Because the position is the head of the military. Normally, you may not want the president to be directly micromanaging tactical decisions because they often don’t have military experience in the same way the head of the defense department usually does. In this case, the system doesn’t work because we have a yahoo hiring other yahoos to do incredibly important jobs.

The real heart of your question, in my opinion, is “why do we centralize power and create vulnerabilities when bad actors can assume those positions?” The answer, in America, is a fundamental mistake by a the founding fathers in believing that all the branches of government were unlikely to be corrupted at the same time, and that they would hold each other accountable when things started to get bad. If the White House became corrupt, the legaslative branch is supposed to stop it. If the legislative branch is corrupt, the court is supposed to stop it. They didn’t concieve of the situation we’ve been in: where all of those branches have abandoned their duties to hold each other accountable. On second thought, I guess you could argue that Thomas Jefferson saw that as a possibility, but his solution was a population that was ready for violent revolution under those conditions. He did not account for the current surveillance/drone/bomb inequality that exists between the people and their government, so his idea was more reasonable for a time where the people and the establishment were able to have equal levels of firepower.

Furthermore, the early constitution placed too much emphasis on the idea that people who are wealthy have a greater stake in the success of the country, and therefore are properly motivated to preserve it (i.e. voting being restricted to land owners). They designed the rules in a pre-global society under the assumption that capital investment in the country equated to the self preservation instinct extending to the nation. Whether or not that was ever true, it certainly is false in the modern world where a rich person can simply move anywhere on the globe that is most beneficial to them in the event of a national collapse.

I have been involved in several cooperative organizations that have no direct leader, and I can anecdotally say that there are pros and cons to both approaches. On the one hand, decentralized and fully democratic power structures definitely keep one bad leader from abusing their power and hurting the community in the process. On the other hand, there is a massive reduction in executive efficiency, and seemingly simple decisions can suddenly take months to finalize while everybody gets their two cents in. That is why most cooperative organizations utilize meeting rules to limit the amount of time a single issue can be debated.

In the case of war, taking a month to finalize a decision can have catastrophic effects, which is why there are single figureheads who have the ability to call the shots quickly. However, as we see now, there is also a massive liability that is created when corruption has been allowed to run rampant and you get a fascist in that seat.

It’s happened before:

https://youtube.com/shorts/gbZ4ucfMDs0

I get the sentiment, but what are you saying with your examples?

Steam gets praise because they do their part to make a shitty industry a smidge less shitty. The rest of the things you describe are products with their own pros and cons, but not really tools of the elite. Are you suggesting that the only way to not be a hypocrite is to completely remove yourself from the currently existing state of things and go purist hunter gatherer in a commune?

People like some things, and those things also exist in a system that they don’t like. We could have the same things under a different system, but that takes a lot of time and effort that many of the people you call out are contributing to. Until then, people have to live a life with the reasonable options afforded to them.

I don’t think the insulation is what you think it is. Most Texans aren’t MAGA Republicans, even though the non-voters and Republican-at-any-cost people here handed him a victory. This meme is only insinuating the relief that the majority of Texans feel who were tired of living under a red state government.

40.5% of Texans voted early for this election, which is a record breaking number (they are still calculating the total number of votes after yesterday). For comparison, only 41.8% voted in the 2022 midterm election total.

Respectfully, stand down, comrade! I’m on your side and not becoming a Kamala brunch enthusiast. I appreciate your opinions on history and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

The fight definitely continues, but a little win feels nice. I can go back to my usual full on class warfare in the morning.

Don’t get me wrong, I see what you’re saying and I generally agree with your leftist sentiments.

That said, you are incorrect that the Democrats have been totally unsuccessful in improving material conditions for people. I’m with you that it hasn’t nearly been far enough, but they did accomplish significant things for women and black people.

JFK passed the equal pay act. LBJ passed the civil rights act. Clinton passed the violence against women act. These things had an effect that was tangible, even if we need more.

In Texas, my grandmother wasn’t able to have her own bank account without my grandfather signing a permission note until John Connally, a Democrat, passed the Marital Property Act of 1967. My mother never had that problem because a Democrat changed the conditions for women in this country.

Do I want a true left to rise in the United States? Yes. Do I think the Democrats have any hope of fixing capitalism? No. BUT, this victory is sweet, and I’ll be raising a glass to the Democrats today anyway.

So…you’re saying…all your ex’s live in Texas?

There is about a 70% chance we’re related, lol. I thought my family were the only ones.

Bro, I’m with you. This is the greatest day. I didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime.

Boyfriends of wheelie girls, unite! Hello, my fellow chair pusher!

Are you a Texan? This feels like you don’t know the state very well.

Texas has had far more democratic governors than republican governors. The solid red trend started in 1995, and it has stayed that way largely due to the manipulation of modern conservatives. There is absolutely no guarantee that it won’t switch blue again for a long time if they deal with the corruption, or start flip flopping again like it did from the 70’s to the 90’s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Texas

Texas is more complicated than people think it is. We are a secret swing state, and the chance for that to matter again has finally been seized.

The prophecy has finally been fulfilled. Texas has been very purple for a long time, but the rigged system has kept it red. This victory shows that there is actually a significant majority of blue voters, and if they can start to fix the corruption, we will see just how blue it has really been.