If the perception of your country falls below that of a suppressive, authoritarian dictatorship then you are either a despicable asshole country or a dictatorship yourself.
The PRC has a pretty clear ideological basis. Many of its leaders have written theoretical works about economics and governance. The direction might veer one way or another over the years but it’s the same party running the show. So at the end of the day, one thing they have going for them is consistency. You can know what to expect. From an international perspective, they’re an appealing trade partner.
The US ran a pay-to-win popularity contest to give the keys to a reality show failed-businessman backed by a weird mix of alienated mega-millionaire and billionaires who clearly have little idea of how the levers work, alongside the vicious selfish bigots who ally with them. It was already an inconsistent system for a long time, but now there’s no more facade of professionalism to keep them half-rational. It’s pretty much the 1930s all over again.
“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
Left wing voters didn’t show up to protest how they felt the democrats were dealing with Gaza, nevermind that by staying home they voted for the situation in Gaza to get worse but regardless, please don’t shuffle blame away as if there was some giant institutional force preventing them from voting
please don’t shuffle blame away as if there was some giant institutional force preventing them from voting
My point isn’t that the giant institutional force prevented people from voting (although voter suppression is, incidentally, a huge issue too).
All the US federal elections are a popularity contest, where rich people have ludicrous amounts of power to determine which politicians even end up as viable options on the ballot, through tools such as lobbying parties, mass media ownership, flak and advertising [wikipedia: further reading] to influence the exposure and framing of candidates. How many candidates does the typical citizen even learn about from the news or pop culture? Probably a number between 1 and 4, and only two will be endorsed by the major parties and therefore viable options in practice. That’s the institutional power in action. One can’t look at Clinton, Biden and Trump in 2016 and 2020 and pretend any were the best (or even decent) choices for a country’s leader. These candidates rise to the top because of institutional pressures, hence, pay-to-win - the owning class decide on the options that citizens can vote on.
IIRC, Australia (I’m assuming you’re from there because of your instance?) has a voting system where at least the minor parties are a viable option and independent candidates have a real chance. That’s not the case in the US federal election. There’s no option but the big two, the parties beholden to billionaires and mega-millionaires through tools like lobbying and mass media needed to win the popularity contest.
Obviously the PRC also has major influence over which candidates citizens can vote for, and they don’t have direct federal elections for party leaders (they’re elected by the local members who are elected by citizens), but the main difference is that it’s not a popularity contest where celebrities like Trump, Reagan and Schwarzenegger end up as political decision makers partly due to name recognition rather than credentials and trust, or where money decides the available options.
Left wing voters didn’t show up
I find it hard to believe that Gaza protest votes were anywhere near enough to sway the election, we’re talking IIRC about a 15 million drop. The Democrats weren’t delivering. Voter turnout from both parties went down.
I don’t think the protest votes made much of a difference, In MI maybe, but in general Arab countries do not like gazans at all, mainly because of their history with Gazans going into the countries that was instigated by Israel causing unrests and uprising in those countries,
If the perception of your country falls below that of a suppressive, authoritarian dictatorship then you are either a despicable asshole country or a dictatorship yourself.
Or both.
USA us now classified as chaotic evil. Never know what wacko stuff is going to happen today.
China is more lawful evil. It has its own logic so you can at least anticipate on what it’s gonna do and work with it.
The PRC has a pretty clear ideological basis. Many of its leaders have written theoretical works about economics and governance. The direction might veer one way or another over the years but it’s the same party running the show. So at the end of the day, one thing they have going for them is consistency. You can know what to expect. From an international perspective, they’re an appealing trade partner.
The US ran a pay-to-win popularity contest to give the keys to a reality show failed-businessman backed by a weird mix of alienated mega-millionaire and billionaires who clearly have little idea of how the levers work, alongside the vicious selfish bigots who ally with them. It was already an inconsistent system for a long time, but now there’s no more facade of professionalism to keep them half-rational. It’s pretty much the 1930s all over again.
Left wing voters didn’t show up to protest how they felt the democrats were dealing with Gaza, nevermind that by staying home they voted for the situation in Gaza to get worse but regardless, please don’t shuffle blame away as if there was some giant institutional force preventing them from voting
My point isn’t that the giant institutional force prevented people from voting (although voter suppression is, incidentally, a huge issue too).
All the US federal elections are a popularity contest, where rich people have ludicrous amounts of power to determine which politicians even end up as viable options on the ballot, through tools such as lobbying parties, mass media ownership, flak and advertising [wikipedia: further reading] to influence the exposure and framing of candidates. How many candidates does the typical citizen even learn about from the news or pop culture? Probably a number between 1 and 4, and only two will be endorsed by the major parties and therefore viable options in practice. That’s the institutional power in action. One can’t look at Clinton, Biden and Trump in 2016 and 2020 and pretend any were the best (or even decent) choices for a country’s leader. These candidates rise to the top because of institutional pressures, hence, pay-to-win - the owning class decide on the options that citizens can vote on.
IIRC, Australia (I’m assuming you’re from there because of your instance?) has a voting system where at least the minor parties are a viable option and independent candidates have a real chance. That’s not the case in the US federal election. There’s no option but the big two, the parties beholden to billionaires and mega-millionaires through tools like lobbying and mass media needed to win the popularity contest.
Obviously the PRC also has major influence over which candidates citizens can vote for, and they don’t have direct federal elections for party leaders (they’re elected by the local members who are elected by citizens), but the main difference is that it’s not a popularity contest where celebrities like Trump, Reagan and Schwarzenegger end up as political decision makers partly due to name recognition rather than credentials and trust, or where money decides the available options.
I find it hard to believe that Gaza protest votes were anywhere near enough to sway the election, we’re talking IIRC about a 15 million drop. The Democrats weren’t delivering. Voter turnout from both parties went down.
I don’t think the protest votes made much of a difference, In MI maybe, but in general Arab countries do not like gazans at all, mainly because of their history with Gazans going into the countries that was instigated by Israel causing unrests and uprising in those countries,