Showing posts with label paradigm shift. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paradigm shift. Show all posts

Monday, June 15, 2026

The Paradigm Broke and We Were the Last to Know

Something someone said recently stopped me cold. They said Citizens United effectively ended political parties in America. At first they thought, cool. Then they watched what came of it. Then I watched what came of it. And now I think that observation is a key to understanding almost everything that feels inexplicable about where we are.

We are not watching two parties compete. We are watching one donor class manage two brands. The cracks show up most clearly when a candidate like Bernie, or an issue like Gaza, can't be managed away. When the machinery is strained past its ability to absorb the pressure, you see the seams. That's not politics. That's brand management failing.

And yet most of us, including the parties themselves, kept fighting as though the old rules still applied.

Trump is a catalyst. That's the frame I keep coming back to. Not a cause, not an aberration, not a fluke of the Electoral College. A catalyst for something that was already in motion long before he descended that escalator. The underlying rot, the structural shift, the donor class consolidation, the gutting of civic infrastructure -- that was all well underway. Trump just poured accelerant on it and struck a match, and now here we are, watching the fire and still arguing about which direction the wind was blowing when it started.

The Democrats, bless their procedural hearts, have been fighting a war that no longer exists. They kept showing up with coalition-building strategies and incremental policy pitches for a battlefield that had been relocated years ago. The donor alignment, the consultancy industrial complex, the careful avoidance of anything that might alarm the capital gains crowd -- it was a party trying to win a game where someone else had quietly rewritten the rules. Obama did some good things. Biden did some good things. But neither could fully confront what needed confronting, partly because of time and awareness, and partly because the system they were operating in was already compromised at the structural level.

It is worth being precise about what that compromise actually was, because the word "conservatism" is doing a lot of cover work right now. Traditional conservatism -- fiscal restraint, strong institutions, rule of law, genuine checks and balances -- is not the villain here. Barry Goldwater was sounding alarms about the religious right's capture of his own party before he died. George Will has spent years arguing that Trump represents a betrayal of conservatism, not its fulfillment. Those are not liberal voices.

What has become the danger is something more specific and more cynical: the fusion of supply-side economics, the Federalist Society's long judiciary project, donor class consolidation turbocharged by Citizens United, and now an authoritarian-nationalist turn that uses the conservative label as camouflage while systematically dismantling every institutional guardrail that conservatism was supposed to protect. Reagan's "government is the problem" framing did real damage by eroding public trust in institutions deliberately, and supply-side economics structurally entrenched the wealth inequality we are all living inside now. Trump didn't build that architecture. He just moved in, stripped the walls for parts, and called it winning. The threat was never conservatism as a governing philosophy. It is what replaced it -- grievance politics married to concentrated money, wearing the old label like a stolen coat.

The legal scaffolding underneath all of it has a name most people have never heard: the Unitary Executive Theory. In its aggressive modern form, it holds that the President has complete and absolute control over the entire executive branch -- meaning independent agencies, inspectors general, prosecutors, all of it answers to him and him alone. The Federalist Society has been building toward this interpretation for decades, and it now has sympathetic votes on the Supreme Court. Trump's mass firing of inspectors general, his dismissal of independent agency heads, his assertion that the entire prosecutorial apparatus is under his personal authority -- none of that is random chaos. It is the unitary executive theory being field-tested in real time, with the courts increasingly unwilling to stop it. What looks like a wrecking ball is actually a blueprint.

And the tax code sits there as the clearest confession of exactly who that coat was tailored for the ultra-wealthy, the investor class, the billionaire tier -- they often pay a lower effective rate than a middle-class worker, because capital gains are taxed at 20% while wages run up to 37%. That's not an accident. That's not an oversight. The system was deliberately engineered to protect people who live off capital rather than labor. Warren Buffett has said plainly that he pays a lower rate than his secretary. That should have been a national crisis-level conversation. It became a talking point and then it drifted away, because the donor class manages both brands and neither brand has a real incentive to change the arrangement.

Trump didn't fix that. He accelerated it. The 2017 tax cuts dropped the corporate rate from 35% to 21% and expanded the loopholes. His second term locked those cuts in permanently and added new ones. The result has been an effective tax rate for some of the largest corporations in America that is almost embarrassingly low. And middle-income Americans are looking at higher taxes in the coming years, while the wealthiest 1% will pay over a trillion dollars less over the next decade. This is not a side effect. This is the point.

So where does Trump fit in all of this? He ran as an anti-war, America First, no-foreign-entanglements candidate. He told rallies explicitly: "You're not going to have a war with me." He specifically targeted young men of draft age who were worried about global conflict, and that message was a meaningful part of why he won. Since taking office, he has ordered military actions in Venezuela, Yemen, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia, and Iran. The framing has now shifted to "We are fighting wars," used to justify a proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget. No accountability. No reckoning from the people who cheered the original promises. The brand just updated its messaging and moved on.

That is only possible in a system where accountability has been systematically dismantled. And that dismantling didn't begin with Trump. He just found the doors unlocked and walked through all of them at once.

The accelerationist elements, the unconstitutional militia crowd, the apocalyptic crisis-seekers who have been hiding in the shadows for decades -- they read the same conditions and decided this was their moment. White Christian nationalism (deliberately lowercase, because what is being practiced has very little to do with the Christianity most people would recognize) became the convenient flag for a coalition that is fundamentally about authoritarian consolidation dressed up in familiar symbols.

We needed a break from standard operating procedure to see clearly what had been happening. I believe that. The tragedy is that the break came in this particular form, inflicting damage that will take decades to repair and may leave some things permanently altered. That wasn't inevitable. The awareness that was needed did not require this level of destruction to arrive. But here we are.

What I want to resist, and what I'd caution anyone against, is the retrospective certainty that any of us saw all of this clearly at the time. Good historians understand that hindsight perceived as foresight is itself a distortion. The system was obscuring the truth of what it was, and it was doing so across the political spectrum. Lots will be studied in decades from these times about how blind we all were, including those of us who thought we had a decent view of the board.

The paradigm broke. 

That's not in dispute. The question now is whether enough people, outside the donor class and its managed brands, have finally noticed -- and whether that noticing comes in time to matter.

That's still an open question. But it's finally being asked.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Robots, AI's, Immigrants...could a Future with no jobs be a good thing?

I really don't see a nearby future with no jobs at all. Immigrants surely  aren't our biggest concen. Those who complain that they are, are a far bigger concern. Because they are detached from reality.

What I do see is a not to distant future with fewer jobs, with jobs taken by robots and AI's and a few people. Times are changing and we can either get on the bus to the future, or we get run over by it. As things are now most of us are about to get run over by it because of the (allowed) greed of corporations, and an inability to change quickly by government and the electorate.

Foolishness in politics and a lack of proper priorities is major a part of our problem. Politicians trying to point everyone in one wrong direction for their own benefit is another problem.

I have said repeatedly before that we need to pay workers more. Why? Because they have been kept back from receiving the increases they have earned and deserved now for decades. And those in charge merely argue reasons why it is okay, rather than reasons why it is not.

Worker need to be working less days per week, less hours per day. Not more. That then would not only give us more workers in the workforce , but would prepare us for when robots do more and more take over our jobs.

We also need to start preparing now for a future of people living longer while there are fewer jobs available.

If we don't make that connection soon, not only will we have shirked our duty as a nation, to increase the quality of the lives of our citizens as we have been doing (or not doing) for years in pushing workers to work more days and longer hours for less money, but we will be unprepared when we find that we really do not need these workers either to to jobs having moved out of country, which isn't as bad as we make it if we had handled things in the ways I'm pointing out, or robotics having replaced our workers.

Having fewer jobs or some day, no jobs, is NOT really a bad thing, We have merely made it that seem that way due to a lack of vision, planning, and proactivity. At the very least we have allowed it to have been made that way.

If we had built our economy properly, if we had other things for people to do, if they had been oriented to consider that once freed from slaving at their jobs, they can move on to higher ideals, things such as the sciences, inventions, the Arts, of bettering humanity's existence both on this planet and off, then the quality of life in general for all would be increasing now and not following a path that is no where near that kind of a consideration.

Now, if you think none of this is possible then you are simply considering the wrong things, and looking at all this in old fashioned, anachronistic ways. You are taking the tact that it's not possible, rather than considering how it is possible. And we need to be considering how things like this ARE possible. If you like, we need to "think outside the box".

But I would argue, we are currently living an existence that is outside of that box already. We have merely be deluded for so long that we can no longer see it, beyond the status quo that has been sold to us as just, "how it is", when really we have all been "sold down the river" just so the rich could become richer, and powerful, more powerful. All at our expense.

I'm not even arguing a national or global conspiracy here. It's just how it is, has been, and those who can, have jumped on the bandwagon in order to further their own agendas, bettered their own lives. It has replaced the American Dream with the Dream of the Rich and Powerful.

And no one seems to have noticed! Though I suspect they are finally now beginning to.

Central to all of these things is not despondency among the masses so much as poor education. In cutting our benefits over the past decades, at letting our infrastructures go, to devolve, we have dumbed down our population and made it easier for some of the stupid beliefs that are going around and have been governing our nation. We need to change that.

We need to be thinking through a new paradigm shift in preparing for it to allow it to happen. We need to be living it and moving on into the future. We need to do  it, ourselves. We need to vote for those who should be running things. Those who want to end big money in politics. Those who will oppose the ignorance and stupidity in politics and in the voting public.

As with others knowledgeable in the topic, I do not so much worry about the resiliency of people but in the inability of the lumbering giants of government, business and finance. We will have to kick them repeatedly in order to give them a consistent and hard myocardial thump to the near cadaver of those who have been handed over the charter to protect us. We need to push through to their central cores, to their hearts if you will. To restart it to once again beat for us and not just as they seem to do so well and so often, merely fend for themselves.

Robots, AI's, Immigrants? Could a Future with no jobs be a good thing?