That’s not even the point though. You can always do these things but you still have no cultural power and you’ve yielded the important structures and financial capitals. That’s not a long term strategy.
And it’s not that difficult to win these things, especially when you look at how objectively poor the oppositions performance has been in them. Historically they’ve been contested.
They don't behave like a political party any more. It's not just the business of politics as usual and a generational shift, it's something different. I've been trying to coin a term for this internal takeover - I think nihilocracy, or nihilocratic populism, is the best I've come up with.
The party as a whole is uninterested in governing beyond seeking revenge and satisfying the charismatic eschatological movement that drives them. The leaders don't believe what they preach, they don't have policy goals besides "destroy what we hate", they don't have any conventional engagement with government beyond using it towards their own ends.
"Long term strategy" is a joke in this context. They're angry, they mobilize their supporters by promising revenge on a world that seems to be defying traditional structures and changing too fast. As with many reactionary movements aligned more by being "against" than "for", there's been little thought for what happens after the enemy has been defeated, and it's likely they'll continue seeking out new enemies until the movement dies from infighting or is ousted from power.
I see the supporter being nihilistic and purely out for revenge. I don’t see that with people in positions of power. They’re looking to line their pockets and they’ll take advantage of a vengeful constituency. True of both major parties. That’s why they focus on social issues and then pass legislation (or lack thereof) that allows them to all get rich.
Yep, I agree. I see the rank and file as being largely nihilistic but the leadership as being either pure ideologues or completely cynical. Either way, the stated values aren't the real ones, but they differ in whether they're working towards other goals or pure self-aggrandizement.
> You can always do these things but you still have no cultural power
That's when you use the power of the purse to contractually bind private businesses, non-profits, universities, etc, to your preferred values. Capital beats cultural power (or so goes the current gamble)
Edit: do I need to insert hyperlinks for the strong-arm tactics this administration has tried to force contractual counter-parties to adopts it's anti-DEI culture-war posture via a clause?
Those are just tactics though. So long as the cities are uncontested there’s no real long term plan. Just being somewhat competitive in them or having a presence.
And it’s not that difficult to win these things, especially when you look at how objectively poor the oppositions performance has been in them. Historically they’ve been contested.