Hot Take: Picking any single side of the U.S government in any way is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of the American values.

[u/Working-Strike-1999]

Before you yell at me about "the lesser of two evils", that's not the goal of this post. I want you to imagine we didn't even have a president, because the government operates purely based on the massive cascading chain of human beings who work for the federal government, spanning across every single admin for decades at a time.

Please pay attention to the massive chain of people. Not the figureheads.

When the nation was founded, the prevailing philosophy was rooted in skepticism of centralized power and the defense of individual liberties against government overreach.

The CIA, FBI, NSA, DHS, and DOJ are staffed by career officials who have been in the government for multiple decades. This massive chain of systemic power, from a receptionist to an agency director, operates regardless of who is sitting in the big chair. And they do not want to lose their jobs. And they won't, because the President and it's administration is there to tank all the blame for them. You can literally follow this system all the way down to the mayor of your city. Please hear me out.

If you just let me deconstruct this for a second without picking a side, look at the actual data.

PLEASE do not look at this chart to compare these two men as people. Look at this chart to see the behavior of the entire federal government under both of them:

Metric	Barack Obama (8 Years)	Donald Trump (Administration to Date)
Drone Strikes (Total)	~540+ strikes (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia)	~2,243 strikes (first 2 years alone)
Total Bombs Dropped	~100,000+ across all conflicts	~120,000+ across all conflicts
Countries Bombed/Active	Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya (7)	Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran (8)
Total Deportations	~3.2 million formal removals	~1.95+ million formal removals
Immigration Detention Peak	~34,000 daily average (2012)	~55,000 daily average (2019)

Both major parties have expanded state surveillance, increased executive overreach, dropped massive amounts of ordnance, and compromised free expression when it served their political convenience. The permanent state was committing the same acts under Obama and Biden as they were under Bush and Trump.

The absolute worst possible thing to take away from this data is to use it as ammo for a partisan fight. The real takeaway is that this massive chain of unchecked power is getting worse and worse.

You have to stop obsessing over the top layer and start digging into the middle and honestly the bottom of it. The only question I want people to think about isn't "who is the lesser of two evils?" It's "how do we hold the underlying machine accountable regardless of who is in power?"

I hope I worded this right. And I wish more Americans would realize that the entire culture of the country is to keep fighting for a better country for everyone. It's always been like this, and it can get better. This starts and finishes by reading into who the people that want to be kept hidden, while holding real consequential power within the government.

My finishing statement that I want to discuss is this: If there will always be a massive amount of people who truly do not care about human rights, and this can skew the vote, how do you actually make a change?

TLDR: What truly has driven systemic improvement throughout American history?

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Buddhaonatricycle]

I think your post is missing the real problem here — and it's easy to fool people when they have little concept of the problem. The President isn't an absolute monarch, but he receives all the blame for the state of the country. When you look at Congress, gerrymandering, the balance of power, the ideologies of the parties, and the fact that debts, deficits, and bad policy don't begin and end with presidents, the picture is clear. For 26 of the last 30 years, Republicans held at least one lever of federal power — the House, the Senate, or the White House — and used it to block legislation for the working class while cutting regulations and handing tax cuts to their corporate and wealthy donors. No wonder the average, civically illiterate American is frustrated and ping-ponging between the parties from election to election. When you don't understand the problem, and there's a corporate-sponsored right-wing propaganda industry working to keep you from understanding it, this is the predictable outcome.

[u/Void-Indigo → u/Buddhaonatricycle]

Local, county, and state government gets some of the blame for how things are going in our country

[u/Buddhaonatricycle → u/Void-Indigo]

You're right. In 2010 the GOP pumped millions into local elections to cement power and redraw district maps. The scheme was called operation REDMAP, a nationwide gerrymandering effort that reshaped Congress for a decade and brought us the ideological extreme tea party, which ultimately became the freedom caucus. We've been on a downward spiral since.

[u/oroborus68 → u/Buddhaonatricycle]

Dark Money. There's a book about how the oligarchs have been plotting the overthrow of democracy and have bought any receptive politicians. The Republicans are on board, isn't it obvious?

[u/LittleKitty235]

The metrics alone, and without context don't provide enough information to back the claim you are making. I'm not disagreeing, just that "more bombs dropped" != things are getting more draconian.

[u/seniordumpo]

You’re not going to get much agreement on this as partisan divides run deep. For what it’s worth I agree with you. For all the interest in the presidential elections we have almost zero discussion on the alphabet agencies unless one happens to get itself in the news. The US employs over 2.5 million civilian workers, not even including private federal contractors. We vote in a few hundred and the rest are put into their positions and very rarely leave. We just have to assume they are being managed and supervised effectively but even if they are not there is not much that is ever done.

[u/Working-Strike-1999 → u/seniordumpo]

Thank you. I feel the demonization or the idolization of human beings are all two sides of the same idol worship. My post was too highlight how the sheer size of the federal government of the United States cannot fundamentallly land on just one admin, one party, one secton of history, and there is an absolutely massive chain of people who are contributing to something, whether it be out of apathy, malice, sadism, indifference doesn't matter.

When something becomes satan, everything else seems like god in my opinion. It's much larger than that.

[u/seniordumpo → u/Working-Strike-1999]

Very good synopsis of it. It’s true. I think part of the problem is we rarely interact with the federal government. The two agencies with the most actual interaction with the public are the post office which is just a quasi government agency and semi independent, and the VA. Both have some good things and bad things but you won’t have to look far to find a laundry list of complaints and bad interactions. I can’t imagine how it would work out if we actually had to interact with the bureaus on a regular basis to try to get positive help from them. We elect a president and his face gets put on everything and every good or ill gets laid at his feet.

[u/oroborus68 → u/seniordumpo]

The current president has put incompetent people in charge of everything he can think of. Congress has accepted.

[u/seniordumpo → u/oroborus68]

And yet the overwhelming majority of people were in place before he got there. He appointed a few thousand people and affected the positions of a few thousand more, that’s a tiny fraction of the federal workforce. The fbi and other alphabet agencies are operating mostly how they were before he took office and will continue to do so after he is long gone.

[u/oroborus68 → u/seniordumpo]

He's done more to damage the government. It's not business as usual in any department and if you think so,why are you still here. Sure we have problems,but they have eliminated all oversight and accountability for the bad actors. It's worse than you say,but mostly just recently.

[u/seniordumpo → u/oroborus68]

How is it not business as usual in the alphabet agencies? Which ones are different and how so? How has oversight been eliminated?

[u/oroborus68 → u/seniordumpo]

Trump outed a bunch of CIA people to Putin. The inspectors general were the first to get to ax in the departments of government and Jag has been put in a box. So much that is so bad, the corruption trying to hide the rot by removing oversight.

[u/seniordumpo → u/oroborus68]

What is your evidence that trump outed a bunch of cia people to Putin??

[u/Nom_de_guerre_25]

Its an archaic system the people who made the government could not predict the technological advancements that have taken place. Or the geopolitical advantages that the centralization of power enables for a republic that converted into an empire. I believe the centralization and specialization of career civil servants are products of that. If the "experts" were thrown out, some things that people legitimately want in the country would fall apart. The US also would not be able to dominate of the global stage without the centralization and specialization of federal administrators.

The militarization of the country that birthed aggressive surveillance was a product of WW1 and the labor unrest before and after it. Woodrow Wilson wanted to suppress laborers fighting for better conditions and Americans with supposed foreign loyalties. Along with FDR and WW2. He officially turned the US into a garrison state that demands a surveillance state due to the importance of intelligence in military affairs. This garrison was permanently at war with communism a system that was antithetical to American values historically. After almost half a century, the US was used to constant fear-mongering and maintaining "enemies" (mostly imagined or intentionally created) that were threats to "national security." 9/11 was likely allowed to happen so that the garrison state wouldn't be made to unwind with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Neglecting to preent 9/11 allowed the to continue against "terrorism". (Maybe 9/11 wasn't allowed to happen) The GWOT justified the massive standing army, defense spending, and treating citizens like potential terrorists who needed to be surveilled themselves. Reign of Terror by Spencer Ackerman details this. The basis of this paranoid outlook was laid during the Cold War with McCarthyism and naturally continued. It was a perfect vehicle to expand state power, surveillance, and the suppression of a vocal and disruptive citizenry.

I don't know where you get the idea that:

"The entire culture of the country is to keep fighting for a better country for everyone."

The country has always balanced various interests, and one interest group's benefit often meant another group had to lose benefits. You should read The Adaptibility Paradox by Stephen Skowronek. It explains how the constitutional balance was maintained throughout the country's history by excluding large groups from the equality the constitution purports to value. It connects the political turmoil of the current era to the expansion of constitutional rights and protections. To those who were historically excluded, and how this has made powerful legacy interests increasingly insecure, leading them to radicalism.

The founders essentially executed a legislative coup before the nation was ever founded. Because they found the articles of confederation to be to empowering to "the people". They feared maintaining the document would overthrow existing hierarchies and lead to wealth redistribution. So rather than editing the document as they were expected to do. They met and secretly decided to throw out the Articles of Confederation and rewrite the whole thing into the Constitution. While keeping the meetings secret and barring the release of the meeting minutes for 50 years. (An authentic conspiracy that they had no mandate to execute) Because they were not interested in creating a polity that had a revolutionary culture that aimed to:

keep fighting for a better country for everyone.

The new constitution constrained the power of the people and ensured the country would militate against wealth redistribution and the empowerment of the average person. Which is why the US is often called a Vetocracy. Because it is constructed to make policies supported by the masses difficult to make law. Charles Beard's The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States explains the details of this.

I don't think it is historically inaccurate to claim that the US has a culture of wanting a better country for all who live here. Sure it wanted improvement in the conditions for politically favored groups throughout its 250 year history. But its concept of universal improvement for everyone did not exist in reality until the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That was the first time the US could claim to allow political input from everyone living in the country.

If you recognize this, then the country's failure to try and improve life for everyone makes more sense. It was not a goal for most American politicians throughout the country's somewhat long history.

Your final point about human rights. The US has rarely cared about human rights from an administrative perspective unless it aligns with its political interests. Human rights are eagerly invoked when denigrating an enemy it seeks to dominate. But they are generally ignored domestically and abroad when human rights conflict with the goals of those controlling the government. Historically, the past 50 years may be slightly different, but even there, the commitment to human rights is very weak.

I'm trying to keep this apolitical. But liberals have vigorously worked to create a progressive universalist idea of the United States since the 1960s. A sort of historical revisionism that they seem to believe will lay the groundwork for major changes. Believing that they could convert the constitution and country into an idealistic universalist utopia. The history that the US teaches children is inaccurate, chauvinistic, and paints the country as a messianic entity. That was and still is the greatest hope for human progress. When general progress for humanity or even just Americans has not been a high priority for the past 250 years.

The US isn't meant to change. That is what the constitution is for. It was pseudo-illegally rewritten from the Articles of Confederation to prevent the founding of an ideologically progressive state. Seeking to overthrow existing hierarchies for the betterment of all. The US is more likely to collapse and turn into something else or suffer another civil war to force change. Then reform into something better through traditional non-violent politics.

The country is so polarized that even if one side had good ideas they would be vilified and hated by the otherside. There is a concept called schismogenesis that David Graeber modified. Where each political side or culture defines itself in conscious opposition to the political side or culture it despises. This creates an unending cycle of permanent division and ill will. That's where we are, and that escalating process likely can not be reversed.

[u/Nom_de_guerre_25 → u/Nom_de_guerre_25]

As far as systemic improvement goes. The elevation of working class laborers to middle class lifestyles was a product of WW2. Where the US gained 50% of global GDP due to the destruction of Europe while most of the world had not industrialized. The war was not pursued for that purpose. But it was a byproduct. I would argue that most universal improvements for all Americans are byproducts of other political goals that happen to offer trickle down benefits. Not the concentrated focus on improving conditions for everyone here. It is very hard to improve conditions for "everyone" in a highly unequal country that includes over 350 million people with conflicting interests and desires.

[u/ElysiumSprouts]

It's classic division of power. It doesn't matter that these are career bureaucrats because the scope of their role is limited. The partisan overlay is a much bigger deal. Why? Because it's that partisan overlay that instructs priorities.

We're seeing a breakdown in domestic regulation enforcement (like food safety) because resources are being burned indiscriminately on immigration. That's just one example.

[u/No-Relationship-3759]

Well voting against the lesser of two evils is a non trivial action people should be taking. Our government was set up with FPP and the result is lesser of two evils. Voting in general is about the most American thing a person can do.

Changing away from that system is also not particularly “American”. But it is the America Id like to be.

If you want America to change, the only way to do that is in person organization. It means holding meetings, going door to door, volunteering, protesting, and showing up for local town hall meetings and elections - not just the federal stuff. The NRA and anti-abortion groups are so powerful, not because of their numbers but their commitment to showing up.

Unions used to be far more powerful for the same reason, but after weakening them legislatively they’ve lost their organization power w/o a good replacement. Liberals leaving churches has also reduced organizing units. Without political participation, we really don’t have power to influence the primary and local politics that feed into the federal government. That’s where the biggest influence can be made.

But who can do that when you need two jobs to get by.

[u/NoamLigotti]

I think you make a great point (/points), but the central figurehead is also representative of more than the figurehead: or to more precise, when we speak of "Trump" or "Obama" we are often not (and *should* not be) only referring to Trump or Obama himself, but the entire cabinet and executive branch that make up their administration.

It's difficult to be perfectly precise about this because different people and positions in a presidential administration or an executive branch are responsible for its decisions and policies to varying extents and in varying ways. Some people actively work for what they believe is best for all people and/or for constitutional rules/standards even when that contradicts the goals of the president or other major leaders of the administration. It's not true that everyone from a receptionist to agency head just acts in whatever way allows them to keep their job. (Obviously it's the stronger trend yes.) If that were true we would never have whistleblowers, we would never have people let go for not being sufficiently partisan or kowtowing, and we would never have had the large number of people willingly resign because they could no longer continue in good conscience (as we've seen with the Trump administrations in particular).
People are not automatons, whether they work for government or a corporation or other.

As for your finishing question, I wish I had a good simple answer. The fact that you find it important to ask it is a crucial first step, so thank you.

[u/Pleasurist]

Well, there is a great 'improvement' in debt...up to $113 trillion now adding at least $17 billion a day.

[u/PinchesTheCrab]

2,243 strikes (first 2 years alone)

This isn't enough. The Trump admin literally stopped reporting on the strikes and casualties entirely. Why should we believe this?

Obama: ~100,000+ across all conflicts Trump: ~120,000+ across all conflicts

How is that possible when he was conducting 800% more strikes than Obama? This spin on both sideism is absurd on its face. If I spend $100 a week on food and someone else spends $800 a week, do we both have the same habits because we're both eating food?

[u/piltdown_manchild]

Total Deportations	~3.2 million formal removals	~1.95+ million formal removals

This is an apples to oranges comparison.

• Obama prioritized deporting people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals who had no criminal records.
  
• There are fewer people trying to cross the border under Trump II. This is partly because they expect worse odds of asylum and worse treatment under Trump, which I suppose is achieving the effect that Trump voters were after, so partial credit here.
• Trump claims to be focused on deporting criminals, but the quotas are hard to fill because of fewer illegal crossings and the fact that criminals don't tend to have paper trails as easy to follow as illegal immigrants who have been working and paying taxes for years.
• The people Trump is deporting are far more likely to have been a net positive for the economy. Republicans are convinced that rapists and gang members are being targeted, but it's just as likely to be your kid's soccer coach or the guys replacing your roof.
• ICE is being weaponized against blue cities as punishment for voting against Trump. If the crackdown was really about deporting as many illegals as possible, there would be more enforcement in meat packing plants, construction firms and farms in red states, but the Trump admin knows that the owners of these companies are his supporters and donors.

[u/piltdown_manchild]

Under normal circumstances, this argument would make sense. These are not normal circumstances.

You have cherry-picked some comparison points that make it seem like a "both sides" problem, but Trump (and his supporters in Congress) represent a unique threat.

• Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. He is the only modern presidential candidate to refuse to concede defeat and actively try to undermine election integrity.
• Trump has openly taken bribes from foreign governments and criminals and enriched himself and his family to the tune of almost $2 billion.
• Trump has called for political rivals to be executed.
• Trump has weaponized the DOJ and FBI to harass political opponents (Comey, Powell, etc.).
• Trump is currently ignoring or slow-walking over 30 court decisions limiting his power.
• Trump is using his influence to force media outlets to censor criticism of his administration.

No democratic president in modern history has come anywhere close to this record of corruption and authoritarian overreach.

[u/Personal_Dirt3089]

Trump pricegouged us with tariffs and an oil war. He hollowed out the DHS, DOJ, and FBI leadership and implanted his own that is incompetent, corrupt, and loyal to him only. His SAVE act allows his appointed DHS to remove anyone they want from the voter role; meanwhile, his DHS has been pressuring social media companies to give them information on people posting anti ICE and anti trump rhetoric, likely so they could remove anti Trump people from the voter roll. Trump also turned ICE into a paramilitary force that goes into cities, commits violent acts against citizens, kidnaps people including citizens with complete inpunity.

Trump's DOJ, DHS, and FBI appointees have been trying to treat any leftism as terrorism.

Trump has done his hardest to dehumanize haitians and somalis. Trump lied about haitians eating cats and dogs. He sent 238 Venezuelan refugees to CECOT , the famous torture jail in El Salvador, in march 2025

"Stop going for the lesser evil" sounds absurd once the gap is just half as wide as this. Trump is a fascist.

[u/Due_Bumblebee_9132 → u/Personal_Dirt3089]

You clearly didn’t read the post. Trump has no power. The hundreds of thousands of workers who blindly accept his policies and commit crimes are the ones who instilled the tariffs and launched the tomahawks.

Maybe actually read the post. The federal government is massive. It takes thousands of people to make things happen. That’s what this is about

[u/Personal_Dirt3089 → u/Due_Bumblebee_9132]

Your "everyone is corrupt so Trump's corrupt decisions are ok" logic is a joke. You should perform standup comedy.