##Summary
- Ray Dalio believes that the United States is moving toward a conflict close to civil war due to the impeachment of Kevin McCarthy.
- Many things that have happened in history are largely related to five types, and this incident falls under one of them.
- In order to overcome this crisis, it is believed that a strong moderate group with a bipartisan perspective is needed.
- Expresses my perspective on the meaning and solution of the Kevin McCarthy incident rather than an economic perspective.
##reference
- I am not a professional translator, and I translated the letter for study purposes.
- Refers to AI translation and includes paraphrases
- We tried to translate the original text as much as possible, but simplified any rhetoric that was unnecessary for understanding or was overly awkward.
- For detailed information, refer to original text
##Original text
##Kevin McCarthy's failure moves us further away from democracy and one step closer to civil war
As you know, most of the things that have happened repeatedly in history have been linked to the five things below.
- Very high levels of debt and debt creation in the US and other reserve currency countries
- Large gap between rich and poor. And, internal conflicts within the country due to confrontation between extremists who do not care about water or fire (especially in the United States)
- Confrontation between great powers. And the resulting conflict between national camps (particularly between the United States and China and their allies and friends)
- Severe natural disasters (droughts, floods, pandemics)
- Humanity learning and deploying new technologies (such as AI, which has received the most attention recently).
Almost everything falls into one of the above categories, and because I've seen this dynamic so many times, I view every development in this context and wonder if we're headed for a perfect storm. The latest developments regarding Kevin McCarthy relate to one of the items above - internal conflict - that I'd like to address in today's post.
##Another step towards civil war and loss of democracy
In this case, Kevin McCarthy was trying to reach an agreement supported by several Republicans and Democrats. It was one of the two-party votes McCarthy engineered from his precarious position as Republican speaker of the House. (Funding for Ukraine, raising the debt ceiling, etc.) And he was exiled, accused of betraying party loyalty. I sympathize with those who are concerned about rising debt, but I am more concerned about those in power and their choice to fight rather than cooperate, which I believe is moving us further away from democracy and closer to civil war.
The two parties face off as groups controlled by extremes who want to win at all costs without compromise, and it seems clear that they will choose one extreme and fight for it. This tendency is most evident in the Republican Party, but the same is true for the Democratic Party. (The Democratic Party wisely chooses to tone it down, but it is evident in the ideological clashes taking place in government and, especially, in Congress.) Now it is a fight to win by any means necessary, even the dirty ones (lies and deceit). Respect for the system is not very important.
Thoughtful debate between the two parties leading to compromise and voting based on the belief that we are choosing what is best for our country are now a thing of the past. For a variety of reasons - a wider gap between rich and poor, political marginalization - the political system has (de)evolved from the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil, when there were a variety of common principles, even if they supported different parties. We are now in a period of much greater conflict within and between the two parties, as leaders of both parties do not want their members to cooperate and are excluding those who put country above party.
##Loss of power among the more centrist middle class
Ironically, because the parties are more extreme than most, there is no party that will fight for the majority of Americans. Studying history has shown us that this phenomenon has always worked for the same reasons and in the same way. Because when the divide is as irreconcilable as it is now and trust in the system is low, extreme leaders tend to have a small base of strong supporters fighting for them. This continues until everyone chooses a side and fights. For this reason, the likelihood of civil war is uncomfortably high.
I've been asked about this over and over again, so I can't help but think about ways to rectify the situation. I would like to share my thoughts on this. I already explained it more comprehensively five years ago in my article "Why and How to Reform Capitalism", but I will briefly summarize my views here.The only way to prevent civil war and work together to drive real improvements is to form a very strong moderate. This powerful moderate is made up of bipartisan figures who have banded together to win over the extremists and reform the system and its structural problems - reforming the system to work for most people by creating universal productivity and prosperity.I have a lot of ideas about how to do this, but my ideas are not as important now (or ever) compared to the need for this bipartisan reform.
Every great winning movement starts with a great leader, so if I had a wish, it would be to have a strong bipartisan leader with the support of the political middle class. Members of this middle layer will share more values with each other despite belonging to different parties than with the extremists within their own party, so they will fight and win against those from the extremes, uniting the country and winning. They will make major reforms to ensure the system works well for most people.
My dream is to have a president who goes beyond cooperation between the two parties and accepts the opinions of both parties. By having a bipartisan cabinet and convening a long-term constitutional amendment conference involving wise and centrist figures from both parties, we pursue system reforms that provide equal opportunities and means for the majority to function productively. It may be an idealistic dream, but one in which members of both parties who believe that cooperation is necessary to solve problems would define themselves as "bipartisan" and form a group with a casting vote in the House and Senate. Of course, this requires some courage to distance ourselves from party extremists. This kind of courage is needed for two-party democracy rather than a civil war-like situation.
I was curious about what a bipartisan pledge would look like, so I checked what the majority (60%) thought about major controversies in the United States. Although people argue and are sometimes divided according to their preferences, most moderates share an opinion that is preferable to the platform of extremists. The picture below is a list of agendas shared by over 60% of Americans. This could be the foundation for a bipartisan agenda.
I also think that each state in the United States will inevitably go in its own direction. People will increasingly move to states that suit their beliefs and circumstances, and states will stand up to national government for the direction they pursue. This is the opposite phenomenon that has been happening for decades. The power of the national and state governments has been tilted far more toward the national government than our forefathers had intended when they wrote the Constitution. I believe that the best path forward is for the majority of Americans to take a bipartisan view and achieve bipartisan reform of the system and greater recognition of federal sovereignty.
I believe the best course of action is to move towards the strong bipartisan center that most Americans want, while working on bipartisan reform to reform the system and recognizing more power for the states. The chances of this happening are very small, so the most important thing is to pay attention and observe what is happening to you and those around you. I hope my content will be helpful to you.