165
The Case for Kamala Harris
(www.theatlantic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
165 points (92.3% liked)
politics
19043 readers
3954 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is contradicted by this:
I don't want a return to party of Bush. I want the American people to have the highest standard of living in the world - not the people of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.
If you're saying that Kamala will restore the GOP, then it seems that the American people will never be prioritized. In which case, we should all leave and emigrate to Scandinavia where their people are treated like human beings rather than servants
Emphasis mine. They're pining for the party of Bush because it was grounded in truth and ideas.
How on Earth did you get that from this endorsement? In fact, they said exactly the opposite:
That whole paragraph is prefaced with "If you’re a conservative who can’t abide Harris’s tax and immigration policies". They're not talking to you, they're addressing conflicted conservatives.
You really should have read it more carefully.
It was WHAT!?
Don't shoot the messenger. Damn y'all need to learn how to read the fucking article.
Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs and oversaw the patriot act, Guantanamo Bay waterboarding, and Abu Ghraib. He stole the election in 2000 in Bush v Gore. He was a fascist and damaged the US worse than Trump
If the US won't ever have single payer then we should emigrate to Denmark. Why would I want to live here?
What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the endorsement? It doesn't even mention Bush.
What was McCains stance on all of the above?
Pining for the party of Bush is pining for evil and diminished living standards
None of that has anything to do with Kamala Harris. Again, what the hell are you talking about? That paragraph is addressing CONSERVATIVES.
You're saying Kamala will help restore the GOP to the party of Bush and McCain. That is a terrible thing to admit. The neoconservatives are monsters who harmed the country, to say nothing of the innocents abroad who were tortured and murdered
Where the eff is this BS from? They clearly said if you cut off the toxic poisoned head spewing hate and venom, the Republican Party can rebuild around ideas, policy, maybe even around morality (doubt). If you’re a conservative, that ought to be a good thing. If you’re pro-democracy, the renewal of two sane choices battling for ideas ought to be a good thing.
I’m sure I also would disagree with those ideas, but I welcome the competition, I welcome the possibility of respecting g our national leaders.
All I can say is that when Mitt Romney talks family values, he means actual family values. When Ronald Reagan said he’d trickle down on you, you could smell the urine. When Ross Perot talked about corporatism, he meant it
If you're pro democracy then the restoration of the pre Trump GOP is a terrible thing. They were always this bad on policy, if not worse re: Iraq. It's just now Trump has taken the mask off.
It is in the interest of the American people for the GOP to permanently stay Trumpist, or get even more extreme. They can't win national elections when they are like this. Whereas the neocons and the Bushes are capable of winning. And they're drastically more effective and competent and harmful than Trump
If Kamala does anything to restore the GOP then she is a fool. Liz Cheney is competent which makes her more dangerous than Trump
"Welcoming the competition" is insanely out of touch. This isn't a game. This isn't a show. This is about power and how the American people are treated. We have terrible standards of living for a first world country. The GOP would make it even worse. Doing anything to strengthen them needs to be opposed. Otherwise we will never have the quality of life of Denmark. And if thats the case then every American with a brain should just emigrate to Scandinavia now
Eff that defeatist attitude. We should settle for nothing less, and it’s right there just ahead where we can almost see it. It is achievable, yes in the US. We need to prioritize it, vote for it, demand it.
Do I need to throw some tea in the harbor to get everyone’s attention?
You seem to be unfamiliar with Denmark.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown of each factor that contributes to Denmark’s high quality of life:
Denmark’s welfare model is often referred to as the "Scandinavian model," which is designed to provide a safety net for all citizens from cradle to grave. Key components include:
Universal Healthcare: Free access to healthcare means that all citizens and legal residents can receive medical treatment without worrying about costs. The healthcare system is primarily funded through taxes.
Unemployment Benefits: The state offers a generous unemployment insurance system. Individuals who lose their jobs receive financial assistance, typically amounting to up to 90% of their salary for a limited period, allowing them to live comfortably while they find new employment.
Retirement Benefits: The government provides state pensions to all senior citizens, ensuring that the elderly can live with dignity and without financial distress.
Free Education: All levels of education, including university, are free of charge, allowing everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, to pursue higher education and develop their potential.
Denmark is renowned for its progressive labor laws and flexible working conditions. The country promotes an ideal work-life balance, which is a core aspect of Danish culture. Here’s how:
Shorter Workweek: The average workweek is 37 hours, allowing for plenty of personal time outside of work. There’s a strong emphasis on leaving work on time and not overextending oneself.
Generous Parental Leave: Parents are entitled to up to 52 weeks of paid parental leave, which can be shared between both parents. This allows families to spend time with their newborns without sacrificing job security or income.
Flexibility: Many Danish workplaces offer flexible working hours, which allows employees to adjust their schedules to better fit their personal lives, whether that’s for family time, hobbies, or exercise.
Denmark offers a world-class education system that prioritizes not only academic achievement but also the personal development and well-being of students. Key features include:
Free Education: All education, from primary school to university, is free for Danish citizens and residents of the EU. This ensures equal access to educational opportunities for all, regardless of financial background.
Focus on Well-Being: Danish schools emphasize student well-being, encouraging a balance between academic achievement and personal growth. The school day is shorter than in many countries, and there is a focus on interactive and creative learning.
Lifelong Learning: There’s a strong tradition of adult education and lifelong learning in Denmark. Many people pursue further education throughout their careers, contributing to personal development and adaptability in the job market.
Denmark is one of the most environmentally conscious countries in the world, with sustainability playing a key role in government policy and daily life. Major factors include:
Renewable Energy: Denmark has invested heavily in renewable energy sources, particularly wind energy. As of recent years, more than 40% of Denmark's electricity comes from wind power, and the country aims to be carbon neutral by 2050.
Cycling Culture: Copenhagen, the capital city, is famous for its bike-friendly infrastructure. More than half of Copenhagen’s residents commute by bicycle, which reduces traffic, lowers pollution, and promotes a healthy lifestyle.
Green Urban Spaces: Danish cities are designed with sustainability and green living in mind. Urban planning prioritizes parks, clean waterways, and eco-friendly public transportation systems, contributing to a cleaner and more livable environment.
Denmark’s healthcare system is publicly funded and ensures that everyone has access to necessary medical services, regardless of income. Some key highlights:
Universal Coverage: Healthcare is accessible to everyone, financed through taxes. This means that there are no out-of-pocket expenses for services like doctor visits, hospital stays, or emergency treatment.
Preventive Care: The Danish system emphasizes preventive care to avoid more serious and costly medical issues down the line. Regular checkups and early interventions are encouraged.
Mental Health Services: Mental health care is integrated into the system, with access to psychological and psychiatric services. This focus on mental well-being complements the physical healthcare provided to citizens.
Trust is a key component of Danish society, and it manifests in both governmental institutions and interpersonal relationships:
Trust in Government: Danish citizens have a high level of trust in their government institutions, thanks to transparency and low levels of corruption. Denmark consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world.
Social Trust: People in Denmark generally trust each other, whether it’s leaving babies unattended in strollers outside cafes or relying on community support. This level of trust reduces societal tensions and creates a sense of safety and mutual respect.
Transparency and Accountability: The government is open about its workings, and public services are delivered efficiently. This enhances public confidence in the system.
Denmark boasts a strong and stable economy with low unemployment rates, high wages, and a robust social safety net:
High GDP Per Capita: Denmark is one of the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita. The economy is well-diversified, with strengths in sectors like renewable energy, pharmaceuticals, and high-tech industries.
Low Unemployment Rates: Unemployment is consistently low in Denmark, thanks to a combination of a well-educated workforce and active labor market policies that encourage retraining and reintegration into the workforce.
Fair Distribution of Wealth: Income inequality in Denmark is among the lowest in the world. This is largely due to progressive taxation and generous welfare programs that redistribute wealth effectively.
Denmark is a global leader in gender equality, and this emphasis on fairness is deeply embedded in the country's values and policies:
Equal Pay: Gender pay gaps in Denmark are among the smallest in the world, and there are strong laws against discrimination based on gender.
Women in Leadership: Denmark has a high percentage of women in leadership roles, both in the private and public sectors. This has contributed to a more equitable workplace environment.
Parental Leave: Both men and women are encouraged to take parental leave, which fosters gender equality in both professional and domestic settings.
Denmark is known for its low crime rates and sense of security:
Low Crime Rate: Denmark has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, making it a very safe country to live in. Violent crime is rare, and the police are highly trusted by the public.
Focus on Rehabilitation: Denmark’s criminal justice system is focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, helping offenders reintegrate into society successfully and reducing recidivism.
Safe Public Spaces: The country is designed with safety in mind, with well-lit public spaces, safe neighborhoods, and reliable public transport, contributing to the overall sense of security.
These factors combine to create a strong foundation for Denmark’s high quality of life, contributing to the nation’s reputation as one of the happiest and most prosperous countries globally. The balance between individual well-being, societal support, and sustainable living has made Denmark a model of modern, high-quality living.
All those are good things. And yet the UN ranks Massachusetts higher in “human development index”, which is one possible way of quantifying that. Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with Massachusetts?
Massachusetts has a higher Human Development Index (HDI) than many regions, including Denmark, but this doesn't necessarily reflect the standard of living of the average person. The HDI focuses on three main factors—income levels, education, and life expectancy—but it overlooks several key dimensions that influence everyday quality of life. Here’s how these limitations affect the interpretation of Massachusetts’ higher HDI:
While Massachusetts has a high average income, this masks the state's significant income inequality. The HDI uses GDP per capita, which can skew the overall picture because the wealth in Massachusetts is concentrated among the affluent, particularly in industries like technology and biotech. Many residents, especially in lower-income areas, may not experience the same economic prosperity. Thus, a high average income doesn’t necessarily translate to widespread financial well-being.
Massachusetts boasts world-class universities and a highly educated workforce, which boosts its HDI score. However, not everyone in the state has equal access to these elite educational opportunities. Public schools in wealthier districts outperform those in lower-income areas, creating disparities in educational outcomes. The HDI averages these figures, which hides the educational inequality experienced by many residents.
Massachusetts has a high life expectancy, partly due to advanced healthcare facilities and near-universal coverage. However, this average conceals discrepancies in healthcare access and quality. People in low-income neighborhoods or those facing systemic inequalities may not have the same access to high-quality care as wealthier residents, which the HDI does not account for. Life expectancy alone does not fully capture the differences in healthcare experiences between socioeconomic groups.
The HDI doesn't factor in the cost of living, which is quite high in Massachusetts, particularly in cities like Boston. High housing costs, expensive healthcare (despite near-universal coverage), and other living expenses can strain the average person’s finances, even if their income appears high. For many residents, the high cost of living diminishes the real standard of living, something that the HDI doesn’t address.
The HDI measures education, income, and life expectancy but ignores subjective measures of well-being, such as work-life balance, stress levels, and job satisfaction. In Massachusetts, long working hours and a competitive work culture can negatively impact quality of life, especially compared to Denmark, where work-life balance and personal well-being are prioritized. HDI doesn’t account for these quality of life factors, which may mean that even if Massachusetts has a higher HDI, the average person could feel more stressed and less satisfied compared to someone living in Denmark.
Another weakness of HDI is its lack of consideration for environmental sustainability, which significantly affects long-term quality of life. Denmark excels in green policies and environmental sustainability, which improves public health and urban living conditions. Massachusetts, while making strides in sustainability, faces challenges in pollution, traffic congestion, and less environmentally-friendly urban development, all of which impact the daily lives of residents but aren’t captured by the HDI.
In conclusion, while Massachusetts has a higher HDI due to its income, education, and life expectancy metrics, this doesn’t fully reflect the standard of living for the average person. The HDI overlooks income inequality, disparities in education and healthcare, the high cost of living, work-life balance, and environmental quality. Therefore, while Massachusetts may rank higher by HDI, many residents may not experience a higher quality of life compared to people in Denmark, where equality, social welfare, and well-being are emphasized more strongly.
No. I'm not saying anything. I didn't write the fucking article.
So you agree with me and disagree with the article?
Typical
The poster above you didn't put the entire article. Their post was merely the snippet from the end of it.
Earlier on, the article stated:
In other words, this endorsement is the decision of more than one person. It isn't contradictory for different people to want different things. The whole point was that multiple people have found multiple reasons to come to the same conclusion.
But the article isn't behind a paywall, and the link is right there. In the search to make sense of an extracted quote, the original source is a good place to start.
How does that help? If it's plausible that she'll restore the GOP then that's very bad