Welfare of The Future.
Left needs to argue again why welfare is a good thing, and why it brings security. It isnât enough to say âWell, it worked in the pastâ. Rich people are hoping that the ability to pay for private security will work out cheaper than any government bill for security. Hence, private security might be the reason that the rich can keep promising âlower taxesâ.
So, the poor end up as victims, of crime - the crimes of the poor. The vulnerable become more at risk of crime. So the poor end up paying for the crimes of the other people who might live around them, or from criminal element travels from place to place.
Money & Resources are siphoned OUT of a community. Or those resources gloat between owners - very little gets bought IN.
So, how will the poor convince the rich that the poor are worth investing in, when the rich see crimes happening and believe that the investment will go to waste? You have a system where there is no obligation to help out poor communities.
How would politics change this?
Tax the Rich?
Yea, thatâs a good option, but it means convincing enough people that the money & resources isnât being used to fund areas that could empower crime - the crimes âthat poor people doâ.
- Some of the Rich, Trump in particular, is very on-message at making poverty look like a crime, and in the past (in some countries) it was a crime, under law.
Remember, the Rich constantly promise that they will invest this money better then the Federal Government.
The other problem, is the compulsion to label people as âMisogynisticâ, âIncelâ, âMillenialâ, Anti-feministâ or the âgoodâ and âbadâ. It is a new fad that has become tiring, and these are all simply âBuzz-wordsâ for labeling and marketing purposes. They are slogans - nothing more.
And, as Trump pointed out âThere are bad people on both sidesâ. This puts all everybody in their place, and makes Trump appear the arbiter of morality, especially to those that donât identify as either left or right - I.e most people. Trump owns this message, and, through his rhetoric, communicates âleaving people aloneâ so long as they get on, and vaguely support him, even in the loosest sense.
(Trump actually is the Chief of US law, as President, according to his lawyer.)
So, yea, left wing politics, especially the more paranoid aspect, needs to stop fixation on âgood and evilâ as its prime counter-reaction, and it also needs to rethink its preoccupation with outsmarting the âdumb or dangerous, or the dangerously dumbâ, because it is like a matador waving a red-flag at a Bull - the instinct is to charge. It isnât difficult to outsmart poor people - the rich do it often enough. The Republicans out-maneuvered the Democrats, and straight into the white house. Most of the WORLD was shocked and surprised that Trump ACTUALLY got in. Congratulations, USA, you managed to surprise the world.
I think that the rhetoric of the left will probably change into something more positive, anyway, - it simply has toâŚ
⌠in order to be more appealing, and seem less like an exclusive group. (The oxymoron of an exclusive club for diversity).
But what would I know? If I were a paranoid leftie, I might be too paranoid to admit it.
Good luck.
