I could in turn retort by saying that you’ve adopted a position that coincidentally aligns with your own biases, but I don’t think that would be very constructive. It’s a great big reality out there, and each of us enacts it in a different way. Sometimes we see things the other doesn’t, sometimes those things are really there, sometime they aren’t.
But I will say, I think January 6th proves fairly definitively that there is a malignant strain of “MURICA” nationalism out there, and I continue to believe there is plenty of documented evidence of a growing group of people on the right who do not consider liberals to be bonafide Americans. Q Anon is itself fundamentally an expression of “toxic nationalism”, particularly its widespread beliefs that Democratic leaders (or any leaders) have been/should be extrajudicially executed, justified by their professed love for the country.
Interesting, I think my proposals do quite the opposite. Except for #3, of course, because it would in fact be “mandatory”.
But Ranked Choice voting? That increases individual decision making.
Restoring the House of Representatives so it actually, you know, represents people? That is far more supportive of individual choice, as our individual views are more fairly represented in government.
The latter, which then implicates the former. The intent is for fair and equal representation, and the observation is that this has been seriously skewed ever since the 1929 Reapportionment Act in favor of the GOP, which also creates an artificial skew in the Electoral College, which creates an artificial skew in the Supreme Court. So it’s actively skewing multiple branches of government. It should be one person one vote, which does not exist when one vote in Texas is weighed very differently than one vote in Wyoming.
This is not an anti-conservative sentiment, even while it is deeply critical of the GOP as a social holon. Because the result of what is effectively a national gerrymandering strategy is that conservatism no longer needs to compete fairly in the marketplace of ideas, and therefore rarely blossoms any more as a modern, rational, worldcentric political philosophy. It doesn’t need to evolve its messaging or widen its platform. It incentivizes regression. It can rely on a “always double down, no apologies” strategy. And it breaks our national sense of institutional legitimacy, because for example, we find ourselves in a position where Republican presidential candidates have only won the majority of the popular vote two times since 1988, and yet have nominated the vast majority of Supreme Court justices over the decades, resulting in a severely lopsided court that does not accurately represent the views and values of the majority of this country.
All of this is bad not because I think conservatism is bad, but because it prevents mature worldcentric conservatism from actually thriving. And it can only do so by competing on a level playing field within the marketplace of ideas (forgive my mixed metaphors).
There was actually a time not long ago when I was convinced that, after Bush and Cheney had completely cratered the GOP brand, the Republican Party would have little choice but to go Integral. Demographic and political selection pressures would force them to find a way to communicate their principles across multiple value stages. They would be forced to fully integrate and transcend orange and green, rather than remain an amber/orange reaction to green. The Democrats sure aren’t going to do it, Green is too new of an altitude, and the Democratic Party is too invested in it, as they probably should be.
At the time, I thought the only way through for Republicans was up. It may take a decade or so, but they will soon re-emerge as a more sophisticated and integral (on the inside) party, while being able to maintain their traditional amber/orange base. I thought they had nowhere else to go but up.
Then Trump came along. Holy fuck was I wrong.
Anyway, back to your question — as I said, when I was coming up with this list, I wanted to create some steps that could make everyone lean in, regardless of their political affiliation. #1 is definitely going to be more immediately appealing to the left than it is to the right. But whatever gains the left may make by executing #1, are then immediately tempered by #2, since Ranked Choice voting means people can no longer run purely on being “anti-right” or “anti-left”. You have to actually represent something, and actually compete in the marketplace of ideas.
So each of these are going to be more appealing to certain affiliations, but all of them have Trojan Horse benefits for all affiliations. Including #3 – as I mention, this one is about creating a healthy amber foundation of skin-in-the-game nationalism in this country, and to return us to a healthy martial culture. This is more immediately appealing to pro-2A folks on the right. But it’s also a Trojan Horse for development, because putting different kinds of people in service of something greater than themselves adds a lot of lubrication to the conveyor belt, simply by exposing people to new places, new people, and new perspectives.