If there's a craft of life, speaking about parts of life and not the whole thing, it has to include the capacity and willingness to recognize serendipity. It's no secret that North American democracy, as it's been understood by its participants, is in some pretty serious trouble. But it's my opinion that democracies suffer from being too untroubled, because they're not machines and need exercise in a way analogous to living organisms. The bi-partisan system of political representation, for example, is or has become highly inflexible and thus irresponsive to public sector concerns.

To provide an example of these concerns, one could take current executive action, taken independently of the legislative branch of government, to provide military and economic assistance to two other nation-state organizations against the will of the public on which its electoral legitimacy is based. As this aid is a gift from the American taxpayer which is spent on things it doesn't want, it's de facto the act of a tyrant and as such spells trouble for democratic control over state behavior. The response of organized labor to this however is effective. If major labor unions in the U.S., e.g. the United Auto Workers, United Electrical Workers, the American Postal Workers Union, the big health care unions and others, are united in compelling a conditioning of aid by international humanitarian standards for any state or national organization which applies for it, as they are doing, then a general rule of tyrant-stimulus of democratic power is instantiated with some sufficiency.

The executive action referred to was used to override a faction of one party's effort to place restrictions on how the funds are used by one of the two aid recipients. And because the two aid recipients are tied together in the same proposed aid package, this effort to condition aid on fiscal grounds is joined together with that on humanitarian grounds. Traditionally divided for purposes of political expediency in electoral contexts, they are joined together here in the service of a shared aim. As such a third party constituency, excluded from the two existing major ones, is given clear expression. On one side international labor is divided by industry-category and not national stipulation. On the other side objections to non-earmarked spending derives from budgetary concerns in strictly national contexts. Can one detect in this an unlikely marriage between protectionist libertarianism and international labor? If so, the brittle two party, bi-partisan system, forcing onto the public a "lesser-evil" voting model, would be replaced by a tripartite or tri-partisan system, humbling executive power and rekindling democratic life in the stolid plutocracy of North American governance.

-For Ken, in Memorandum.

This was a fascinating and terrifying episode. But the most terrifying aspect was actually Rob Reich's optimistic take - because it was so out of touch and unconvincing. This was exactly the "oh, you're overreacting" attitude highlighted in one of the earlier segments of the show. In its list of big "ifs", the first one, Biden winning in 2024, is looking less and less likely, unless he drastically turns around and stops alienating his own base. (And even if he wins, it's not that simple, with an insurrectionary opposition that has now had its dry run and worked the bugs out of its tactics. We need more than a mere electoral victory. I'm at a loss to figure out what would actually fill that need, or to find any reason at all for optimism.)

This essay is excellent and really helpful. I've been silently practicing this slope, and I'm becoming better at it! Enjoy yourself, work harder, and develop your impressiveness