Friday, September 27, 2024

Wicked Game

Thinking about it later, I wouldn't remember how I came to be here, emerging from a wood, suddenly surrounded by green, striding through shin-high grasses under a flaxen sky.  It had something to do with an urge for health-- a pursuit of clean air for my lungs and for the dark musty corners of a brain reluctantly coming to from hibernation after a persistent winter.  However it had come about, here among the insects springing and darting,  chirping and buzzing about me with blades of grass whipping my legs as I propelled myself forward across the meadow, it felt suddenly as though I had removed an iron shell from my back.  Where I had been weighted down somewhere back there behind me, on the other side of that forest, with the concerns of daily business, here I found myself unburdened, recreated.  

I paused midway across the clearing and surveyed the terrain before me. Which way to go?   The insect thrum was punctuated by the calls of crows to the right of me.  To the left was a sun just along a course of setting.  I proceeded north tentatively - the direction I was already heading - when I thought I caught glimpse of a flash of tawny red parting grass as it bounded away from me. I felt my heart skip a beat.  It stopped me where I was.   The creature seemed to stop as well.  Was it a fox?  Still preoccupied with my quandary about a direction, I looked away, but  something about the red-- I found myself looking back in spite of myself for another sip.  Failing to see it right away, I absently made another few steps in its direction and suddenly there it was again-- a vivid, earthy red peeking above the grass.  It bounded forward.  I stopped again to watch for a better look and again it stopped.  This was going nowhere.  I turned toward the northwest and took another step.  It seemed to alter its path in the same direction.  Before I was aware of it, I was changing my course to match its course, and heading again North, now finding myself in spite of myself in pursuit of it.  

I was on the other side of the meadow, tracking the shadows of forest again when I realized it. There was definitely something about the red-- I needed to verify what it was about the color that motivated me.   As I became conscious of it, I marveled at the growing certainty that something had taken possession of my will and that that something was the fact of the red of the fox.  I found myself trying to reconstruct the moment when it took hold of me.  I recalled the instant just moments before as I came midway across the meadow again in my mind-- the slice of time that the exquisite tawniness pierced the barriers of my perception and seeped into my brain, compelling me before I was conscious of what was happening.  But why recall when the fox was before me darting in and out of the dappled sunshine that pierced the canopy of forest and splashed the earth?  Where was that fox again?   A sudden bark told me.  I scanned the landscape before me trying to connect up once again with the possessor of that magnificent coat, but my search was in vain.  The only trace of the fox now was the skittering and scraping of its mane and the disturbance of ferns as it tunneled through the underbrush a score of yards in front of me.  It was like a hunger.  Or was it hunger?

As I came around a cluster of young fir, the unmistakable red of its coat bounded into view above the brush ahead of me.  Was it something bigger-- with the same red hair?  How could that be?  I struggled to understand what I'd seen when suddenly I came to a small clearing around a stump with a clean flat top.  Someone had hewn a tree in this wood.  Atop the stump were 3 brightly colored mushroom caps that looked freshly torn from their stems.  In my hunger they looked delicious.  I glanced ahead, and saw the undergrowth rustling where my quarry was advancing.  I picked up a cap, studied it briefly.  I took it to my mouth and gave it an exploratory tap with my tongue.  Perhaps I was paranoid-- I felt my head encircled by stars.  A barklike call brought me back to attention.  I quickly set the mushroom back from where I'd taken it and proceeded in pursuit of the red.  I picked up my pace, but the distance only seemed to grow between us.  And yet I got enough of a view now through the brush to see that somehow the red that I was pursuing was on a different form. Not the fox but on a very-fox like creature.  

Could it be?  It appeared to be running on two legs.  At times it seemed to stop and look at me as if to assure itself that I was still on the trail.  It waited for me to catch up just enough to gain some hope of closing the distance between us, and then turned and bounded away.  There came the bark again.  I was close enough to see for certain that my leader was no longer a fox, and not quite a human, but a kind of fox human.  With fox ears and what looked like a white tipped bush of a tail still trailing behind it. Still wearing a mane of luscious red. Was I the hunter or the prey?  I seemed incapable of surrendering to failure at the task of achieving an intimate encounter with the beast.  And just when my endurance seemed most eager to yield the chase altogether, there on the path lay a long flat object, black in color.  A ribbon.  I stooped to collect it and continued on my way, unable to tell by its condition how long it had been lying in the elements.  The question was soon answered by inference, as it now seemed that along the path every fifty yards or so were purposefully strewn an array of objects-- a dead sparrow, an handful of berries, a marbled stone, a hickory nut, a crudely fashioned nosegay of wildflowers, another collection of mushrooms.

These last and the berries, I again paused at, the hunger I had experienced having grown only more acute.  I consumed the berries.  The mushrooms tempted me; but again, I had only to dab my tongue on the cap of one to invoke the sensation of my head detached from my body and suspended amid the comets and satellites of space. I scanned the forest ahead of me for a sign of the creature. 

"Hey!" someone called.  It was a woman's voice.  There beyond the scrub that I was wading through, on the other side of a thicket, amid a stand of pine she stood,  a possessor of the same red hair that had set me on this detour from my solitary walk.  Was that a smile on her lips?  Was she speaking to me?  Before I could satisfy myself with an answer, she turned and ran, in the same prevailing direction that I had been going.  There was no sign of a fox, nor of a fox human, just the lovely figure of a woman, hair ablaze in the late afternoon sunlight, hurrying through the pine before me.  What was the harm in thinking it was me she had addressed with her "Hey!"

Before long I was in the same endless stand of pine, running after her on a carpet of needles.  The items I encountered on the path left were fewer and so far between and of such a random nature--  a large brass button, a scrap of colored paper, an apple--that I could not tell if I was imagining that they had been left there purposefully for me.  Still, the mere act of pausing to collect, study and ponder them slowed me down to such an extent-- and the descending twilight was a factor-- that my guide through this wood had reached a lead beyond my line of vision.  I could only hear the occasional commotion of her progress through the woods, punctuated every so often by bursts of sweet sounding laughter, and what could have been another "Hey!" or two seeming to let me know that I was going in the right direction.  By now my hunger had grown, as had my trepidation about the looming darkness.  Did I know where I was and how I would make my way back?  It seemed prudent to forge ahead in hopes that my red-haired companion would lead me to a settlement or a road by which I could find my bearings and make my way home.  The hunger was becoming unbearable.

I was no longer running, but walking as fast as my aching legs would carry me.  There she seemed to be yards ahead of me in the darkening wood.  At length, I heard what sounded like steps landing on wooden boards.  The rushing sound of water confirmed she had reached a footbridge.  I emerged from the wood to the edge of a much sparser clearing.  Across the bridge, she seemed to be waiting for me at the door of a well lit cottage.  How could this be in this forest that I thought I knew from years of childhood exploration and adult refuge?  I hurried to the bridge which spanned in an arch  over a splashing creek, and crossed it.  As I approached the house, I raised my arm in a wave.  She returned the gesture, turned away and entered the cottage, leaving open the door.  The closer I got, the stronger became the scent of something cooking.  A smell I'd never smelled before.  It was sweet, rich, earthy.  A nutty smell; almost a liqueur.  As I stepped up her front stoop, I saw her through the crack in the door, more lovely in this proximate approach than I had imagined as I made my way toward her in the diminishing sun of late afternoon.  I entered, removing my hat. I wanted to thank her for her hospitality, to ask her her name, to see if she could tell me where we were so that I could begin to plan my way back.  I opened my mouth to speak but before a word came out, she gestured at a pot steaming on the stove, the locus of those incredible smells.  She was so insistent and I was so famished that I knew I could not rest until I had tasted the contents of that aromatic pot. "Please" she said.  I nodded my thanks.  As I made my way to the stove, she turned and disappeared through a doorway and up a stairwell behind her.  Did she want me to follow her? It was clear the answer could wait.

A small bowl and a spoon lay on the counter next to the stove.  Into it I scooped ladles of a rich earth-colored mash of some kind.  A sweeter concoction I could not bring to mind.  I sat down with it at her table.  As I raised a spoonful of it to my mouth, I could sense that it had been cooling a while.  Inhaling the aroma, I took the sweet smelling paste into my mouth.  I savored it and swallowed, its substance blazing a path of delight from my tongue to my throat.  I eagerly took another mouthful.  As I did so, it suddenly seemed as though the world spun fast around me, sweeping me up into a bed of clouds and hastening me over acres of land and across miles and miles of sea to new shores on the other side of the world.  In its savoriness, I tasted the birth of civilizations.  Carts rolling, pulled by beasts of burden over mountain paths, their beds laden with the riches of the earth.  The sun, not just a star in the sky but a god, a provider.  The source and inspiration of every wondrous crop and the teller of tales of how to use them sacredly.  Letting the concoction wash over my tongue, I felt myself rising to the snow-capped peak of a mountaintop, set down at the foot of a path to the temple of the gods. Casting my eyes upward, I rose, ascended, ever higher to the gleaming auburn coat of She who walks in Light.

The next thing I was conscious of was myself lying leaned against an oak, under a canopy of stars on a moonless night, at the edge of a field I knew well was the very place where I first saw the red coat of the fox.  Amid the dewy grasses, I thought, How had I come to be here?  If I didn't die, I couldn't say whether I would be able to make my way home.  Unsure if I was breathing my last,  I distracted my mind from the pain that enrobed me by peering passively into the vast ocean of stars.  I contemplated the night and thought of her, wondering if somewhere out there amid the wisps of cloud had seeped the memories I sought in vain of how my time was spent with her.  Had I at last for even a moment been the possessor of that red?

Sunday, September 22, 2024

Graphic Violence

Graphic from Many Gen Z Men Feel Left Behind. Some See Trump as an Answer, by Claire Caine Miller, NY Times, August 24, 2024.

Are Gen Z men pro Trump?  That seems to be the conclusion of a certain segment of media, perhaps exemplified, and amplified by the virality of the above graphic which appeared in the NY Times last month (and the accompanying article).  The discussions about the graphic that I've seen (e.g., a Breaking Points "debate" on the topic, to say nothing of various tweets (xeets?) about it) are eager to point out the tremendous distance between the purple dot on the left of the topmost line which represents the percentage gap between Gen Z women supporters of Kamala Harris and those of Donald Trump (i.e., Harris leads Trump among Gen Z women by 38%) and the green dot on the right-- namely the 13% lead according to the August NY Time Siena poll) that Trump has over Harris among Gen Z men.  In many of the discussions I've seen (including the NY Times articles on the topic), there does seem to be some elision of the fact that the poll is exclusively among voters in the 6 swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and that it took place after the Democratic National convention but before the widely watched debate between the candidates 2 weeks later. 

But before we get to the question at hand, can we talk about the graphic itself and the conclusions being drawn from it?  I will confess when I was originally confronted with the story I found myself too confused by the graphic to follow most of the conversations about it.  To my eyes, the most salient thing about it was not the rather typical extent to which the green dot floated to the right of the axis labeled "EVEN" for Gen Z men (about which the story screaming out to me is the exceptional rightness for Gen X-ers of both sexes aged 45 to 64), but rather the extraordinary extent to which which the purple Gen Z dot for women sits to the left.  Why then was the talk about Gen Z men?   Somehow, according to the prevailing narrative, the line represented a "Gender Gap", which according to the story was calculated as the sum of the 38% lead for Harris over Trump among Gen Z women and the 13% lead for Trump over Harris for Gen Z men or 51%.  But was this so meaningful as to warrant the discussion it got?  To me, it looked like nonsense.  We know that 38% more women support Harris than support Trump, but we don't know if Trump's support is the minimum of 0% or the maximum of 31% among Gen Z women that this number implies or somewhere in between.  Even if we knew the correct split between Trump and Harris among women, it would tell us nothing about where along the spectrum from the minimum split of 0% Harris-13% Trump to the maximum of  43%- 56% respectively that Gen Z Men's preferences fell.

The numbers appear to be related in the graphic, but that is strictly because in terms of their literal appearance they are connected by a solid line.  In fact, they have nothing to do with each other.  Does the calculation of the differences between them actually signify anything about a gender Gap? 

Fortunately we don't have to wonder.  The Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University has a helpful guide to what a Gender Gap actually is.  Contrary to the New York Times operative assumptions, it is not the magnitude of the difference between the preference of women for one candidate versus that of men for another.  Rather, it is the difference between men and women's preferences for the same leading (or winning) candidate in a race.  In that case, we do not have enough information from the graphic to determine the gap-- we would need to know who overall was leading in the poll, and then we would need to know the percentage of each gender supporting that candidate.   The difference between them is the Gender Gap.  This is simply not available from the data as presented in the NY Times Graphic.

The data that can be determined from the graphic according to the Rutgers Center are the Gen Z women's Vote (that 38% lead that Harris has over Trump for women) and the Gen Z men's Vote (the 13% lead that Trump has over Harris among that cohort according to the poll.).   Clearly it appears that Kamala Harris has an exceptionally strong lead among Gen Z women in the 6 swing states in which the poll was conducted.  It's less clear, given that the margin of error in these polls can be as high as 8%,  that Donald Trump has a lock on Gen Z men's votes.  

In fact, as John Sides notes at Good Authority, the conclusions reached at the NY Times based on its poll (and the Wall Street Journal as well as several other outlets eager to spin pleasing narratives) were contradicted by at least 2 other polls taken at the same time.  Both a YouGov.com and a Pew Research Center poll found that Gen Z men,  as much supporting data attests, actually lean toward Harris, with a much smaller gap between the genders than the NY Times Siena poll suggests.  Granted, these appear to be national polls and may not be indicative of the outcome we are in store for. But it is more in keeping with what we've learned about Gen Z in the past. I am skeptical of the enthusiasm that media outlets have about Gen Z men's susceptibility to conservative talking points.  I don't doubt a contingent of Gen Z cavemen lie in wait to succeed their neanderthal forebears on the culture war front.  I just have a bit more faith in the prevailing sense of the cohort. 

Saturday, September 14, 2024

Appreciation Deficit Syndrome


It might surprise you to know (but shouldn't) that I don't have a YouTube channel.  So uninterested in having a channel am I that the only reason I know this is because it has thwarted me in the past when I have been most tempted to write a comment on a video.   My YouTube experience is that of an addict.  Most videos I quietly watch (frequently double speed if it's not music) and move on.  But every now and then, something moves or irritates or arouses me in a way that compels me to want to express myself, but merely attempting to like or dislike a comment on a video, let alone compose one, is something that requires a channel, which (for those of you not paying attention) I do not have.  As fiery as my passions can be, they have never been too fiery to perform the quid of creating a channel for the quo of commenting on or liking or hating a comment on a video.  But YouTube comments have a hold on the part of my soul that is YouTube addict.  In my daily YouTube excursions, I often find myself trying to get into the head of a person who having viewed the video I just watched is compelled to lift their fingers from their laps to record for the benefit of strangers for all time whatever flits through their brains.  I'm already ascribing more to the person than I could possibly know.  For all I know DaveinDubuque69 had been stewing about the video for a week before finally carving out the slice of time required to type: "I can't even." 

In defense of the proposition that the YouTube commentariat might not be collectively constructing the finest of human thought, has it escaped your attention that  there is a sameness to the preponderance of comments?  Given the predictability of so much of YouTube commentary, I've begun to suspect that it's a case of Pavlovian classical conditioning-- the stimulus is the moving image with sound, the response a limited number of stereotyped phrases:  "First." "Who's watching this in 2024?" "This is everything." "I am so here for this.". "Gentlemen of taste, we meet again." "Everything was so much better then."  I've noticed in the past year or two a couple of new categories.  The first seems to be provoked by vintage performance of female artists.  "Not a tattoo or a purple hair on her." And the ubiquitous "Underrated!"

For a while I've been logging every time I've come across "Underrated" by itself or in a phrase (usually "This is so underrated!" or "Criminally underrated!") in a YouTube comment.  In the past month I've seen the word used to describe the following (these are just the videos where I encountered the phrase spontaneously or where I remembered to check the comments):

Pixies' song Hey 
Pixie's song Here Comes your Man
Pixies Guitarist Joey Santiago ("must be the most underrated ever.")
Pixies Drummer Guitarist Bassist and Songwriters. (The comment got over 2000 likes and inspired the comment: "Most underrated comment") 
1959 sci-fi flick (and MST3K episode) Teenagers from Outer Space
The Netflix series Love and particularly Claudia O'Doherty (possibly true)
Gillian Jacobs
Bow Wow Wow (the song was Aphrodisiac)
Melissa VillaseƱor on Stephen Colbert
New Mexico (the state)
We Both Reached for the Gun (from Chicago)
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Humphrey Bogart classics Petrified Forest, The Harder They Fall, The Caine Mutiny, The Desperate Hours, In.a Lonely Place
Swedish singer Robyn -- criminally 
Martin Short
Regina Spektor's I Cut Off My Hair 
"Listen do you smell something?" line from Ghostbusters
Goldfrapp 

Also observed in the course of gathering the above:
"Underrated" is an outside-the-box adjective for something you like.  Taken at face value it's an objective datum about a thing-- an assertion that the ratings for it are low, which assumes that there are ratings about it, the amplitude of which can be evaluated.  Moreover, there is a judgment about the amplitude; to wit that it is excessively low.  Interestingly enough, there are indeed ratings that can be applied to YouTube videos.  Having watched a video, anyone (even those of us without channels) can take an extra step and register either a Like or a Dislike.  Could "underrated" refer to the ratio of Likes to Dislikes?  Maybe once, but Dislike counts are no longer public information on YouTube videos,  yet if anything the characterization of a video or its subject as underrated has mushroomed in recent years.  Could it sometimes refer to the ratio of likes to views-- an indication that the commenter considers, given the number of views, that not enough viewers have hit the Like button?   Perhaps, but in my unscientific evaluation of this possibility with the videos whose views and likes I noted above, there does not appear to be any great consistency-- the ratios range from 0.06% to 7.54%.   It also can't be a reliable datum because whereas individuals can rack up dozens of views, they are only allowed one like per video (per sock puppet account).  I certainly don't "Like" every video I come across that I "like".  Furthermore, plenty of enterprises exist out there that will sell content creators jacked up Like counts for a price. 

All of this is a bit beside the point if my suspicion about the popularity of "underrated" is correct, namely that it stands in as an objective sounding rationale for an imprimatur that the user is intending to confer upon a favorite video or its subject matter.  If the comment has any basis in numerical data, perhaps it's an assertion that a video does not have enough views-- single or repeat.  I can't help but feel that the word does a lot of work for the commenter-- elevating their own appreciation to a precious status in contrast to the expected derelict neglect of a work of art by the unwashed masses. *

There's an unintentional backhanded quality to the word, however.  Marina Diaminidis-- formerly of Marina and the Diamonds, lately of Marina-- was puzzled by how frequently "underrated" is used by her fans to describe her, saying "How big do you want me to be?

~~~~~~
* I suppose for the sake of thoroughness, I shouldn't rule out the possibility that the frequency with which I encounter the adjective "underrated" is a function of my taste for actually underrated things. 

Thursday, September 5, 2024

Cry If I Want To

Although I hated Kamala Harris’s speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, I still hold out faint hope that it’s a strategy to get her elected, which I still support as the best of the 2 possible outcomes.  I hold out hope that freed of Biden and in office (thanks to the support of those she was wooing via her speech along with the shit eaters and nose holders) she will be freer to be non-Bidenish. Nevertheless, I went from being a hopeful supporter before the convention to a bit of a shit eater thanks to the DNC.  So you might ask, what is my resistance to the Green Party?  Third party voters do not even expect their candidates to win.  Talk about a low bar.  In other words, we are all rolling over, all of us who still participate in electoral politics when you’d think given the level of misery there might be some concerted or even chaotic move to take it back. As an example of possibility in the UK there is talk of replacing the House of Lords with a People's House of randomly selected citizens a la sortition. 

But back to American reality in late summer 2024, I’m not saying the Green Party is actually worse than either of the parties of the duopoly, just that it objectively does not have power. I think the Green party is for leftists who truly do not think it matters who is in power in this system, whereas leftists who vote for Dems truly think it matters who is in power.  It’s a fucked up system that needs to go because on balance it causes harm.  In my opinion it’s because the people in power cause harm and that’s why I’m more concerned with who those people are.  (And who are these people who are so hell-bent on maintaining a broken status quo at all costs in spite of popular and electoral desire?)

I remember in April 2020 in particular I was thinking that if the left could get its shit together and come together into a rival electoral force it would be a good thing.  I think in retrospect that would have been the time.  If it worked, Joe Biden would probably have lost to Donald Trump probably because of the 3rd party, but the 2024 primary would not have been a sham and might have actually been interesting.

But in practice, I can’t get past thinking a left unified into a new contentious third party means Republicans win every election going forward.  It feels like it would consist of existing 3rd party (legacy duopoly castoffs) plus new duopoly castoffs mostly from the dem party meaning from smallest to largest there would be this left 3rd party with barely 20% of voters, Demoncraps with about 32% and GOP with less than 48%.  I.e., diminished Dems, the same GOP, meaning GOP lock in every election, in spite of the majority of voters being to the left of the spectrum.

I really wish the left would commandeer the Dem party (and/or the GOP)   Overwhelm it with killer ideas and power and vitality.  Take AIPAC money and burn it.  Alienate the crypto-nazis and paleos and neo-libs and cons and attract the rabble rousers.  Seems less pie in the sky.  So the 20% moves into the 32% party, alienates 15% or so existing dem voters but attracts another 20-25% from among the non-voters and keeps Dems who will vote for Blue no matter who who will find a way to live with replacing the Senate with a Citizens Chamber selected by lot, executing a plan to accelerate EV infrastructure, enacting single payer healthcare, etc. if it means Blue on the electoral map.

Some might object, "They won't let the left near the reins of power."  But if we commandeer the party, they becomes us, right?  When I read the Best and the Brightest last year I was struck by how similar to third way democrats the Kennedy wing of the dem party was, but for 30 years prior it was Keynesian.  Eisenhower is the GOP analog for the Rooseveltian Era that Clinton was for Reaganite GOP in the neo-lib Era.  I mean, parties can change their focus.  They can be commandeered.

As Kamala Harris' acceptance speech demonstrated, it’s still Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s (and their donors’) party.  It’s Biden and Obama and the Clinton’s party.  But they are old and dying and the world that brought them to power is dying too.  (It’s a zombie apparently but it is flailing to maintain hegemony.  Hence all that talk of NATO and Hamas and Immigration and play by the rules economics)  That’s my punchy uneducated feeling.  My theory is a commandeered Dem party moves to the left.  I think Dem victories are good for the left.  It’s Dem losses that move Dem’s to the right.

This I know-- punishing the Dem party for Joe Biden's egregiously senile support of Israel's genocide by voting for the Green Party is about as likely to move the needle on the issue as writing in Norman Finkelstein.  If it makes you feel good, who am I to interfere?  But if you want your vote to contribute to an end to Israel's atrocity, you might not be thinking it through if you expend your vote on the Green Party.  If Kamala Harris loses because of it, it's worse than futile.  It's self-defeating.  In the meantime, Kamala Harris is not Joe Biden, but until she wins, she is working for him so don't expect her to repudiate his anachronistic support of Israel before she sees him retreating in the rear view mirror.

In a way thinking about sortition is what clarified this for me.  Electoral politics are a sham.  They are not fixable.  They are designed to keep the elite the elite.  But the evil genius of those that electoral politics serve is that they implicate those that they allow to vote in their own exploitation by forcing them to choose the marginally lesser of evils (evils being self-selected careerists from our elite institutions) to govern themselves.  The governing will always be within the bounds of what the elite deems acceptable.  It’s only become more obvious since the end of history, the age of forever wars,  the financial meltdown, big tech and pandemics  as Congress, the judiciary and the executive behave however they please in spite of clear indications that what they please does not please the electorate.  (Hence arms and military funding being sent to Israel in spite of their making possible the Gazan genocide, hence no single payer healthcare, hence no free education or debt forgiveness, hence the budget for social spending being strapped because it’s dependent on the strapped class and not at all on the owner class, etc.).  In other words, electoral politics is what it is.  We have to make the best of it until we can get rid of it.  To my mind, more parties is not making the best of it because only 1 of 2 parties will win. 

The ultimate goal is sortition.  That’s what we really need to work on.  But in the meantime, we’ll each have different ideas about how best to live with this rigged system because whatever we do will never be enough to get us what we want.  If like me you think not all outcomes are equal under this extremely bad system you try to shoot for the best or least bad outcome.

American democracy is uniquely undemocratic.  A paragon of undemocraticity. (?)  In a parliamentary or representative democracy in which the government’s makeup is determined by the makeup of the vote, it’s at least possible to form coalitions.  In the duopoly that’s impossible (except within one or the other of the two parties).  It’s designed to be us versus them.  Everything else is noise.  The best we can get to an idea of a fix for it is rank choice voting in which you can still be implicated in how things are run if your formerly unspoken second choice gets the majority on a second round.  Your second choice won!  And it’s your fault for confessing it was your second choice! But as we don’t have rank choice voting we are especially at the mercy of the two parties.  They don’t have to pander to the fringe if they don’t want to.  GOP is unusual because its politics are so fringe it has to collect the odious fragments to win so it has a higher pandering quotient and more cohesion and solidarity.  Very fuckin weird system.  It’s unusually bad and undemocratic.  The nerve of saying it’s the best democracy in the world as Kamala Harris said in her speech. We have to stop pretending this is actually democracy.  It can’t be when winner (the plurality yet) takes all and losers get nothing.