Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

Just got done in a brief discussion with u/WisDumb and heres a repost because it's worth consideration.

I mostly use left/right, conservative/liberal still out of habit, but it isn't all that productive. The progressive party (standard DNC+GOP machine combine) likes to slide society one way because they're focused on the policy outcome of values, while the public is focused on the labels, and I think its important to inject some chaos there and start forming microparties of 2-3 issues, inverting the "party->policies / public->labels" arrangement of politics. The power of the gun lobby for example is strongly related to policy/issues and not identity which is why it keeps confounding the progressive party and forcing the progressive's right-wing to pander and pretend to support gun rights, and this I think is a winning move:

microparties of 2-3 issues like I wrote, staunchly unyielding on the issues, could work to slow the state down politically. If it were arranged correctly, it would force the progressive party to genuinely split through political deadlock over issues they "must" support in order to not lose credibility with their own base.

By doing this we could maneuver washington into a stalemate with the public and middle class, that would lead to a power vacuum, destabilizing their quid-pro-quo arrangement between the "parties", and causing the state and its unelected bureaucracy to lose long-term policy momentum

Just got done in a brief discussion with u/WisDumb and heres a repost because it's worth consideration. I mostly use left/right, conservative/liberal still out of habit, but it isn't all that productive. The progressive party (standard DNC+GOP machine combine) likes to slide society one way because they're focused on the policy outcome of values, while the public is focused on the labels, and I think its important to inject some chaos there and start forming microparties of 2-3 issues, inverting the "party->policies / public->labels" arrangement of politics. The power of the gun lobby for example is strongly related to policy/issues and not identity which is why it keeps confounding the progressive party and forcing the progressive's right-wing to pander and pretend to support gun rights, and this I think is a winning move: microparties of 2-3 issues like I wrote, staunchly unyielding on the issues, could work to slow the state down politically. If it were arranged correctly, it would force the progressive party to genuinely split through political deadlock over issues they "must" support in order to not lose credibility with their own base. By doing this we could maneuver washington into a stalemate with the public and middle class, that would lead to a power vacuum, destabilizing their quid-pro-quo arrangement between the "parties", and causing the state and its unelected bureaucracy to lose long-term policy momentum

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (3).
[–] • 0 pt

Sounds good in theory, doesn't work in reality. People are rarely dogmatic enough to stick to their principles when it comes to politics. The right/left dichotomy is what ultimately matters. Most voters will compromise on legislation and candidates as long as they perceive their side to be winning in some way. The conservative/progressive system works perfectly because conservatives are happy with preserving half of what they already have, and progressives are happy to gain half of what they want only to push for more later. Will probably continue to function smoothly until the degeneration of Western civilization is complete.

[–] • 0 pt

Think of it like cutting down a tree. Sometimes you use wedges to control the direction of the fall.

Thats microparties in a nutshell.

Will probably continue to function smoothly until the degeneration of Western civilization is complete.

Very probable.