Impotent as in

was joke :)

long ramble

"Ramble" is not intended as an insult, mind. I have severe ADHD and ramble quite a lot. Rambling can be useless, but it can also be working through all of the foundational stuff, all of the possibiliites. Simply the antithesis of speaking in soundbites.

I find a lot to agree with, but it's always boring to just say "Oh, I agree with this and this and this" and easier to point out where I disagree, so… allow me to express some disagreement, even while I agree with a large part. :)

First, while there is merit to viewing red/blue as bullshit political theatre, there is also a critical difference: The red team tends towards wanting to take away human rights, to impose their worldviews on the rest of us. Their "religious freedom" involves taking away our rights. Whereas if the blue team completely won - and I mean progressives, not so much the establishment Democrats - sure, we'd have some laws on our books that meant some of the red team wouldn't get to do things they want to do - like oppress people. Blue team wins and we have social safety nets, protection of human rights. Sure, the Christian nationalists can't impose the death penalty for abortion of LGBTQ+ people for existing, but I think that's fair and a Good Thing™. So I'm just saying that while there is team politics, there is also a legitimate difference.

Second, while I also won't argue that there's not political theatre with racism, the simple fact is that racism absolutely exists, and lynchings continue into the present time. Sndown cities still exist. Redlining still exists. Systemic racism absolutely exists. And while the Republican party might not be racist, it is also true that the extreme vast majority of racists find a home in the Republican party.

So while I still argue that wealth inequality is still the root of our problems, a lesser root is foreign interference (especially Russia's influence - they are fighting the second Cold War that we deny exists), and a lesser root is the Christian Nationalism that has taken root in the US as well. There are plenty of other problems, but some of those problems (e.g. Citizens United) are secondary (i.e. the root problem there is wealth inequality).

Some of what you touched on - the inherent problems in our system - can be changed. Seeking wealth is not the problem; rather, allowing wealth to accumulate excessively is. Having rich people is fine if social safety nets mean none go without the basics. The problem is allowing oligarchs to exist. And progressive taxation of wealth is one of the ways to combat that. The more wealth you accumulate, the harder it is to keep amounts over certain amounts. Like how the lowest paid people pay less in federal income taxes, but as you go up that ladder, you pay more - not on the base, but on the excess. Similalry, we don't make it impossible for, say, millionaires to exist, but we make it extremely difficult for billionairs to exist, and essentially impossible for trillionaires to exist. In the same way that we purport to prevent monopolies, we should prevent what is essentially a monopoly class of extreme wealth.

Of course, there's also what we can do theoretically, and what we can accomplish practically.