13 thoughts on “The Worst Year

  1. The first thing to understand about large-scale protests, and rioting, is that it does not occur in areas where the social status of all is healthy and prosperous.

    I dunno.

    Some of it was in Minneapolis, true.

    But some of it was in the CHAZ. It’s weird how the Capital Hill Zone was the scene of one of the long-term protests. It doesn’t quite fit the theory.

    And if you think things are bad now, look back at similar situations throughout history, and realize that you haven’t seen anything yet.

    The phrase that has stuck with me is “Divorce or War”.Report

    1. Divorce works if the cleavage is one that lends itself to territorial division. But our political split breaks down geographically on rural/urban lines. Which makes war look less like Virginia in 1862 and more like Syria in 2017.Report

      1. Please understand, I’m not saying “these are the things that will solve the problems”.

        I’m just saying “game this out… keep iterating the game… what’s the first really, really interesting set of scenarios you encounter more than 50% of the time?”Report

      2. Today. With my particular conspiracy hat on, I point out that the partition issue isn’t ripe yet. In some number of years — more than 23 and less than 43, if I stick with my original forecast — there will be enough changes that the most urban states will have bribed their rural areas into going along. Eg, rural Colorado will have figured out that Mississippi can’t offer them nearly as good a deal as the Front Range can.

        Yes, on this particular topic I’m out on the lunatic fringe.Report

      1. It was the “it does not occur in areas where the social status of all is healthy and prosperous” that made me think of how the CHAZ didn’t fit the theory. Not “what was happening in the CHAZ”?

        (If I were to describe the goings on in the CHAZ, I’d probably say something like “Atavism”.)Report

  2. …because their only goal is violence and power.

    Is that not exactly what the current order has? They have power, and the violence that such power permits them. The protesters have none, and our political system has effectively shut them out of the peaceful means of acquiring that power.

    So they resort to the age old means of getting it.

    Comparisons to Germany fall flat.

    Comparisons to the French and long drops, short stops might get you further.Report

    1. ” The protesters have none, and our political system has effectively shut them out of the peaceful means of acquiring that power.”

      So, you’re saying that neither the Republicans or the Democrats want them as members of their party? But the Dems are happy to use them for their own interests, so who’s worse?

      Do you think that, now that the dragon has been unleashed, there’s any way to capture it again?Report

      1. No – he’s saying (and quite plainly) that neither party’s politicians are responsive to the actual needs the protesters are on about. And frankly for Democrats its been a good thing, in as much as the national Party has had to make policy statements and issue plans to get back to those issues if it wants a shot at the White House and retaking the Senate.Report

          1. They may not be, but Representative Ocacio-Cortez’s speech last night – nominating Bernie Sanders – made it clear they will have to at some point if they want to entrain the next generation.Report

            1. Everybody who gets enough delegates makes it to that point in the process. This has happened since forever.

              Report

Comments are closed.