First of all, there’s no such thing as a progressive billionaire. It’s literally impossible to live up to progressive ideals while hoarding that much needless wealth for yourself.
Second, most of that “solid political track record” is just raking in money and clever pr creating a cult of personality. As Reagan and Trump have demonstrated, those are not qualities that help regular people.
I’ll concede that she’s been good on civil rights, especially LGBTQ+ rights and abortion rights.
She has, however, no political experience and has to my knowledge never said anything against the pernicious influence of money on politics or economics at all, which IMO disqualifies her, especially when, being a billionaire, she’s a symptom of failed fiscal policy herself.
I hear your righteous ideals and agree with them, but we will never get to a Solar Punk society or some other vision of a future worth wanting without convincing the powerful of the world to want it too. It’s never happening in a single generation, and it will be the work of our children our children’s children to establish the culture and the practical momentum toward that future.
Only something like 1-3% of people are psychopaths. I would argue high society, the ultra wealthy, are absolutely overrepresented, maybe 10-fold at least under capitalism when wealth buys protection and discretion, and you can get away with living a more hedonistic existence without consequences. But even so, that’s still only 10-30% of billionaires say, that are true psychopaths who care only for their own ambitions and designs.
The rest are just not aware that there are better ways, convinced their ideas are the right ones, and that they can do what nobody has been able to do before them. But they are the ones who have the wealth and resources to try.
You can absolutely be a progressive billionaire, and I’d argue right now, many, if not most of the world’s wealthiest are doing what they think is right for the world. It’s just hard to change anything like this in meaningful and enduring ways. So many moving parts, so many minds to change. They are still not as powerful on their own as whole government’s. So, nobody has quite figured out how to get there yet. But what progressives do by definition is they try. I would argue Taylor Swift is among these people who are trying. Like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and many others we could name.
Conservatives believe in the old ways, and that certain cruel status quos are necessary or natural. That being poor for example is your fate, your destined role. And likewise if you’re wealthy somehow your “earned it”. This belief is often enough for otherwise good people to turn a blind eye to the suffering that is occurring because of them. Or use it to argue their means justifies the end they seek. But most still care deep down. It’s just better for them and theirs not to do anything that would compromise that. And can you blame them? Maybe more than the average person. But, keeping a decent job, working hard, and living a middle class life in a liberal democracy is its own kind of “conservativism”. That’s what most of us are doing. You could just as easily argue almost nobody is actually “progressive” when the rubber meets the road, and who could blame us when it’s true a “normal” life under modern capitalism is how we get to live to be a hundred. It’s not obvious or even really confirmed that better options are in fact better. It’s all a theory waiting to be proven.
This is all to say, it’s about the best strategy for how we get there. Taylor Swift would kick Trump’s ass in a popularity contest, and she’d really boost moral. She’s more experienced than most celebrities in the political sphere and most of politics is fundraising and posturing anyway. What’s important is how much she defers to and empowers the experts. She seems like someone who will.
Have you ever elected a progressive entertainer, and one with a pretty solid political track record to boot?
Honestly, I would put money on her running. Probably not this term, but quite possibly the next
First of all, there’s no such thing as a progressive billionaire. It’s literally impossible to live up to progressive ideals while hoarding that much needless wealth for yourself.
Second, most of that “solid political track record” is just raking in money and clever pr creating a cult of personality. As Reagan and Trump have demonstrated, those are not qualities that help regular people.
I’ll concede that she’s been good on civil rights, especially LGBTQ+ rights and abortion rights.
She has, however, no political experience and has to my knowledge never said anything against the pernicious influence of money on politics or economics at all, which IMO disqualifies her, especially when, being a billionaire, she’s a symptom of failed fiscal policy herself.
I hear your righteous ideals and agree with them, but we will never get to a Solar Punk society or some other vision of a future worth wanting without convincing the powerful of the world to want it too. It’s never happening in a single generation, and it will be the work of our children our children’s children to establish the culture and the practical momentum toward that future.
Only something like 1-3% of people are psychopaths. I would argue high society, the ultra wealthy, are absolutely overrepresented, maybe 10-fold at least under capitalism when wealth buys protection and discretion, and you can get away with living a more hedonistic existence without consequences. But even so, that’s still only 10-30% of billionaires say, that are true psychopaths who care only for their own ambitions and designs.
The rest are just not aware that there are better ways, convinced their ideas are the right ones, and that they can do what nobody has been able to do before them. But they are the ones who have the wealth and resources to try.
You can absolutely be a progressive billionaire, and I’d argue right now, many, if not most of the world’s wealthiest are doing what they think is right for the world. It’s just hard to change anything like this in meaningful and enduring ways. So many moving parts, so many minds to change. They are still not as powerful on their own as whole government’s. So, nobody has quite figured out how to get there yet. But what progressives do by definition is they try. I would argue Taylor Swift is among these people who are trying. Like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and many others we could name.
Conservatives believe in the old ways, and that certain cruel status quos are necessary or natural. That being poor for example is your fate, your destined role. And likewise if you’re wealthy somehow your “earned it”. This belief is often enough for otherwise good people to turn a blind eye to the suffering that is occurring because of them. Or use it to argue their means justifies the end they seek. But most still care deep down. It’s just better for them and theirs not to do anything that would compromise that. And can you blame them? Maybe more than the average person. But, keeping a decent job, working hard, and living a middle class life in a liberal democracy is its own kind of “conservativism”. That’s what most of us are doing. You could just as easily argue almost nobody is actually “progressive” when the rubber meets the road, and who could blame us when it’s true a “normal” life under modern capitalism is how we get to live to be a hundred. It’s not obvious or even really confirmed that better options are in fact better. It’s all a theory waiting to be proven.
This is all to say, it’s about the best strategy for how we get there. Taylor Swift would kick Trump’s ass in a popularity contest, and she’d really boost moral. She’s more experienced than most celebrities in the political sphere and most of politics is fundraising and posturing anyway. What’s important is how much she defers to and empowers the experts. She seems like someone who will.