No blocks found.

No blocks found.

• The Dog Who Doesn’t Know You’re Gone

  Created by: anonymous in daily-page on May 17, 2025, 4:04 AM

  A dog doesn’t understand death. Not the way we do. He understands silence. He understands that someone who was always there is now not.

  He waits by doors that won’t open. He listens for footsteps that only memory still makes. He sniffs at the air for a scent that’s already fading.

  But he never hears the words: “She’s gone.” “He passed.” “Never again.”

  So in his heart, you’re still alive— just elsewhere. Delayed. Caught in some long errand beyond comprehension.

  And isn’t that what we humans do too? We know the facts, we say the words— but inside, we keep waiting. For a call. A knock. A laugh in the next room. As if love had no burial rights. As if memory was a leash tied to a ghost.

  Perhaps the dog suffers less because he doesn’t know it’s forever. But perhaps he suffers more, because he never stops hoping.

  And maybe that’s what grief really is: the stubborn part of us that waits, ears perked, at a door that will never open again.

• Free Speech Is Not a Team Sport: How America Forgot Who the First Amendment Is For

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 24, 2025, 3:36 AM

  I. Introduction — How “Free Speech” Became a Side to Root For

  If you only learned about free speech from American politics in the last 25 years, you could be forgiven for thinking it’s a partisan brand rather than a constitutional principle. One election cycle, free speech is a conservative rallying cry against “cancel culture” and “Big Tech censorship.” Another cycle, it’s a progressive slogan against government surveillance, bans on books, or gag orders on teachers. The banners keep changing color, but free speech is supposed to live in the rulebook, not on one side’s uniform.

  Underneath those shifting slogans, though, something quieter has been happening. Both major parties have grown increasingly comfortable with the idea that certain kinds of speech are too dangerous, too destabilizing, or simply too offensive to tolerate. What changes is not the impulse to restrict, but the justification: national security, public safety, preventing harm, fighting disinformation, protecting children, defending democracy. The list changes, but the move is the same: carve out one more exception when speech cuts against your own side.

  The irony is that the legal First Amendment regime in the United States remains, historically speaking, very strong. Supreme Court cases like Cohen v. California—the one that protected a guy wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft” in a courthouse corridor—are still the background law of the land. In that case, the Court held that the state could not punish him just for a four-letter word that offended people; offense alone was not a sufficient reason to criminalize speech. (Legal note: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).)

  More...
• The Mobility State Isn’t Pie-in-the-Sky (And It Definitely Isn’t Social Democracy)

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 22, 2025, 4:25 AM

  You just read the condensed Mobility State proposal.

  The most common pushback I get, from both left and right, boils down to two words:   “Nice brochure, but that’s just Scandinavia with better branding — and America will never pay for it.”

  Wrong on both counts. Here’s why this package is cheaper, structurally different, and politically plausible in the actual United States we have in 2025.

  1. This Is Not Even Close to Nordic-Scale Spending

  Nordic social democracy runs at 45–55 % of GDP, funded by 25 % VATs and crushing payroll taxes.

  A full-bore Mobility State toolkit — all four pillars, generously sized — adds roughly 3–5 % of GDP in new spending. That’s in the same financial ballpark as:

  • the Trump-era Opportunity Zones + Child Tax Credit expansion, or
  • one single year of the CARES Act (which was 25 % of GDP and passed in a weekend).

  Rough cost envelope (2025 dollars):

  • Universal Opportunity Accounts (“baby bonds on steroids”): ~$150–200 bn/yr
  • True portable benefits (mostly re-plumbing health insurance): near revenue-neutral
  • Modern GI Bill for economic transitions: ~$80–120 bn/yr
  • Housing mobility + supply-side reform: revenue-neutral or growth-positive

  That’s not “Sweden.” That’s “GI Bill 2.0 + Swiss health system + YIMBY zoning reform.” Congress has done bigger things when it feels the heat.

  2. It’s Built for American DNA, Not European DNA

  Feature	Nordic Social Democracy	U.S. Mobility State
  Core goal	Slow churn, compress outcomes	Accelerate adaptation, open entry
  Main tool	High taxes + big transfers	Portable tools + de-rigging barriers
  Labor market	Strong job protections, high union density	Easier hiring/firing + easier worker moves
  Benefits tied to	Employment contract or residency	The person (true portability)
  Works best with	Low immigration, slow change	High immigration, rapid tech churn
  Right-wing reaction	“Socialism!”	“Finally fixing the rigged game”

  More...
• Rebuilding the American Ladder — Condensed Edition

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 20, 2025, 4:03 AM

  A Mobility State for an Age of Inequality

  America’s real crisis is not just inequality; it is the collapse of mobility in a high-churn, high-immigration society. The old promise—work hard, play by the rules, move up—now feels like a rumor for millions juggling gig jobs, locked out of housing markets, or stuck with obsolete skills. We do not need nostalgic protectionism or minimalist fatalism. We need a mobility state: public policy designed not to freeze people in place with bigger cushions, but to equip them to move—across jobs, regions, and life stages—without falling through the cracks.

  The New Inequality: Resilience, Not Just Income

  Today’s inequality is less about static wealth gaps and more about who has buffers against constant change. Asset owners ride appreciating houses and stocks; everyone else faces volatile pay, algorithm-driven schedules, and benefits that vanish when the job does. Automation, platforms, and global competition reward the adaptable and punish the exposed. The result is a divide in agency: some treat layoffs as detours; others never recover.

  Why Obvious Fixes Keep Dying

  Americans broadly support making retraining easier, benefits portable, or housing less gated. Yet reforms stall because of:

  • Structural veto points and regulatory capture
  • Cultural skepticism of “big government”
  • Partisan branding wars (“socialism” vs. “welfare”)

  The Mobility State: A Third Model

  More...
• The Song of the Earth

  Created by: kwrites in moments-of-joy on May 29, 2025, 3:21 AM

  I am stuck in a narrow, crowded road. I can see the beginnings of a traffic jam. This part of the city was, after all known, for its nightmarish traffic situation. One could get stuck among honking cars and two-wheelers, for hours on end. I throw up a silent prayer to the gods, to spare me from a traffic jam. I just dont have the energy to navigate cursing drivers, and pedestrians who didnt have a lick of road sense. "Why couldnt people in this blasted country just follow the damn traffic rules?" "Why did I choose to come here for school?" I can feel my thoughts spiraling as I quietly resign myself to being stuck here for hours. A sudden cool breeze, breaks my reverie. This wasnt just any kind of breeze, it was the sort that brought the sweet promise of rain with it. I feel a new sort of awareness, as I sit up a little straighter. I take in my surroundings as if for the first time. A broad smile, splits my face, as I breathe in the wind carrying the scent of the earth. It reminds me of home, of the many many evenings I spent dancing and laughing in the rain with my siblings. I tilt my face up to the sky as if to greet a long lost friend. I relax, as the first drops, of rain hit me, causing delicious shivers to race up my body......

• Our Government Fits in a Parking Garage

  Created by: gerardfil in andorra on May 27, 2025, 2:29 AM

  No, seriously. The Consell General (our parliament) is inside a building smaller than most banks.

  It’s wedged right into a bend in the road in Andorra la Vella. It has a parking garage underneath.

  In theory, you could run for office, park your car, and walk into the chamber in under three minutes.

  I once tried to explain this to a coworker from Berlin. He laughed for five straight minutes.

  And yet, it works.

  Our political system is one of the oldest in Europe — we’ve had co-princes since the 1200s. One is the Bishop of Urgell (Catalonia), and the other is the President of France.

  It’s weird. But stable. And very us.

  Maybe you don’t need a palace if you’ve got snow, fiber internet, and municipal hot springs.

  New Parliament of Andorra, headquarters of the General Council of Andorra since 2011.

• The Snow Knows Who We Are

  Created by: gerardfil in andorra on May 27, 2025, 2:28 AM

  When I was a child, I thought every country had ski lockers at the supermarket.

  That’s Andorra. Small, yes. But we live vertically — and very much on our own terms.

  I was once asked by an American tourist if we use euros “like France does.” I told him we do. Then I told him we’re not France. Or Spain.

  We’re both. And neither.

  Catalan is our official language. We learn Spanish and French from childhood. Some of us speak Portuguese at home. Our newsstands carry newspapers from Madrid, Toulouse, and sometimes Lisbon.

  And yet, we are something else entirely.

  When I travel, people ask if I’m Spanish or French. I always hesitate. “I’m Andorran,” I say. Most smile politely. A few ask if that’s in Africa.

  It’s okay. We’re used to being overlooked. But the snow knows who we are.

  We belong to mountains. And to each other.

  

• Creeds, Tribes, and Freethinkers: Is America Built to Liberate Our Minds?

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on May 11, 2025, 12:54 PM

  From the moment a new immigrant steps onto Ellis Island, America sells itself as the land of limitless possibility—an intellectual blank slate where beliefs are meant to be forged in the fires of reason rather than inherited bloodlines. Yet beneath that aspirational veneer lies a potent creed, one that demands its own form of ideological conformity.

  In theory, the United States should be a paradise for freethinkers: a nation whose founding documents exalt individual liberty, skepticism of authority, and the Enlightenment’s valorization of reason. The First Amendment’s protection of speech and religion seems tailor-made to shelter those who question dogma, tradition, and entrenched power.

  But ideals are one thing, lived reality another. Americans often find that straying too far from the “official” creed—whether by challenging unfettered markets or criticizing founding myths—invites swift social sanctions. In practice, deviance from accepted narratives can brand you as unpatriotic or even subversive.

  This tension stems from America’s identity as a creedal nation rather than an ethnic one. Where many countries lean on shared ancestry or cultural homogeneity to forge national unity, the U.S. leans on a shared set of principles. And principles, as it turns out, can be policed just as rigorously as lineage.

  So does America really want freethinkers? The short answer: it wants them up to a point. Freethinking that reinforces prosperity, innovation, and technological progress is celebrated—think Silicon Valley iconoclasts or academic mavericks. But freethinking that threatens political stability, economic orthodoxy, or the consumerist consensus is often met with suspicion or outright hostility.

  More...
• Падение со скалы.

  Created by: Dariga in daily-page on May 2, 2025, 2:55 PM

  Гроза гремела над морем. Приближался шторм. Позади лес...и чудовище. Дальше бежать некуда. Анна подошла к краю скалы, внизу бушевали волны, и с шумом били о скалы. Острые как лезвие. На мгновение, в сознании Анны промелькнула мысль, и картинки ее падения...а затем пустота. Я Анна Амредж. Хватит ждать! Я не боюсь тебя! Выходи. Я знаю что ты там! Анна сделала решительный шаг. И посмотрела в чашу леса. Где-то в этой тьме, смотрит голодным взглядом чудовище. Которого она так сейчас боится. Из леса вышел Ричард, он упал на колени. Анна помоги мне! Господи Ричард, что с тобой? Этот чудовище напало на тебя? Ты ранен? С этими словами, она бросилась без раздумий к Ричарду, обнимая, и осматривая нет ли у него серьезных ранений. Анна... послушай меня! Не жди... Беги...на его лице была тревога и желание что-то сказать. Анна взяла ладонями лицо Ричарда. Я не брошу тебя, Ричард. Не сейчас ни когда либо. Я люблю тебя. Он почувствовал прикосновение к губам. И дикое желание, попробовать ее на вкус....вкус крови. Нет, ты не знаешь кто я! Анна, я прошу тебя, сейчас же, бежать. Что ты такое говоришь? Почему ты гонишь меня? Ричард...я не понимаю что происходит. Я...я люблю тебя Анна. Просто знай. Такие как я. Не выбирают кем им быть. Ты должна меня понять. Пожалуйста. Его взгляд, поднялся в небо, рука поднялась, указывая на луну. Которая озарила тьму. И освятила их, полнолуние было ярким как солнце. Анна обернулась чтобы посмотреть на лунный свет. До нее донеслись звуки.... подобные тем что она слышала, когда убегала от чудовища, похожее на волка. Она обернулась, перед ней стоял, то самое существо с волчьей головой. Она сделала шаг, затем ещё шаг назад. Подойдя к краю. Всё это время, не переставая смотреть на рычащего зверя.Она почувствовала что, земля под ногой обвалилась. В этот момент чудовище сделало прыжок, так жадно хотелось ему плоти. И совсем не хотелось упустить добычу. Свет озарился, вокруг нее. Он освещал все ее тело. Между ними образовался барьер, невидимый. Так близко его видеть. И понимать что это тот кого она любит. Она вспомнила лес, и мертвую Деби. Как искали тело. А нашли только одежду, разорванную и в крови. И все те кто пропал, в этом проклятом лесу. Это был отец Ричарда, мистер Джон. Волна приняла ее мягко. Падение и тот момент когда вода ее накрыла, она увидела юную девушку, с красивым лицом. Она взяла Анна за руку. И они понеслись к берегу. Меня зовут Нали, я живу в океане. Я и мой народ. Она обратилась к Анне, поклонившись. Твоя мама была мне как сестра. Раньше мы с ней виделись часто. Но позже ее убила сестра близнец, твоя тётя. Впитав ее силу, и силой завладела миром ведьм. Для Анны это было как сон. Ее тело сияло. Падение с обрыва, в бушующее море. Чудесное спасение. Вокруг плавали женщины с хвостом. А где то, либо живой либо мертвый, рыщет волк. Она прервала разговор. Я не могу в это поверить, моя мама погибла сегодня утром. От рук чародея. Наши посмотрела на Анну, взглядом полным понимания и сострадания. Анна, твой народ находится в рабстве. Самый сильный и жестокий предводитель, завладел душой твоей тети. Чтобы править миром ведьм, и этим миром миром людей. Ещё не много и начнется война, скоро печать может расколоться. Если они соберут все камни вместе. Анна. Мне жаль что на твои плечи выпало бремя, когда никого нет. И ты одна. Но у тебя есть я и мой народ. Анна послушай меня пожалуйста. Я открою тайну, твоего рождения. И многое расскажу. Только сейчас надо чтобы ты смирилась с тем что произошло. Сегодня полнолуние, и день твоего совершеннолетия. Время когда высшие силы, откроют твое сознание. И ты сама всё поймёшь. Огонь защищает и подчиняется тебе, вода расскажет то что слышит вокруг. Земля и воздух оберегают.

  More...
• First Experience

  Created by: bras in daily-page on May 1, 2025, 3:10 PM

  First Experience... apa yang sebenarnya kita pikirkan atau ingat saat mendengar hal itu, tentunya banyak ya. Contohnya saat ini, first experience menulis dalam sebuah blog di sebuah web yang direkomendasikan oleh AI (chat gpt). Umurku saat ini baru saja menginjak 18 tahun dan banyak hal yang belum aku alami dan hal hal tersebut yang mendorong diriku untuk berkembang lebih jauh lagi. Namun, aku juga mengalami ketakutan tentang masa depan, bagai bebek berenang dalam danau yang tenang, Apa yang sebenarnya ingin aku lakukan, hal apa yang harus aku selesaikan. Semua hal itu akan menjadi First Experience berhargaku nantinya. goodbye guys

• When the Underground Chooses Consent: Mutual Aid vs. Theft

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in society-power-and-economy on Nov 23, 2025, 11:15 PM

  I. Two Ways to Answer the Same Hunger

  In many cities, the same question is being asked in very different ways:

  If a society is structured in a way that leaves people hungry while food is thrown away, what counts as a moral response?

  One answer says: steal. If the system itself is based on exploitation, then taking from large corporations—especially when they discard surplus goods anyway—can be framed as a small act of justice. Under this view, shoplifting from big-box stores or supermarket chains becomes a kind of micro-reparation: a way of clawing back value from an economic order that was rigged from the start.

  Another answer says: build parallel systems. Instead of sneaking goods past the scanner, ordinary workers and volunteers quietly organize an alternative supply chain: surplus food is reclaimed with permission, rerouted into a mutual-aid network, and distributed for free from a folding table in the middle of the city. No questions asked, one bag per person, no money accepted.

  Both approaches are trying to address the same reality: people are hungry in a world of abundance, and much of that abundance is controlled by institutions whose priorities are profit, not care. But they make fundamentally different bets about how to change that reality, and at what cost.

  This essay looks at those two paths side by side. It does not deny the anger that fuels the first. It simply asks a harder question: Which underground do we actually want to grow?

  More...
• The Pocket Cosmos: A 1999 Dispatch on the Coming Smartphone

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in the-future on Nov 23, 2025, 10:17 PM

  The Pocket Cosmos

  A Special Dispatch on the Coming Smartphone

  Filed for December 1999 from the not-too-distant future

  Imagine a device about the size of a deck of cards.

  It fits in your pocket.

  It weighs less than a paperback.

  Its front is almost entirely made of glass.

  Tap that glass, and you can:

  • call anyone in the world
  • send them a message
  • look up a word in any major language
  • check a street map for a city you’ve never visited
  • read today’s headlines from five different countries
  • listen to almost any song that has ever been recorded
  • take a photograph and send it instantly across an ocean

  This device is real. It is coming. And very soon, almost everyone you know will carry one.

  We will call it the smartphone.

  ---

  A Library Without Walls

  To understand what the smartphone represents, start with the most familiar tool of the serious mind: the library.

  Today, in 1999, reaching serious knowledge requires movement. You go to the stacks. You search a card catalog (or, if you’re lucky, a web terminal on a shared computer). You wait for interlibrary loans. Information lives in buildings, on shelves, in limited copies.

  The smartphone dissolves that geography.

  Inside this small object is a permanent, portable ticket into something larger than any single library: a networked collection of encyclopedias, dictionaries, textbooks, lecture notes, research summaries, and how-to guides on almost any topic that human beings have bothered to write about.

  More...
• When the Republic Met the Frontier

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 19, 2025, 3:58 AM

  I. A Thought Experiment: Taking the Words Seriously

  Imagine taking the founding slogans of the United States at face value.

  Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.   No taxation without representation.   Treaties are the supreme law of the land.

  Now imagine applying those same rules not only to the former British colonies along the Atlantic coast, but also to the Native nations who already lived across the rest of the continent. What would that have required? What would it have made impossible?

  For most Americans, the answer was never really explored. In school, the story tends to come in two tracks. On one track, we follow the high-minded drama of the founding: declarations, constitutions, debates over federalism and rights. On the other track, out at the edge of the map, we get the adventure story of “the frontier”: settlers, wagon trains, homesteads, the march westward. Native peoples tend to enter the picture as background—sometimes as noble allies, sometimes as dangerous foes, often as temporary figures who fade away once the town is built and the railroad arrives.

  What almost never gets spelled out is that these two tracks are not separate stories. They are the same story seen from different angles. The question is whether the principles in the first track ever had a real chance of constraining what happened in the second. If they didn’t, then we have to ask a harder question: did the United States quietly decide, very early on, that its founding rules did not fully apply when Native nations were involved?

  More...
• From “They’re Rapists” to Raids on My Block

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 18, 2025, 2:50 AM

  On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump rode down a golden escalator and said the sentence that would define his politics:

  “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

  You can read the full campaign announcement speech transcript here or in many other archives, but that one line is the part that stuck. At the time, a lot of people treated it like a bad joke. A clownish bit of over-the-top rhetoric that would either sink his candidacy or get sanded down once “real governing” began. Others, especially immigrants and Latinos, heard exactly what it was: an invitation. A green light for a certain kind of imagination about who “we” are and who “they” are.

  Fast-forward a decade, and I’m sitting in Durham, North Carolina, reading about Operation Charlotte’s Web: heavily armed federal agents sweeping through Charlotte’s neighborhoods and business districts, grabbing people outside churches, bakeries, apartment complexes.

  On the first day alone, at least 81 people were arrested in Charlotte. Reports describe masked agents, long guns, and aggressive tactics that left local immigrant communities terrified to leave home. Local coverage and national outlets have documented businesses closing, children kept indoors, and a Honduran-born U.S. citizen violently detained when he fit someone’s mental picture of what an “immigrant” looks like.

  More...
• Rebuilding the American Ladder: A Mobility State for an Age of Inequality

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 17, 2025, 2:52 AM

  I. Introduction — The Broken Mobility Bargain

  Take a thirty-year-old juggling a patchwork life in a big metro. She drives for two apps in the morning, stocks shelves on a short-term contract at night, and splits rent with roommates because buying into the housing market feels like science fiction. When her hours get cut or an algorithm changes, there is no buffer beyond a maxed-out credit card and a savings account that never quite fills. She is not lazy, not reckless, and not alone. Her story is what the old American promise sounds like when it starts to fray.

  For most of American history, the country’s favorite promise has been simple: work hard, play by the rules, and you can move up. The details changed by era and region, but the core bargain felt stable enough that millions of people were willing to bet their lives on it. Today, that promise feels less like a rule and more like a rumor. Wealth and power have consolidated at the top; housing, health care, and education eat up a growing share of paychecks; and what used to look like a climb now feels, for many, like running in place.

  You can see it most clearly in the lives built on the edges of the old structure. Gig workers who knit together three apps to make rent. Young renters who cannot imagine owning a home in the places where opportunity clusters. Immigrants who do everything right—study, work, pay taxes—only to discover that their credentials vanish in a maze of licensing boards and opaque requirements. For them, the path upward no longer looks like a clear route. It looks more like a maze with locked gates and missing exits. The result is not just hardship, but a spreading sense that the game itself has quietly changed—that it is not only hard, but rigged.

  More...
• Immigration, Welfare, and the American Paradox

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 16, 2025, 3:26 AM

  I. Introduction — The American Paradox

  For as long as it has existed, the United States has carried two competing self-portraits. On one hand, it is the archetypal “nation of immigrants”—a country defined not by bloodline but by the recurring arrival of new people, new languages, and new cultural currents. On the other, it has repeatedly flirted with the idea of building a large, protective, European-style welfare state, the kind associated with stability, solidarity, and a tightly woven social safety net. These are both powerful visions of what a nation can be. But they do not always coexist easily.

  The tension is simple to describe and notoriously difficult to resolve: can a country sustain both high levels of immigration and a far-reaching social-democratic welfare state? Many modern political movements treat these two ideals as naturally compatible—morally aligned, even. Yet historically, the countries that built the most comprehensive social-democratic systems did so under conditions of cultural homogeneity and slow demographic change. The United States, by contrast, has been defined by constant demographic renewal, often in rapid waves.

  A century ago, though, something different happened. The United States tightened its immigration laws dramatically, shutting the door to whole regions of the world under the logic of racial “preservation.” And it was precisely in that same era—roughly from the 1930s through the 1960s—that America developed the beginnings of a modern welfare state, expanded union power, and laid the foundations of its vast administrative apparatus. These two forces—redistribution and demographic closure—grew together not because they were philosophically aligned, but because one was artificially engineered to make the other politically possible.

  More...
• The Neutrality America Never Chose

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 14, 2025, 3:20 AM

  If geography shapes national destiny, the United States began with an advantage few nations in history have ever enjoyed. A wide ocean buffering it from Europe’s old rivalries, a political experiment unburdened by monarchies or inherited wars, and a sense of mission rooted more in ideas than in borders—this combination placed America in a unique position. It could have become a neutral power on a continental scale: a republic that influenced the world not through force, but through example.

  That wasn’t the path it took. The United States chose expansion, intervention, and global entanglement. The choice wasn’t inevitable, but it became self-reinforcing. And while the late 1990s briefly gave the illusion that the American-led order had produced a stable and conflict-free world—the so-called “end of history”—that stability was built atop decades of interventions and unresolved tensions that would resurface soon after.

  This essay explores the neutrality that could have been, the path that was chosen instead, and the consequences of that divergence.

  ---

  I. Two Doors at the Beginning

  In its early years, the United States stood before two plausible futures:

  1. Geographic insulation as a shield: A distant republic refusing foreign entanglements, maintaining a limited military, and becoming a steady, predictable mediator in global affairs.

  2. Geographic insulation as a springboard: A budding power expanding across the continent, projecting influence abroad, and eventually shaping world affairs through force, alliances, and economic reach.

  More...
• Samsara

  Created by: Keepitsimple in daily-page on Nov 9, 2025, 2:13 PM

  Any moment may be our best or worst and nobody can discern the correct evaluation of actions across time.

• Neither Side Speaks for Me

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 9, 2025, 3:17 AM

  Why Left vs. Right Doesn’t Cover Me Anymore

  I keep getting told I have to “pick a side,” but the two sides on offer are obsessed with priorities I don’t share. So instead of pretending to be a team player for a team I don’t actually like, I’ll just say it: neither the contemporary left nor the contemporary right describes what I believe. Not because I’m a bland centrist, but because both have drifted away from a civic, plural, freedom-first idea of America.

  You can actually find versions of this concern in writers as different as Alexis de Tocqueville (worried about overgrown central power), Francis Fukuyama (worried that recognition politics can crowd out shared identity), and Mark Lilla (worried that the left fragmented itself). I’m basically in that family of complaints.

  ---

  Where the Left Loses Me

  Let me start with the left, because there are parts of the left I agree with. I’m for equal protection. I’m for not discriminating by race. I’m for people living how they want without the state or their neighbors harassing them. That’s basic liberalism.

  But a lot of modern U.S. progressivism ties those good goals to two things I don’t buy:

  1. An ever-expanding welfare/administrative state. It treats “more government” as the automatic answer, even though government and large corporate actors are already deeply entangled. If the state and big business are already in the same bed, I don’t see why I should fatten the state further. Tocqueville warned about this “soft despotism” a long time ago — power that’s not brutal, but is everywhere.

  More...
• Mixture, Not Purity

  Created by: roberto.c.alfredo in united-states on Nov 9, 2025, 2:35 AM

  When Identity Politics Became the Perfect Distraction

  On Provoked, Scott Horton throws out an idea that isn’t hard to recognize if you lived through 2008–2011: after the federal government, together with the banks, bailed out the big players while a lot of ordinary people got wrecked, two mirror-populisms appeared — the Tea Party on the right and Occupy Wall Street on the left. Both, in different ways, were pointing at the same thing: the state–finance marriage, the bailouts, the feeling that “there’s money for them, not for us.”

  Horton’s read is that this was dangerous for the establishment. Once people at the bottom started comparing notes — “hey, you rural conservative, and me, urban student… didn’t we get burned by the same people?” — a weird but effective coalition was possible. According to him, that’s exactly the moment when the identity-politics menu got pushed hardest: race vs. race, young vs. old, straight vs. LGBT, region vs. region, veteran vs. non-veteran. The point wasn’t expanding freedom; the point was to keep people from talking about money, banking, regulatory capture, and corporate welfare. Classic “turn-them-against-the-neighbor” stuff.

  He’s not the only one who’s noticed something like that. Writers like Mark Lilla have argued that U.S. liberalism tied itself to a style of identity politics that fragments the electorate and weakens the majorities you actually need to govern. Others on the left have warned that if all the political oxygen goes to recognition battles, the economic structure stays exactly where it is. So even if we can’t prove a secret meeting where “big business + Democrats invented identity politics,” it’s fair to say that in the 2010s identity became very easy to weaponize for division — which is the core of Horton’s point.

  More...