The Addicts Next Door
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
The articles are on HN because they're all over the media generally, and because most of HN would probably also prefer that someone like Trump not be elected again in the future.
We don't need to degrade anyone to ask, "what can we do to find reasonable candidates that represent the views of these constituents?" when the alternative is the election of people like Trump.
I doubt his voters see it that way, though, hence the "involuntary" part. I don't think they were attempting to get across quite that impression with their vote, though the effect of having some of their problems addressed may be the same in the end. Certainly many were expecting Trump himself to be the agent of change in their lives, not a bunch of liberals and "RINO"s who now want to (metaphorically, but also kind of literally) help them sober up, get some counseling, and maybe get signed up for public assistance and job training.
Because if you guys don't get your shit together and start looking after even those people who don't agree with your politics, and believe things you think are contemptible, and live lives that you don't understand and don't want to - we're going to end up seeing the kind of enormities which will make history forget Hitler's genocide, just as Hitler made history forget what the Turks did to the Armenians.
A nation which once sought to be - which once was - a bastion of hope for a better world, a beacon for downtrodden people the world over, will instead collapse into the kind of ruin that poisons the world for decades to follow, that taints the very ideas in which it originated. Every hope that anyone has ever invested in this nation - uncounted millions of immigrants, including your ancestors and mine - will become worth less than nothing.
Also, you and everyone you care about will almost certainly suffer and die, and just as likely so will I and everyone I care about, and so will more millions than in any such atrocity before, because - as with so many things - every time we go this route of horror, we get that much better at it. So there's that.
Maybe I sound like I'm scared shitless. If so, it's only because I am, all the time now. If you're not, why in God's name aren't you? Because we're both sitting on the same pile of sweating dynamite and gunpowder. If it goes off, I doubt either of us will find much consolation in the fact that the other one's also just been blown sky high. I'm not asking for a bomb squad to swoop in and save us all like something out of the last act of an episode of 24. It's just that I sure think it'd be nice if people would stop playing with all these goddam matches and do something constructive for a change.
The health and welfare of western civilization is at an all-time high. We live in a society that enjoys safety and stability unthinkable to our grandparents, who threw themselves bodily into machine gun nests and across long fields zeroed by artillery not only because they were called on by their country, but because the preceding several hundred years of history led them to expect that obligation. In contrast, most of us raise children knowing that they'll never be asked to put on a uniform, let alone required to, and send them off to schools in cities experiencing all-time low levels of violent crime. We earn more than our grandparents and enjoy a standard of living that approaches "offensive".
But then, something that those of us who have had company exits can attest to: for some people, the more you have, the more afraid you get.
That's understandable, but it's no principal on which to build a government!
There's a lot to unpack here, too, and doing so will, I suspect, require considerable time and effort. Unfortunately, at the moment I haven't sufficient of either to spare for such a task. No doubt, too, you have many more demands upon your time than I do on mine, and I'm not inclined to presume upon that precious resource. So: If you're interested in pursuing the matter further, then say as much, and in response I'll put together the reply that I'd have given here had I the time. Otherwise, I'll refrain.
(Or maybe I should just start a damned blog, the way some people here have suggested. But it doesn't feel right, not having anyone to talk to. And why should anyone bother to read it?)
The idea of 'heightening the contradictions' has a long and illustrious history in Marxist ideology. How well it worked out, you can decide for yourself but there is a fairly broad consensus that falls in the 'not well at all' to 'unspeakable calamity' range.
But an outbreak of violent revolution in the United States - regardless of where it originates and whom it targets - is exactly what I don't want; I am too old to any longer love such destructive chaos. I don't think we are yet so far gone that such an outcome is inevitable - no more than one long step away, perhaps, but that's a step we don't have to take.
So, with no better option presenting itself, I sought to frighten people into thinking twice about taking that step. Perhaps this was a mistake. Or perhaps not; the jury of history has yet to return a verdict. But in either case I should like to hope that my purpose in so doing was more clearly understood than your prior comment evinces.
That much seems to have worked, but...
> Because if you guys don't get your shit together and start looking after even those people who don't agree with your politics, and believe things you think are contemptible, and live lives that you don't understand and don't want to - we're going to end up seeing the kind of enormities which will make history forget Hitler's genocide, just as Hitler made history forget what the Turks did to the Armenians.
I'd say mutual hatred across the political divide got much worse, not better, as a result of Trump, so on that ground your effort seems to have backfired.
I'm not sure why you thought that voting for the leading merchant of that kind of political contempt would mitigate it.
You're not wrong that it was a rather forlorn hope. It was the best I had in any case, so I went with it. But maybe it hasn't completely failed - we here discuss an article in which one of the long-standing and most highly-respected collective biens-pensants of the left tries, in its characteristically subtle fashion, to convince its audience that such people are human, not mere homunculi - worthy of compassion, not mere contempt. What is that, if not at least tenuous cause for hope?
And in any case, it's easy to criticize. Let's see you suggest something constructive of your own - serious question, now: the DNC having ruined Sanders, what have you got that's better?
The DNC didn't "ruin" Sanders; he's still the most popular politician in the country, and the faction of the party that looks to him as a major leader is stronger than any time (and the neoliberal faction, while still more powerful, weaker than at any time) since Bill Clinton and his "Third Way" swept the neoliberals to dominance in the 1990s.
(It's also weird that you'd target "progressives" for your complaints; even insofar as the problem you complain about exists in the Democratic Party, it's about partisan tribalism which cuts across the ideological divides in the party, and, tomthe extent it ties to ideology at all, typically—particularly in the most recent cycle—morr associated with the strongly partisan members of the neoliberal faction rather than the progressive faction. (In fact, the ignoring a large part of the country has been a key complaint by the progressive faction against the neoliberal faction since the latter became prominent.)
But let's run with your thing! Had Clinton won, the neoliberal faction would have been rejuvenated thereby, and need fear no challenge from the left for another two decades. Instead, the opportunity lies open for a new wave of progressive populism that has every potential of bridging the political divide, on the simple basis that few people are so wedded to any ideology, left or right, that they'll cherish it more strongly than the chance to ease the suffering of those whom they love.
Whether Trump being in office makes such a resurgence of left populism more likely remains to be seen. Whether Clinton in office would have made it less likely seems beyond reasonable question. So tell me again, how did I make the wrong choice last year? What would you have had me do differently?
Probably not; the neoliberal faction has been losing strength for more than a decade, through both of Obama's elections, even though Obama himself is a neoliberal.
Clinton herself arced more progressive in outward stands over the years, because if nothing else she's a decent enough intraparty weathervane.
> Instead, the opportunity lies open for a new wave of progressive populism that has every potential of bridging the political divide
More like, instead the strategic appeal of trying pick of seats by adopting traditional moderate conservative ideals and picking up disaffected Republicans is tronger than ever.
> few people are so wedded to any ideology, left or right, that they'll cherish it more strongly than the chance to ease the suffering of those whom they love.
The problem with this idea is it makes the mistake of assuming that people view ideology as a separate question from what eases the suffering (or enhances the enjoyment) of those they care about—people believe in an ideology because, in their view of how the world works, it is the thing that, implemented correctly, will do that. Increasing suffering thus hardens, rather than softens, ideology because it makes it more urgent that the correct one is adopted.
> So tell me again, how did I make the wrong choice last year?
By contributing to the normalization of Trump.
> What would you have had me do differently?
Literally anything else. If you wanted to take a stand against blind tribal contempt in politics, probably the most powerful act independent of it's affect on the electoral college result would be voting for either of the major right-leaning alternatives (McMullin or Johnson).
As for Trump, I'm not sure "normalization" is the word. His utter failure to even pretend to stand by his word has him shedding supporters in every direction; he has the respect of no one and the support only of those who stand to lose in a serious way when he goes down; he's looking more and more likely every day to be impeached before the midterms, rather than after. I fail to see how this qualifies as "normalization", rather than, say, the construction of Trump from both sides as a frightening and dangerous aberration of the US system which must be prevented from recurring whether that can be comfortably done within "politics as usual" or not - after all, Trump getting elected in the first place puts us pretty well beyond the realm of politics as usual all by itself.
To your argument about ideology taking precedence over practicality, I should think that the groundswell of support for Sanders, frustrated or otherwise, puts paid pretty well to that all by itself. Conventional conservative ideology would regard more or less his entire platform as anathema, and yet states generally regarded to be as conventionally conservative as they come swung heavily enough in Sanders' favor that it's quite difficult to construct a counterfactual in which he stood opposite Trump and still lost. A candidate we both agree was
And - honestly, McMullin or Johnson? Whatever power I have in this world, whatever influence I can exercise toward those political outcomes I consider most beneficial, I have only to the extent that I'm able to persuade and compel via argument and discussion - even if I'd otherwise like to imagine that my vote for Trump somehow contributed to his victory, my state's electors went to Clinton. But when I say "I voted for Trump, but...", it catches people's interest - it makes them want to listen, not least because I live in a city and a state where that's the sort of thing people keep quiet about. If I were instead to say "I voted for Johnson, and...", it would only make people laugh and crack Aleppo jokes, and if I were to say "I voted for McMullin, but...", the answer I'd get would be "Who?"
When people laugh at me or stare with blank incomprehension, I am helpless; to be otherwise, I need people not to dismiss me outright, but remain engaged enough for discussion to be possible. (Buying them beer doesn't hurt, either. But I need to be taken more seriously than "humor the nutbag who's paying for our drinks", too.) On top of that, with the general perception that a third-party vote is a wasted vote and that people who do so regardless are so politically naïve as to be not worth taking seriously, well...put it this way: I'm not sure in what world you live that a vote for Johnson or McMullin would improve, rather than impair, my chances of starting a potentially worthwhile conversation. But whichever world that is, it doesn't contain the bars I go to.
I don't think that's because Trump's election sent shockwaves back in time, though I guess I shouldn't dismiss that out of hand.
The current approach of prosecution of doctors, or throwing up miles of red tape between a doctor and a patient has no affect on abusers.
Instead, it directly affects people like my grandparents, who rely on quite a bit of opiates for their quality of life.
It's almost like DRM for video games. The DRM has no affect on pirates (abusers), instead it only really affects legit customers (my grandparents)
You can burn fields of poppies. Prosecute every doctor with a prescription pad, seize and raid to your hearts content and nothing will change.
If prescription opiate pills vanished wholesale tomorrow, people would simply switch to heroin, which is more widely available and cheaper than any pill on the black market.
The more they tighten the grip, the more things will slip through the cracks. The people who stand to be crushed in the metaphorical palm are people like my grandparents, not the abusers.
Until some key changes are made, for example, less red tape between a doctor, an addict seeking treatment, and suboxone therapy, things aren't going to improve.
Methadone clinics need to be welcomed into cities and towns with open arms nationwide. A harm reduction attitude has to prevail over persecution and prohibition.
Maintenance therapy has problems of its own, making the inevitable withdrawl last months instead of a week or two. Simply due to the longer half-life.
Sometimes, folks switch back to heroin to get off of methadone because of this.
1. There are enough secretly addicted to opioids on HN
2. It's mostly (?) white people overdosing on opioids so it's finally waking up the majority
Either way hopefully this helps fix our collective disdain for addicts so we can kill the stigma and focus on treatment. Maybe there's room for a solid startup in that field.
Now take a look at what the candidate they didn't vote for had to say about them. Here's a page with the relevant quote: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/11/...
One of these people talked about how he cared for these people's struggle. He lied, but at least he did so credibly. The other of these people said "boy, it sure would be a good idea if we did that, too", and then didn't, while it became more obvious every day that the machinery of the party that worked for her had employed base chicanery to make sure an erstwhile opponent of hers, whom West Virginians had supported (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Democratic_pri...) before the choice was denied them, could not challenge her claim to hold the presidency by right.
But it's more comfortable to blame Russia for the wrong guy getting in. It's more fun, too, because who doesn't love a good conspiracy and an evil empire? So that's what we will do, and those of our brothers and sisters who are suffering because no one of import in the world's richest nation could give a damn about them will go on suffering. And when we tip over the edge of the cliff we're sliding toward and "eat the rich" ceases to be just a song, everyone who's helped drag us to that point of no return will look about wide-eyed in shock and horror and ask: "How did this happen?"
Well, I know how it'll happen, and I'm happy to tell you. Him that has ears to hear, let him hear: Your website says you're a man who knows his way around high places. Do you know your way around a metaphor? The Tarot card, "The Fool". It's a thin enough metaphor - thin as a cloud, and that picture from Mount Diablo says it'd hardly be the first time you've had your head in the clouds this year. Are you sure you don't still? Now how about a joke? "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Well, now you know. But absurd though I be, the warning I'm yapping at you now is serious as falling off a cliff. Will you hear it? Will you heed it? Or, having gone up Devil's Mountain and seen all the kingdoms of the earth and the glory of them, will you let that vision make you a fool, and take that one last long step that sends you falling down into the abyss? For if you do, then woe unto you, Columbia! Woe unto you, Bethesda! For had the great works been done in Tyre and Sidon that have been done in you, they would have in sackcloth and ashes repented long since. But I say to you, it will be better for Tyre and for Sidon on the day of judgment, than for you. Do I smack of Ezekiel? Very well, then, so I do! - I am a sword, naked in hand, drawn not to strike but to goad; I am a shepherd's staff, swung not to wound but to guide, lest you bring about the fall of Blake's new Jerusalem, and lest the city on a hill be smashed one stone from another, and its tribes driven from their shattered homes into the outer darkness, there to chew their tongues and weep.
Or, you know, you could look at what's thus far resulted from the collective disinterest in those whose beliefs you find incompossible and whose customs incomprehensible, and consider what may yet result from continuing to leave them to their sufferings because - despite their desiring nothing out of life save to work hard, look after their families, and generally contribute to the society which supports you without expecting much save a fair shake in return - they do not fit your own individual conception of what your fellow citizens must be in order to qualify for the same social contract on which you so rely. And then, you know, decide to not do that.
I don't suggest you should so decide for any especially unselfish reason, either. I suggest you should so decide because, if you think Trump's bad, then believe me, you really do not want to see how much worse things could be. The way this country's constituted, even people you couldn't give a damn about have power. Indeed, each of them has as much as each of you, and that's not going to change. So if things go on as they have been, what comes after Trump, and not very long after at that, will be someone who makes similar promises of succor - and who promises to provide it on the backs of people like you, who always had it in their power to be kind but simply could not bother, and also on the backs of people like me, who are an affront against God and have been too long coddled by the likes of you.
I would like for that not to happen. I think you might like for that not to happen, too. Now you know how to make it less likely, instead of more. Indeed, I've told you twice - first in Old Testament kabbalah and fire-and-brimstone metaphor, and then again in bald statements of historical and political fact. If the latter doesn't convince you we have a problem, maybe the former will scare the hell out of you. Or vice versa. Who knows? Maybe one or the other will sink in, but I'd be lying if I said I expect either one to count for anything. Please prove me wrong.