• @dx1
    link
    117 hours ago

    I think year 2000 is optimistically late as well. This really gets into the “who’s really in charge and when did it start” thing, which is contentious, to say the least.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      216 hours ago

      I’m really not sure where I’d point to further back then that, though. Certainly, I’ll entertain any argument that points the finger toward Reagan, but that feels too far back. The thing is, the election of 2000 really seems like the moment the U.S. became fully captured, the moment non-violent resistance became impossible. It was the first time since the 1800s that a candidate won the popular vote but lost the EC, a trend that has continued. Our election was clearly meddled with in Florida, but no one really cared, so we just let them get away with it. Eventually, Bush appointed Alito and Roberts. While both replaced conservative justices, Sandra O’Connor was more of a moderate and could sometimes agree with more liberal justices. Meanwhile, Alito and Roberts are hardliners who secured the 4th and 5th votes for Citizen’s United.

      Maybe the way they got there didn’t matter, and America was doomed to fall after decades of unregulated capitalism, but think about the lessons learned from 2000. Billionaires found out they could rig an election, get whatever they wanted, and the American public wouldn’t even notice. That feels like a pretty damning moment.