Why is it, so often, we paint nominees as crusaders for ideals rather than, as Biden so clearly is, career politicians who compromised their idealism long ago? Why does such an obvious seeming...
Why is it, so often, we paint nominees as crusaders for ideals rather than, as Biden so clearly is, career politicians who compromised their idealism long ago?
Why does such an obvious seeming truth perpetually require retrospect?
The article hints at an interesting point, intentionally or not... If we see a large swing in the senate, and the house stays progressive, we could indeed see a lot of change during a Biden administration.
But we don't have to pretend Biden is someone he isn't for that to happen.
I don't think Biden is faking anything. He's open about how he's coordinating stuff, and he's arguably not operating in his own best interest in doing so. I think, by and large, he's responding to...
I don't think Biden is faking anything. He's open about how he's coordinating stuff, and he's arguably not operating in his own best interest in doing so. I think, by and large, he's responding to the validity of new opinions among his constituents, rather than trying to sell New Biden, with the Fresh Hip Flavor. ^tm Hopefully, he can at least prove to be a good organizer of a progressive cabinet, which would be the more important thing for a president to do.
I'm also ready to see him come up short in his term against a Republican Congress, like Obama, but that'll depend on how those elections go. I'd rather aim low, than aim high like I did Obama and be burned again. (I'll be voting Biden, though)
I can't stand articles like this. Seeing this same unbelievable narrative getting carried by multiple news outlets feels so gross. We're watching the larval stage of consent manufacturing. Getting...
I can't stand articles like this. Seeing this same unbelievable narrative getting carried by multiple news outlets feels so gross. We're watching the larval stage of consent manufacturing.
Getting Trump out of office is a fine enough reason to justify voting for Biden. These delusions that 78 year old Biden is going to turn around and govern contrary to his entire past career are just so silly and seem like the same types of mental gymnastics Trumpists do. It kills me to see the left falling into the same nonsense as the right.
My gut rejects the idea to the core, but looking at history I can't help but think it's right. Progressives will never be in a position to both get elected and have the support to push their...
My gut rejects the idea to the core, but looking at history I can't help but think it's right.
Progressives will never be in a position to both get elected and have the support to push their agenda through, by definition progressive ideas are on the cutting edge. They look for issues and come up with a way to fix it, there is no traditionalism. By the time those policies have made it into law they belong to such a large (and now older) group of people they can't be called quite as "progressive" anymore, instead they come from the moderate left with a larger but more weary base capable of doing the political work to make it happen.
That's not to say that the far left doesn't serve a purpose, their job is to spread awareness for these new ideas even if they likely won't get them into law for many years. It's a symbiotic relationship that neither is doing consciously. One side attacks the cultural views while the other gathers widespread political capital to grind through the bureaucracy.
That's why despite how much I might trash the moderate left status quo in the primaries, when it comes time to vote I have a duty to vote for incremental change.
Today's moderates are yesterday's progressives.
Obviously this is all a simplified rant but I can't think of any other theory for why in general the world continually pushes towards the left.
I personally didn't interpret the article as advocating for that, but instead pointing out the under appreciation at the moment towards candidates that sell their revolutionary policies as being...
I personally didn't interpret the article as advocating for that, but instead pointing out the under appreciation at the moment towards candidates that sell their revolutionary policies as being less than they really are. For the last 6 years or so, the rage has been all about candidates that promise revolution, change, and upheaval, and I think the author is making the case that with how tired people are of drama and controversy, someone like Biden who sells themself as being mild-mannered and conciliatory might go over way better with voters, even if their policies don't really reflect that. You can have politicians from minority backgrounds that also act this way, and I think Buttigieg was actually a decent example of this - he was openly LGBT and not really all that much less progressive than Warren, but he polled way better among older voters because he presented himself as this moderate, non-controversial candidate.
In the words of Admiral Adama, "It's not enough to survive. One must be worthy of survival." If Biden wins and can't meaningfully move the needle on anything while in charge, then we can say hello...
In the words of Admiral Adama, "It's not enough to survive. One must be worthy of survival."
If Biden wins and can't meaningfully move the needle on anything while in charge, then we can say hello to President Tucker Carlson and goosestepping brownshirts in the streets by 2024. I'm glad to see that he seems to somewhat understand the urgency of the situation in spite of his prior "I have no sympathy for these whiny millennials" rhetoric earlier in the campaign.
Why is it, so often, we paint nominees as crusaders for ideals rather than, as Biden so clearly is, career politicians who compromised their idealism long ago?
Why does such an obvious seeming truth perpetually require retrospect?
The article hints at an interesting point, intentionally or not... If we see a large swing in the senate, and the house stays progressive, we could indeed see a lot of change during a Biden administration.
But we don't have to pretend Biden is someone he isn't for that to happen.
I don't think Biden is faking anything. He's open about how he's coordinating stuff, and he's arguably not operating in his own best interest in doing so. I think, by and large, he's responding to the validity of new opinions among his constituents, rather than trying to sell New Biden, with the Fresh Hip Flavor. ^tm Hopefully, he can at least prove to be a good organizer of a progressive cabinet, which would be the more important thing for a president to do.
I'm also ready to see him come up short in his term against a Republican Congress, like Obama, but that'll depend on how those elections go. I'd rather aim low, than aim high like I did Obama and be burned again. (I'll be voting Biden, though)
I can't stand articles like this. Seeing this same unbelievable narrative getting carried by multiple news outlets feels so gross. We're watching the larval stage of consent manufacturing.
Getting Trump out of office is a fine enough reason to justify voting for Biden. These delusions that 78 year old Biden is going to turn around and govern contrary to his entire past career are just so silly and seem like the same types of mental gymnastics Trumpists do. It kills me to see the left falling into the same nonsense as the right.
My gut rejects the idea to the core, but looking at history I can't help but think it's right.
Progressives will never be in a position to both get elected and have the support to push their agenda through, by definition progressive ideas are on the cutting edge. They look for issues and come up with a way to fix it, there is no traditionalism. By the time those policies have made it into law they belong to such a large (and now older) group of people they can't be called quite as "progressive" anymore, instead they come from the moderate left with a larger but more weary base capable of doing the political work to make it happen.
That's not to say that the far left doesn't serve a purpose, their job is to spread awareness for these new ideas even if they likely won't get them into law for many years. It's a symbiotic relationship that neither is doing consciously. One side attacks the cultural views while the other gathers widespread political capital to grind through the bureaucracy.
That's why despite how much I might trash the moderate left status quo in the primaries, when it comes time to vote I have a duty to vote for incremental change.
Today's moderates are yesterday's progressives.
Obviously this is all a simplified rant but I can't think of any other theory for why in general the world continually pushes towards the left.
I personally didn't interpret the article as advocating for that, but instead pointing out the under appreciation at the moment towards candidates that sell their revolutionary policies as being less than they really are. For the last 6 years or so, the rage has been all about candidates that promise revolution, change, and upheaval, and I think the author is making the case that with how tired people are of drama and controversy, someone like Biden who sells themself as being mild-mannered and conciliatory might go over way better with voters, even if their policies don't really reflect that. You can have politicians from minority backgrounds that also act this way, and I think Buttigieg was actually a decent example of this - he was openly LGBT and not really all that much less progressive than Warren, but he polled way better among older voters because he presented himself as this moderate, non-controversial candidate.
In the words of Admiral Adama, "It's not enough to survive. One must be worthy of survival."
If Biden wins and can't meaningfully move the needle on anything while in charge, then we can say hello to President Tucker Carlson and goosestepping brownshirts in the streets by 2024. I'm glad to see that he seems to somewhat understand the urgency of the situation in spite of his prior "I have no sympathy for these whiny millennials" rhetoric earlier in the campaign.