DT is right.
To take it a step further
1. Interest groups > policy
2. Identity and tribalism > political support
3. Ideology > justification
Very few people are "conservative" or "liberal" in the sense that someone would understand that the term and most who embrace that term do so more because they associate such with their tribe and thus it as a proxy for that tribal identity, or likewise they associate their tribal rivals with the other side and thus reject them as such.
Some it is more direct, like the perceived threat to the coal industry in West Virginia, but the Democrats increasing association with the environmentalist movement. This is a case where identity and interest groups align towards the same end, which is a good indication for why WV trended so Republican so relatively quickly.
There's also a difference between what you might call "N64 politics" and "actual politics". Like for much of my time here (really until 2020/2021) I was a hard core N64 (or gameboy)er. Like I played pokemon red/blue/gold/silver as a kid and I kind of viewed it that way. Going to the pokemon center and healing your pokemon is not unlike effectively hitting the refresh button on Breyer's seat. The republican party was Gary (or whoever was Ash's rival). Flipping another longtime GOP stronghold (Orange CA, Maricopa AZ , Morris NJ etc) was like getting another badge. Flipping a Trump-won legislative chamber or finally winning control of the SC (to finally not having to worry about getting gerrymandered out of power) was like winning the elite four.
But in my own personal life I've started getting into issues that I find are "actual politics" that don't fall neatly under either party. Here are a lot of questions I've been asking myself:
- Why are so many "five over ones" getting built that are the khrushchyovkas of our time.
- Why is technological advancement even a good thing. Like isn't a more bare bones car easier to drive than some car with all these dumbass motion sensors and touch screens?
- why do we need so many restaurants? Here in central Iowa, it seems that not only are there way more than there was 20-25 years ago but there are more chains than ever. Places like Culver's or Freddy's seemed to have came up from out of nowhere.
- why do you even need a cell phone. For one thing having the internet on it is addictive and second, people lived for centuries without one and we managed to get by ok.
- what happens when you are in possession of all these things that you have no idea how they got there and have no idea on how to fix/maintain them? It just seems that you become at the mercy of corporations (like blackrock)
- is applying to dozens of places to find a job even the natural state of things? My grandparents were born in the late 20s and early 30s. I highly doubt they did such a thing when they were young and trying to break into the job market.
- should cars even be allowed in the downtowns of cities? It just seems to make the area unwalkable.
I've started reading people like John Michael Greer and James Howard Kunstler who kind of explore these same kinds of topics. Even Ted K (not endorsing the stuff he did) sort of talked about this stuff.
I have been asking similar questions.
1. The decline of repair in favor of replacement
2. The move towards fee for service model
3. The move towards these groups buying up and renting out houses more, further distorting the housing market.
4. The unwalkable sprawl and the fiscal decline this ensures long term
5. The constant push for people to take on massive debt loads to pay for anything
The end result of this is serfdom.
I don't disagree significantly with the analysis, but I will quibble with the conclusion. The result is not serfdom, nor slavery, but something different and perhaps worse. I believe 'wage slave' is the term in cyberpunk fiction.
With serfdom, there were at least in theory (and sometimes in practice) rights and responsibilities that ran both ways. The peasants had duties to the lord, but he was in turn responsible for them (even if not really answerable to them). With chattel slavery, the master was free to abuse his slaves, but he suffered economically if he killed or injured them.
With wage slavery, the laborer loses market power and freedom, and gains nothing by it. Wage slaves are expected to be fungible - used up and then replaced. This is why we see so much screeching from the upper tiers of the pyramid as workers... decline abusive work. The lack of cheap fungible labor (at least in some places for some jobs), and the stirrings of organized labor are terrifying signs to those on the top.
