, it now leaves room to be built back up, a better way. I know, “Build Back Better” doesn’t inspire confidence at this point. But if we can fill the house and senate with progressives and populists, I believe it can be done. But it needs a lot of oversight. I just hope that we aren’t so far gone at this point, with a corrupt Supreme Court, that it is impossible. Oversight requires good honest people who really want to make a difference.
Sounds naive, doesn’t it? There were a lot of good solid people working for the government before Trump kicked them all out of office. They generally didn’t want power. They just wanted to do their part. They’re still out there. The key is to find good people with the ability to lead and inspire. And THAT is a tough combo to find. It always seems that the corrupt are attracted to power. Which is why I highlighted your quote. I believe it can be done. But we have to be vigilant and choose wisely. And pay attention.
Hey Claire!
I think we're actually much closer in our views than our labels might suggest.
One thing I've become increasingly convinced of is that pathological personalities don't care whether power sits in government, corporations, media, unions, or religious institutions. They go where the power is. That's why I've never been comfortable with the simplistic "government bad, market good" or "market bad, government good" arguments.
To me, the real question is: How do we prevent any institution from becoming powerful enough to operate without meaningful accountability?
I agree that healthcare, clean water, infrastructure, and a basic safety net are legitimate functions of a modern society. Where I think the debate gets interesting is how we design those systems so they remain effective, transparent, and resistant to capture by the very interests they're supposed to regulate.
What concerns me most isn't big government or big business in isolation. It's when big government and big business become so intertwined that ordinary citizens can no longer tell where one ends and the other begins.
That's usually where corruption gets its best work done. Human beings really do have a remarkable talent for turning every institution into a vehicle for self-interest if nobody's watching.
-RXS
big government + big business = fascism = totalitarianism. Juvenal was writing about this corruption in the late 1st/2nd century Rome and nailed it when asking "who is watching the gate keepers." Human nature will always be self-serving, b/c it's our survival mechanism. What seems to be missing is that spiritual connection that we are all ultimately interconnected, so what harms X, actually ends up harming all of us. But, I digress.
We the People should be the gate keepers, but with DC being so far away, it's out of sight/out of mind for most us, which is why I believe we would be way better off (not perfect- there is no utopia as long as people suck) - but at least at the state level, we would have a better handle on watching the gate keepers, and let the states decide most of the issues, allowing people to decide where they would rather live, most according to their beliefs.
If you haven't read our original constitution, the Articles of the Confederation - just the term limits language alone is worth the read and we can thank Alexander Hamilton and his boys for taking it out - despite the arguments against taking it out. And, then reading the arguments of the "Anti-Federalists" and it really makes more sense, but it's been lost for most people around my age (old GenX), let alone younger generations.
I’m a very late boomer, so just ahead of you. And much less well-read on the subject so maybe I shouldn’t even be chiming in. But I find it all fascinating.
I just did a search on ways to prevent these types of people from seeking office in the first place. Most of it is just common knowledge but this one I thought was a good addition:
Sortition (Citizens' Assemblies): Some political theorists advocate integrating sortition—selecting everyday citizens via a lottery system to form advisory councils or legislative bodies, similar to jury duty. Because participants do not campaign or seek power, the presence of predatory personalities is diluted down to baseline population levels (less than 1-5%).Active Recruitment: Civic groups can proactively recruit community leaders, educators, and scientists who have a demonstrated track record of selfless community service but have never shown personal political ambition.
Thoughts?
Thanks, Clarie. I appreciate your response. It's good to keep the dialogue open and honest and appreciate your thoughts.
We are probably about the same age; I’m using Howe and Strauss generations (1961-1981), however, I think GenX is 1961-1979 (18 years is a generation, traditionally) and that a generation should never include three decades, since the whole point of grouping cohorts who have nothing in common is because they grew up in a similar world. I think the decades change so much that it’s more accurate to say born in the 1960s, born in the 1970s, etc. v specific generation.
For example, someone born in 1946 or ‘47 grew up in a more similar world with someone born in 1942 or 1943 than someone born in 1964 (and looking at the US birth chart graph shows a boomlet in 1943, so I understand why they put boomers at 1943-1960). The traditional Boomer is based on the census population number of births at 4 million, but that’s not accurate either. What would be more accurate is the graph, not the numbers, and there is clear decline in births post 1960 births with 1957 as the peak of the baby boom.
If interested, I included the graph in this article: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/changing-the-channel-on-the-generation?r=76q58&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I much prefer your categories! I’ve always thought that those categories were a bit misleading. And I’ve never understood why they varied so much in range. I was born in November 1964 and so honestly do resent being categorized as a boomer. I don’t feel that my politics or thinking in general fits into that category. Gen X seems more appropriate. Even saying I was born in the 1960s feels too broad. Why do we even need categories really?
Great article! I agree with everything you said, whole-heartedly. I love this line: “Division is not the natural American condition. It is the manufactured one”. That is it in a nutshell. And then: “Park the policy debates until after the machine blocking all of them is repaired. You will have better fights once the playing field is level.” I agree fully. I think I have been waiting for the messenger that most will listen to. Bernie Sanders was (and still is) good but somehow is still considered left. Graham Platner may have a wider appeal. But that will take too long. The partisan divide is huge. We have to start locally, one person at a time.
Everyone should go outside and read this with anyone they know the experience that you would have together, would be the closest thing to Unity that we've experienced in a long time and it wouldn't show you how close we are in reality, vs what the internet makes you think we are.... Like you said in the post... you are we already know that we want the same things, I mean you just need to realize it and that will require talking.
ANYONE that, "Goes No Contact," with people in the opposite tribe... are clearly a bigger threat to democracy than any extremists could be. They certainly prevented us from winning 2024.
yeah, it's called the 'rally around the flag effect' and it's what we end up inadvertently doing to all these countries that we end up bombing or putting sanctions on and starving their children, or blocking medicine from getting to their countries. When Madeline Albright said it was worth it to starve 500,000 Iraqi children, the people of Iraq didn't want to overthrow Saddam, they wanted to blow up America. It's the excuse that Osama bin laden used when he recruited people, 'America is killing our children, America is supporting Israel, a country that is killing our children. Don't you want to eliminate this threat?' Our government is the reason 2,000 people died on 9/11, we had a 'rally around the moment' instead of expecting our politicians to take accountability for their failures.
Message is right on. Still find it so hard to believe that voters continue to shoot themselves in the foot. They are least educated group of Americans
It’s 984 billionaires vs 343 million Americans at 4:1. Because the Reagan tax cuts allowed the warping of US government space-time.
Speaking of space; the US space program. A massive national endeavour that led to a cascade of new tech. Man on the moon by ‘69. That is mind blowing the US set that task and got there. And that was before I was born.
The solution seems simple: tax the rich until they scream.
Alright, Mikey! I hear ya.... And at least tax em until they're paying as much as the guy making minimum wage as a percentage, for God sakes.
A the fuck men.
Is the CBR by any chance Honda CBR??
Ha! Canberra, Australia.
To CBR 🇦🇺... Or not to CBR 🏍️ ...
That... Is the question.
(as the crowd boo's at Rxan's awful attempt at humor).
Gold.
Why do we continue to ignore it. Both parties are at fault
Well according to history, we will only tolerate it until it's undeniable and I would imagine we're getting extremely close to that point right now.