I think part of the problem is that liberals don’t actually think we live in an inherently just and fair world. But that they think that capitalism, corporatism, and “stability” at any cost (even if that stability is a downward slope to fascism/oligopoly and ecocide) can still be “just” and “fair.”

Look at—and I hate to use Bernie as the example, but it’s relevant—how Bernie’s kinda progressive policies were treated by the party. They refused to let him win. And then pseudo-“adopted” the outward appearance of those policies to win voters. If his policies aren’t harmful enough to refuse to endorse them…why would you not just let him be president? Why stop him and take facsimiles of his policies? Is it because they knew they would win them votes but they’d never in a million years enact those policies? What was scaring them about him winning with his (again, very moderate) policies?

This is just the most recent and telling example. And then…I mean, the genocide thing. Not supporting a genocide is a pretty goddamn easy ask. But they were probably bleeding voters because they just wouldn’t.

These are not big, crazy things to ask for. But stopping them and enacting helpful policies was unthinkable to them. Why is that. Because more than anything, they would protect the rotting corpse of capitalism and the global hegemony over anything that might help people. And that comes back to their fucking billionaire backers, I assume? They are the ones who stand to lose scraps of their money and power.

I mean, I have to assume that is the answer. But it can’t be denied, I don’t think.