Washingtonians are convinced on gun issues, but not climate change. Win some, lose some, I am just glad I've got no purchases planned related to anything now under much closer legislative scrutiny. For those that figured they could wait just a little longer, please do tell us the stories of the loops you'll now have to jump through, and also help us know what you did to help avert the legislation passing other than voting "no".
I do not suffer under the delusion that I can control the outcomes, or that my efforts will change the direction of where things are going, I can just do my part and observe what is happening and adjust my plans to match.
Even so, and this will be a separate post, I am doubtful that the weapons most folks have chosen are necessarily the best for the circumstances they'll actually face, but I'll save that for a "Spotting an r-strategist: Gun Edition".
As of about 8AM PST, it looks like Democrats have won the House, and Republicans held the Senate. Numbers are still fluctuating and sources disagree on what the specific number of seats apparently is, and this is before any recounts or anything else.
Smarter political commenters have been all over the board. Some folks decry the loss of the House, others don't see it as a big deal, and others see it as an actual win, in that the more open opposition within the legislative branch the easier it is for President Trump to show how far down the path of identity politics we've come even in the two years since his election.
The version that sticks with me is that things are going to get more polarized, and the number of people on "the right" is nowhere near what people want to believe, so permanent changes to the direction of the country are not going to occur through the ballot box. Popularity is never something that is of immediate priority for those who trend towards a K-selected reproductive strategy, in that there simply isn't enough free time to banter about such otherwise arbitrary matters.
On the national level, we have an electoral college to try and prevent prevent states which are dense from determining the political future of states which are not. At the state and lower levels, however, no mechanism like this exists.
A case in point is seen if you look at my current state as a whole versus the county level. In Washington, there are not really that many more "blue" counties than "red", but because the quantity of voters in "blue" counties is orders of magnitude greater, they determine the political direction for the majority of the state in a way that the electoral college prevents at the national level.
This is why Democrats focus on states and "flipping" them, and using the same population tactic, but it obviously takes a lot longer. They can't get away with the same exact tricks they can at the local or state level, but they can still make use of Fabian tactics to undermine the electoral college and make it a moot point.
Washington and Oregon, let alone states like California, were all "red" states roughly 40 years ago. All of these states saw massive migrations of people from outside the state, their populations did not grow very much from people having children, evidenced in that their fertility rates are still dropping. What this demonstrates is that, for those who wanted to look and see, there was recent evidence "demographics is destiny" that could not be denied.
When you take someone who is not from Washington and let them make policy decisions, their priorities will be different from someone who is from Washington. This is especially true because of how many high-tech industries there are in the state and the emphasis on "Diversity & Inclusion" that is so prevalent in companies that are still around today. You can't get "Diversity & Inclusion" hiring Washingtonians, people naturally acclimated to rain and changing seasons, you have to import them from somewhere else, and those people are going to get "their say" in the state's political future.
What we can take away from this is that people who are not from an area should not have a say in the future of that area until they have sufficiently assimilated into that area, and I don't mean just immigrants from another country. If you move to another state, or another city in that state, why should you immediately have the same weight and say in the future of where you now currently reside as those who had already been living there?
This becomes especially true when modern "careers" have people moving on a regular basis, never really being able to stay in the same location for very long, and for this discussion a "long time" would be a single generation. Folks move to follow jobs, and being able to stay in the same house for decades is the exception, not the rule.
In getting back to the election results, we're seeing more polarization, although because of how neighborhoods have been mixed due tot he aforementioned workplace dynamics, that polarization doesn't have decidedly clear physical borders in every case.
That will continue, and the divisions which were used to gather political power will only grow more and more important as the grabs for power become more and more desperate, for all involved. If not for social media, this would have spilled over into the "real world", but as of yet the majority of the reactions by both sides have been digital, not physical.
Each side is waiting for the other to make mistakes to justify acting, all the while playing games with useless voters in the middle who pride themselves on indecision.
This mid-term election has showed that aggressive action, outside the polling booth, is what will produce tangible results. That in order to grab power, at this stage in the political game, those on "the right" need to be acting with boldness and confidence.
"But that's not legal!"
If your opponents aren't abiding by laws, it is suicidal to try to fight with one arm behind your back, and God does not look favorably on suicide.
"But you should take the high road!"
If the road you take does not produce results, then any labels applied to it don't matter. Supposedly superior ideals which cannot be manifest are not actually superior when compared to that which can be manifest. The rest is hubristic chest-thumping about how you're going to deny gravity.
"But you'll be called ___ist!"
If you aren't already, just for existing and holding to your views, let alone proselytizing them, then you don't stand up for anything that matters in a way that matters. The only permissible views on the current social agenda fall under agreement or irrelevance. If you disagree on something that matters, and in a venue which matters, whether for good reasons or bad, you will be treated as a hostile threat, and the opening volley is almost always character assassination, due to how easy it is to cast aspersions.
"But what about ____, they're not like the rest!"
Individuals which do not conform to stereotype don't change the stereotype. They're noteworthy because they're exceptions to the rule, not because they mean the rule doesn't apply. The era of being able to measure an individual on their character ended when the demographics of an individual became a means to political power, and won't return until demographic variances are eliminated. Eliminated. Eliminated.
This is the unfortunate end result of identity politics, is that once the distinctions have grown in importance, they don't stop being important until the distinctions stop existing altogether.
So while there are bloodless ways for that to occur, they aren't painless, and for a society fixated on pleasure, we'll invite the most bloody solution at the very last moment possible and then bemoan the apparent inevitability of such tragic circumstances.
The United States will fall unless it has a cohesive identity, and the "last resort" is a hot Civil War. We're cold right now, war is politics by other means and all, but that's where we're headed.
In the past I have doubted that a religious identity would be easy enough to identify, but I am happy to be wrong on that.
The only competing identity other than religion is race.
So the United States can unite on race and/or religion, or enter a hot Civil War where those belonging to the race and/or religion with the greatest will and ability to survive will get to rebuild from the ashes after eliminating all competing races and religions.
Or we could deport everyone who is only here because of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, whether here legally or illegally, which might start the hot Civil War all by itself.
Either way, it seems inevitable that we're headed for another hot Civil War and the only question is how the "sides" will be determined. All the paths to avoid Civil War require massive changes which few are suggesting, let alone getting much support for.
This election is a reminder that Trump may buy us some time, that through material wealth we might keep people busy and distracted long enough to finish our own preparations, but that's all it is. We've been bought just a bit more time, and we need to make the most of it.
So what will you choose to do in this time you've been afforded?
