I'm not a Democrat, I'm Progressive. And I deeply resent that I'm not offered any progressive choices in America. Yet the Democrats, and the Democratic base, fucking despise me because I'll say...
Exemplary
I'm not a Democrat, I'm Progressive. And I deeply resent that I'm not offered any progressive choices in America. Yet the Democrats, and the Democratic base, fucking despise me because I'll say Democrats suck and aren't on my side.
Democrats are basically fiscal conservatives. They're what Republicans were up to about the 70s, maybe mid-80s. Today's Republican brain trust is just as fiscally conservative as they always were, but they have colorful streak of social conservatism they play up to capture the Republican base. Which isn't very financially conservative, but is strongly social conservative.
Today's Democrats, the Democrat "brain trust", are quite happy with how things are financially. They all get their payments. The big dogs in business come knocking, offer money and inducements, and go away with either laws they want, or the absence of laws they objected to. Meanwhile, little people get five minutes, or a form letter from their Congresscritter that says "yeah no, but thanks for voting" when they have a concern.
By that measurement, Democrats don't have to have an actual brain trust. They can just let the Republicans do it all, since the Democrats pretty much want the same financial things Republicans do; to enable the rich, to not help the poor, and keep kicking the can down the road so it's the populace's problem if people starve or die of lacking healthcare.
I'm not cynical, I'm a realist. For decades I've observed what doesn't happen. What doesn't happen is helping the populace. Democrats don't help little people. They talk like they will. Some small pieces of help are given brief airtime on the campaign trail ... but they never actually help. Not really. Not meaningfully. Somehow the campaign talking points just disappear after the elections, only to creep back in as the next one rolls around.
Take the ACA, for example. The initial design required everyone in the country to pay for healthcare. At the market rate. I wonder whose idea that was; oh yeah, insurance companies thought that was a fucking fine idea. No actual efforts to control the costs or enforce affordability; just a requirement to open your checkbook and pay, pay, pay.
The Act talked about how those who were poor could have access to exchanges, where affordable policies would be available. But there were penalties (since overturned) for not having a policy. And to someone living below the poverty line, it is absolutely crippling regardless of if you were being fined, or shelling out for the policy that you can't access anyway due to co-payments and deductibles and policy limits.
Notice how, when they wanted to "fix" healthcare, they didn't harness the power of the government as the Big Dog in the country. How they don't set up their own drug supply lines, create pipelines to pay for medical personnel to be trained in exchange for community medical service, to remove middlemen like insurers from the system, negotiate services and supplies in bulk at the national level, and so on. How they do nothing to actually manage and rein in spiraling medical costs, which there are many, many ways to do that somehow aren't done.
One could name things for a long time that do nothing except drive up the cost of American healthcare, that are still allowed. That even flourish and expand to take still more profit each year. Always creating greater and greater wealth for these people who've inserted themselves into the midst of a captive market.
Yet the Dems waved the ACA about like it was a great thing. Like it was the fix. Which it wasn't. It just kicked the can down the road, and (thanks to lobbying) ensured the middlemen stayed in the middle, pocketing their cuts. Which continue to grow. Medical debt is destroying everyone who isn't rich, and somehow nothing is done. Why not? Because the people making money off disease and injury ensure the few who could change it don't do a thing to interfere with the profits.
Healthcare, and being afraid of Trump, are the Democrat versions of Abortion and Gender to the Republicans. Something they use to whip their base and drive turnout. Not something they want to actually do anything about, just something they want to talking point so you're shamed (or outraged) into voting for them.
The Republican problem is their base has managed to drink too much of the Kool-aid. And some of the people who've smacked their lips with gusto after draining the pitcher have ended up "catching the car" they were never meant to. Abortion Rights was a boogyman designed to get conservative Joe Schmoes riled up, not something to "fix." Fixing it has given the Democrats a car for their base to chase, taking it away from the Republicans.
About the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on in America, other than that they like business paying them to keep the money flowing, is they don't want any version or form of ranked choice voting. Or anything similar, or anything remotely designed to do effectively the same thing it would. Namely, remove the crowbar they have of offering only two choices. Because when there's only two, they have a boogyman to scare voters like me with.
I can't support a Progressive candidate because such candidates aren't allowed to run. Those candidates are told they have to be Democrats. And they're infected and controlled by the Democrat brain trust. Those backroomers make sure any waves these annoying bright eyed optimists make are small, and soon end as they nudge them into line to stop with the boat rocking.
The progressives aren't allowed to form together into their own party. Oh no, that would guarantee the "left" loses to the right, since half of half is less than half.
If voting was proportional, voters could see where they all stand. Someone like me could join with others in voting for someone who actually represents my values and concerns. And those candidates could have visibility, have platforms to rise up to be seen. Other voters could see them, and perhaps think "oh, you mean that's an option? You can think like that? I didn't know, but here's someone who is and ... hmm, that's interesting."
No, can't have that. Crowbar, binary, toe the line. Control the citizenry. Comply, comply.
I an exceptionally disappointed with, and tired of, Democrats. The only problem is the Republicans are actually worse. They will do just as little (nothing, to be specific) to help little people, and will further actively shit all over people just because they can and want to.
Just as the Republicans whip their base up with the fear of "the Democrats want your kids to be oogled in a bathroom by a tranny", the Democrats wave rainbow flags and Trump pictures while tisking at me for daring to ask "what are you doing for me?"
Don't I know how evil and horrible Trump is? Yes, but can we talk about fiscal policy and wealth inequality? No, you just want to remind me how bad Trump is? What about how everyone I know is getting poorer and can't always afford rent or food, can't go to the doctor when they're sick? No, just Trump bad? Yes, I know he's bad, but what about ... right, Trump bad. I get it, but can we get back to .... yes, again, Trump is bad. Oh never fucking mind.
Because of first-past-the-post, I'm basically fucked. Because no matter who I do, or don't, vote for, neither of them gives a damn about me. The Democrats will dangle their boogymen at me during election season, then win or lose vanish back into their backroom clouds of cigar smoke afterwards. Where they do things like figure out how to control the handful of progressives so they don't make any headway in moving the brain trust left.
Because, in American politics, moving left is moving away from the money. Big Business is all about the money. They won't pay for politicians who don't support the money. A politician who wants to dismantle for-profit healthcare? Fuck that, who can we give money to ensuring that never happens? A politician who wants affordable housing? Fuck that, here's a check vote against that shit. Affordable healthcare? Fuck that, here's a check.
There's been speculation in recent years that the Democrat brain trust is inept. Very possible. It's also possible, just as much so in my view, that they're actually smart enough to know they can just let the Republicans do all the work while taking most of the heat. Which lets the bigwig Dems keep collecting without having to be nearly as reviled as their counterparts with Rs after their names.
At this point, this is where readers who are gay, or gender identified, or some social concern, tumble out of the woodwork to try to shame me. How dare I say the Dems are the same as the Repugs. Don't I know the Repugs want to outlaw sexual and gender identities? Don't I know how evil that is? How can I equate D and R when that's in play.
Which is my fucking point. While we're arguing back and forth over social concerns, the money keeps flowing away from you and me. The rich get richer, the politicians keep lining their pockets, no actual change in the financial inequality of America takes place, and the social issues are the cars we're told to chase.
Here is also the point where I have to fend off the accusations. No, I don't want people hunted down, jailed, or anything of the sort. People should be allowed to live their lives in peace, as long as they don't bother others. Want to be gay; be gay! Want to marry your gay partner; marry! Want to explore gender roles; that's between you and whoever agrees to support or facilitate it and I have zero interest in stopping you.
Such readers are a hostage being used to threaten me. Give up on wealth equality, affordable healthcare, equitable housing, or the (insert oppressed class here) gets it in the back of the neck! That's what I'm being threatened with, and it's just as evil as it sounds. And just as upsetting.
What I want is some actual controls on the wealth inequality. For the phrase "rich enough" to have some kind of damn meaning. For healthcare to be managed as a realistic and necessary part of life, rather than an unending profit center. For housing to be for housing citizens rather than serving as an investment vehicle.
What I want I can't get without politicians who will work toward it. And I can't get those politicians when the only two choices are "Evil Conservatives" and "Quiet Conservatives." Which are the only two choices American political parties want to offer me.
I'm really, really hoping someone with charisma and charm, who's as upset as I am, will rise up to rally the masses. Because that's what it takes. Being angry, being able to spot the problem, isn't enough. People don't follow truth, they follow charisma. They follow leaders, and leaders are charismatic.
The only real chance I think the country has is that as the fist keeps squeezing, someone on social media will actually use it for what it can do. To reach out and organize. Influencers are laughable because they use their power for greedy, petty, shallow purposes like making money and looking cool.
Somewhere, I hope, is an AOC type. Who'll take the platform of their Tiktok or Twitter or Instagram or whatever the fuck, and start rallying people to stand with them. Someone who has the charm and talent to draw people in. Someone who wants actual change driven by and for the people.
That person can maybe fix this. That person will have the human capital at their fingertips to effect change. Not affect it, effect it. To enact it. To construct and implement it. A person who has first thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions of people behind them.
Someone who can't be ignored. Someone who isn't brushed aside by the news cycle because of the groundswell they'll be at the head of. Someone who uses their power not for selfish gain, but to effect national consensus that By the People For the People shouldn't be a slogan from a document we mostly ignore. That person will be able to take us off this path of destruction we're on.
Someone who'll give the Democrats and Republicans something else to agree on; they'll both hate that person. We really need that person. Because this shit we're all stuck in right now is destroying us.
No offense, but I think a lot of your conclusions are a bit misguided. For example, the ACA DID and continues to help many many small people. For one it makes it so you can't discriminate based on...
No offense, but I think a lot of your conclusions are a bit misguided. For example, the ACA DID and continues to help many many small people. For one it makes it so you can't discriminate based on pre existing conditions and extended parental coverage to yr 25.
And with regards to setting up your own government funded pharmacy... That would be very costly and very technically challenging. What we would get is essentially the same industry as our defense industry, but for Healthcare. And our defense industry is not cost effective
Not to mention the fact that the Dems have moved significantly to the left over the last decade. Joe Biden is by far the most left wing president in decades, but because he has old man vibes no...
Exemplary
Not to mention the fact that the Dems have moved significantly to the left over the last decade. Joe Biden is by far the most left wing president in decades, but because he has old man vibes no one online cares about the actual policy he’s implemented. Literally the first president in history to join the picket line with striking workers, FTC and DOJ blocking mergers on antitrust lines, an incredible amount of climate action in the inflation reduction act along with finally allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a huge restructuring of the student loan system even after SCOTUS blocked mass cancellation.
I feel like many, many people have not updated their understanding of where the parties lie today. The democrats have adopted the best ideas of the left and are practically a social democratic party at this point, outside of a few moderate holdouts. Meanwhile the Trumpists have taken over the republican party to such a degree that your typical non-engaged republican voter doesn’t understand at all.
The 90’s alignment of both parties being pretty much the same in most ways is dead but that won’t stop the online rants because Joe Biden doesn’t have revolutionary vibes and I guess that’s all that matters.
Thanks for making this post. I thought about writing something similar, because the GP's post makes a lot of hyperbolic claims that undermine his overall position. The ACA was touted as a win....
Thanks for making this post. I thought about writing something similar, because the GP's post makes a lot of hyperbolic claims that undermine his overall position.
The ACA was touted as a win. Certainly not a be-all-end-all fix. The democrats had tried to pass more comprehensive reform, but that was famously torpedoed by Joe Lieberman right before he basically switched to become a republican. Also, the 2009-2011 era (the only time when the democratic party had enough control to reliably pass legislation) was a fraught time. The damage caused by 2008 was in full swing, and George W. Bush basically set the tone of the response by issuing massive bailouts/TARP and then handed it off to Obama and the democrats. The national discourse at the time was focused on the fact that people were losing their houses to greedy bankers. Pushing a large spending increase for health care through at that time would not have been politically feasible. I think, if it had been, the democrats would have don it (remember, they tried before, but Joe Lieberman tanked it).
It's easy to look back today and say, "Yep, the democrats missed their best opportunity to pass sweeping health care reform in 2010," but this wasn't obvious at that time.
I agree with the desire for more progress and more progressive action from politicians, and the democratic party could be a lot better about funding and promoting more fiscally social policies. But we need to make these arguments without hyperbole.
This r/sanepolitics post is rather insightful and furthers one of your points: the Dems have really only had a working supermajority for around six months (July 2009 - February 2010) since 1994....
This r/sanepolitics post is rather insightful and furthers one of your points: the Dems have really only had a working supermajority for around six months (July 2009 - February 2010) since 1994. There was only so much they could’ve done in that time, especially since they were spending a lot of political capital on the ACA.
I think it’s also important to consider that the U.S. Constitution was one of the earliest ones written and still in use, and that for a first attempt, it was good. But there’s a lot more modern documents out that that would work better, and I’d love to copy/paste the German basic law with some updates for an American context. At the same time, I worry that calling a constitutional convention would destabilize things further, and that we’d never arrive at a workable replacement.
I agree that a corporatocracy has gripped the effective wing of the Democratic Party, but I wouldn't use the ACA as an example of them "not helping little people". First off, it was heavily...
Democrats don't help little people....
Take the ACA, for example.
I agree that a corporatocracy has gripped the effective wing of the Democratic Party, but I wouldn't use the ACA as an example of them "not helping little people". First off, it was heavily modeled after Romney's health care system in Massachusetts (largely written by a Heritage Foundation member), but it was also an improvement over what we had and a bill Obama and the Dems at the time thought could actually pass because (see above). Those Dems didn't let the perfect be the enemy of progress.
Yeah the OP here makes valid points overall, but passing the ACA was maybe one of the most effective uses of American political power in the 21st century. It was the most expansive policy that...
Yeah the OP here makes valid points overall, but passing the ACA was maybe one of the most effective uses of American political power in the 21st century. It was the most expansive policy that stood a chance of passing, it would've even had a public option except for the hold out of Lieberman. And it proved so effective and popular, that even when the Republicans controlled all three chambers in 2017 after having campaigned on repealing Obamacare, the votes to repeal it weren't there.
It's shitty that we Americans have to fight for these absolute scraps of a decent livelihood, but until we learn the secret to deprogramming the conservative cult, this is the reality we have to navigate. I'm sure I'll keep being disappointed that Democrats are not more progressive, but it's night and day when the other party just dismantled Roe and are smacking their lips at the prospect of stripping away even more of our rights.
How do you feel about recent student debt cancellation or subsidies for household adoption of clean energy? More broadly, investment in semiconductors and infrastructure along with the inflation...
More broadly, investment in semiconductors and infrastructure along with the inflation reduction act are intended to provide a broader economic and manufacturing base that should hopefully support American jobs.
Yeah, the healthcare system isn’t ideal, but fixing it - when there are so many stake holders with financial interests - is no easy task. At least the poor have (somewhat expensive) coverage now, although there is definitely room for improvement.
I’m anything but an expert when it comes to politics, but I think that many of these problems would sort themselves out if there were as much of an imperative to separate money and state as there...
I’m anything but an expert when it comes to politics, but I think that many of these problems would sort themselves out if there were as much of an imperative to separate money and state as there is to separate church and state, with those found to be abusing their position to enrich themselves, their parties, or their connections quickly finding themselves deposed.
Your grievances are shared by many, I believe, even by those who don’t have as well-defined political identities. It’s awful for the only available choices to be slow decline in the status quo or for everything to be burned down in a backslide into facism.
Not sure if Ranked Choice Voting is a real solution. This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem demonstrates that any procedure for choosing from 3 or more alternatives is...
Not sure if Ranked Choice Voting is a real solution. This
demonstrates that any procedure for choosing from 3 or more alternatives is going to have problems. It seems almost certain to me that if the pattern of having one party that frequently wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote continues it will eventually lead to a political crisis of some sort. We just don't need any additional complexity that will cause strange results that people won't understand and that will make people question the legitimacy of elections more than they already do.
I dislike where the 2-party system has wound up, I used to be an activist in the Green Party, we got 25% of the vote for Ralph Nader in a city near me and I've been a fundraiser at Howie Hawkin's house. Still I am not impressed with multi-party democracies like Germany, Italy in Israel. Germany has a legendary ability to equivocate about absolutely everything such as shutting down nuclear power plants, supporting Ukraine, even buying helmets for their soldiers. For a long time it has been common to have coalitions between parties that fundamentally disagree about most things: a cynic would think that the the three biggest parties will get together to shut out the smaller parties to create a system that has basically the same intention as the U.S. system. Meanwhile Italy and Israel have both had chaotic systems that have been dominated by right-wing politicians that never seem to fade away.
Firstly, Arrow only deals with ranking options. Not 3 or more options. The difference seems pedantic, but it's not. Secondly, Arrow himself said the first thing he would do to improve elections is...
Firstly, Arrow only deals with ranking options. Not 3 or more options. The difference seems pedantic, but it's not.
Secondly, Arrow himself said the first thing he would do to improve elections is to use one of the ranked systems that he proved were imperfect.
I think in the current climate, any system that would allow left wing candidates to say "I prefer Biden/Clinton to <moderate third party candidate>, and prefer <moderate third party candidate> to Trump". And for right wing candidates to say "I prefer Trump to <moderate third party candidate>, and prefer <moderate third party candidate> to Biden/Clinton" would be very interesting. Suddenly you'd end up with a moderate third party candidate. The third party would get funding and viable candidates because the odds of a third party winning go way up when voters hate the other team more than they like their own candidate.
I don't even think this has to be true for your example to work. On a left-to-right political spectrum, anyone who falls on either side of the centrist candidate's section would always be more...
The third party would get funding and viable candidates because the odds of a third party winning go way up when voters hate the other team more than they like their own candidate.
I don't even think this has to be true for your example to work. On a left-to-right political spectrum, anyone who falls on either side of the centrist candidate's section would always be more likely to list the moderate as their second choice. It's not necessarily spiting the other party, just settling for second best.
Of course it's never safe to assume people act perfectly rationally but on the whole I think the pattern would stand.
We’ve already had an attempted coup by a sitting, but defeated, President. We’ve also had the Supreme Court stacked with partisans such that voting rights and civil rights are being struck down at...
It seems almost certain to me that if the pattern of having one party that frequently wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote continues it will eventually lead to a political crisis of some sort.
We’ve already had an attempted coup by a sitting, but defeated, President. We’ve also had the Supreme Court stacked with partisans such that voting rights and civil rights are being struck down at will on the flimsiest of legal reasoning. And one of the two major parties attempts to force the country to default on its debts every time they are given the reigns on power, and it’s only a matter of time before the center fails to hold.
The political crises are already here. The system is resilient enough to plod along despite them, but it gets weaker every time.
Although I don't think courting far-right voters is a good strategy for the Democrats (much better to try to drive turnout of their voters by delivering for them), I do think it's important to see...
Although I don't think courting far-right voters is a good strategy for the Democrats (much better to try to drive turnout of their voters by delivering for them), I do think it's important to see how effective a political machine conservatives have. Even if they hate each other (like many leftists) they hate their opponents more, and are pretty single-minded in terms of trying to implement their (bad) ideas.
It would be nice if the left could try to regain some of this organsing power it had during e.g. the Civil Rights Movement.
Just a hot take inbound. The right also has an unbelievable amount of capital, and in a capitalist system gives them a pretty significant boost. I think if progressive agendas had access to the...
Just a hot take inbound. The right also has an unbelievable amount of capital, and in a capitalist system gives them a pretty significant boost. I think if progressive agendas had access to the same level of funding we'd be living in a very different world, but because the agendas and ideals are at odds with consolidated capital we'll never see it.
I think this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action is one of the most disturbing books ever written as it explains exactly why the right wing seems to win all the time....
is one of the most disturbing books ever written as it explains exactly why the right wing seems to win all the time. Unfortunately we've gotten in the habit of thinking a "minority" is an outgroup that has it worse than the "majority" but many important "minorities" are privileged.
A billionaire can put $25 million into a foundation and know how the money is spent. In theory a group of 1 million people could chip in $25 but groups like that have no accountability so many people will balk at donating and we've got a lot of experience with groups like that becoming corrupt (like the NRA) or simply spending 90% of the donations they get on getting more donations like a turbocharger that creates a seemingly large monetary flow that justifies huge salaries for executives.
in the Bush years and immediately thought "that explains the Clinton years!"
There is one case study of a tinpot dictator who wants to maximize how much he can steal from the government but knows that he has to deliver some spoils to his constituents to stay in power. I think it explains Clinton's "triangulation". If a politician won by a landslide they could claim a mandate and would feel a lot of pressure to deliver on their promises. Opposition can create a form of theater: when Clinton got impeached for lying about having an affair, the National Organization for Women came to his aid! They, as well as environmental and other Democrat-aligned groups were not going to complain about broken promises and a lack of action (got our last Clean Air Act in the Reagan years) I think Clinton might have been much more happy to win 50.1% of the vote at risk of losing with 49.9% of the vote and having freedom to give patronage to K Street organizations than to win 65% of the vote but risk his supporters turning on him.
That book has a great analysis also of South Africa from which led me to this conclusion:
Imagine a country like South Africa where (roughly) 10% of the population is privileged. Say they steal just 25% of what the other 90% makes, that roughly doubles their standard of living and certainly buys their political support. If the numbers are reversed, say 90% of the population steals from 10% and the privileged people steal everything from the underclass and only increase their standard of living by about 10%. That's not a going concern the way the first society is. (Note a corporation can steal $1 from 200 million people and you might not even notice!)
I'd say the word "minority" in US political discourse is hazardous and in particular using blacks as a model for what a "minority" is leads Democrats and their hangers-on to disaster over and over again. It seems every 4 years as long as I can remember some Democrats boast about Hispanics being the most rapidly growing demographic and they are a minority like blacks so they're going to vote for us so pretty soon we will win all the time and not have to work hard to win... And every time they are blindsided when Hispanics don't vote for them and they never seem to remember what happened in the last election.
Oh that is definitely a big part of it, but I still think they are often pretty strategic and good at capturing specific institutions, e.g. the legal system. Historically left wing groups have...
Oh that is definitely a big part of it, but I still think they are often pretty strategic and good at capturing specific institutions, e.g. the legal system. Historically left wing groups have also been able to do this really successfully (e.g. Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) so I think it's also partially about working out better long term strategies for change.
Absolutely, I think it's just easier to "weather the storm" as it were with the excess capital. If most of your constituents can't afford short term losses for long term gain then you can't...
Absolutely, I think it's just easier to "weather the storm" as it were with the excess capital. If most of your constituents can't afford short term losses for long term gain then you can't meaningfully run on long term strategies. I think it's an overlooked part of wealth, it allows for generational planning.
Thats because generally it's a one-way transaction, where we offer them empathy and they offer nothing in return. Or perhaps they then throw pig blood at us and call us baby murders for supporting...
Many on the left take pride in their empathy but then do the curious thing of applying that to everyone but right-wingers
Thats because generally it's a one-way transaction, where we offer them empathy and they offer nothing in return. Or perhaps they then throw pig blood at us and call us baby murders for supporting letting rape victims get abortions. Eventually you don't bother and just reflect their vitrol back at them.
And I'm saying this as someone that transitioned from right-wing bigot, to libertarian, to centerist, to leftist as I got older. It took being exposed outside of the right-wing bubble to even begin that process.
I disagree that the right "understands the world better." The left understands the world perfectly well. It's just that when examining it, the right largely sees the world as being just fine, or better before we let all those minorities have rights. And the left (correctly) sees that worldview as a persistent threat against the progress that has been made.
Dobbs is all the proof I need to see what happens when the left gives the right the benefit of the doubt. The left generally acts in good faith, and the right does not.
You're continuing to damn the left with faint praise, and this is a trend I've noticed throughout your posts here. You claim "the right" - which just recently claimed that The United States is not...
You're continuing to damn the left with faint praise, and this is a trend I've noticed throughout your posts here.
You claim "the right" - which just recently claimed that The United States is not a racist country - as being "grounded in reality." May I ask, what reality are they grounded in?
You claim "the left" refuse to compromise, and yet the left-wing groups in the US government continue to compromise, both within the Democratic Party and with the Republicans where able. If anyone is unwilling to compromise, it has historically been the right - which is almost exclusively the Republican Party.
I would argue that your example of Biden being one of the most effective achievers of progressive policy is exemplary of the fact that the left DOES compromise - seeing as how a majority of Biden's achievements would not have been possible without support from the left-wing side of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have been almost exclusively opposed to everything Biden does.
As someone who grew up right-leaning but has leaned left with age, while I can understand and even somewhat empathize with some right-wing viewpoints, I have yet to find practical uses for this...
As someone who grew up right-leaning but has leaned left with age, while I can understand and even somewhat empathize with some right-wing viewpoints, I have yet to find practical uses for this ability. It’s theoretically helpful in conversation/debate, but the problem here is that these topics never naturally come up when interacting with individuals who are willing to hear you out, no matter the approach taken.
I don’t agree that right-wing views are inherently more grounded. They might appear more grounded at a quick glance but many don’t hold up very well to any amount of scrutiny. Unfortunately, popular appeal relies chiefly on superficialities and emotional engagement, which is why right-wing populism has legs.
The left absolutely has a problem with letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, though, that I absolutely agree with. It’s resulted in a lot of dysfunction as legitimately well-meaning people get tangled up trying to do better.
Coalitions also change over time. "Movement conservatism" headlined by the likes of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Rush Limbaugh had a really good run for 50 years but...
Coalitions also change over time. "Movement conservatism" headlined by the likes of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Rush Limbaugh had a really good run for 50 years but Trump found a formula that sells a lot better. It's not inevitable that a Christian conservative is going to get behind economic libertarianism when that means corporations are all the more free to undermine traditional values. For a long time it seemed clear to me that anti-immigration policies would sell really well but the Republican establishment kept it off the table. It was so surreal to see every other Republican go around to various groups, kiss rings, and promise to support the same conservative orthodoxies in 2016 and Trump made it look so easy to pick policies that were popular among voters instead of donors.
The other replies seem to miss the point that while understanding how someone becomes right-wing may not be the key to convincing them to change their views, it is an indispensable tool in...
to view your adversary as being motivated by hate tends to occlude a holistic understanding of how they function and are motivated, resulting in underestimating their capabilities and being less effective at countering them.
The other replies seem to miss the point that while understanding how someone becomes right-wing may not be the key to convincing them to change their views, it is an indispensable tool in understanding how to stop centrists, the apathetic, and normies from entering the right-wing recruitment funnel. "You do realize we're right" is profoundly unconvincing.
Also, it would do well to separate "the right" into conservatives who wish to preserve the current status quo (or return to no more than a decade ago) and reactionaries who are less economically focused and wish to return social norms to at least one generation back.
This was a central thesis of a recent episode of the Arthro Pod when it comes to dealing with cases of delusory parasitosis. Their sensations are real, even if it's all in their head. They may be...
The object of their terror may not be real, but their terror is.
Yeah, people either missed the point or attacked me, so there wasn't much use in responding.
I feel like I ought to be more generous with the noise tag around here. These conversations seem to be quickly filled with highly-upvoted inter-left/lib duckspeak or people trying to convince us the author isn't writing in good faith instead of engaging with any points an author made.
What part(s) of your linked response is duckspeak? I speak from what I consider to be a pretty left-wing standpoint and none of that sounded particularly controversial or confusing, which is why...
What part(s) of your linked response is duckspeak? I speak from what I consider to be a pretty left-wing standpoint and none of that sounded particularly controversial or confusing, which is why I'm not sure what parts of it are duckspeak.
EDIT TO ADD: Turns out I misinterpreted the meaning of duckspeak. Leaving my misinterpretation up all the same.
As far as engaging in points that authors make, it's probably something all of us could work on, myself included. But it doesn't help when questions are posed but not answered.
I edited my post to clarify that the link about duckspeak provided the definition, not an example. For an example of duckspeak, the responses to this comment are the "very smart" rhetoric more at...
I edited my post to clarify that the link about duckspeak provided the definition, not an example.
For an example of duckspeak, the responses to this comment are the "very smart" rhetoric more at home on Hacker News than good-faith discussion. [Reddit would've just went for an insult like "OK, Hitler"]
Grounded in reality? 70% of them believe the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. They live in a fantasy world.
I would credit the right-wing as overall being more pragmatic, where they accept the world at it is and working within those confines - they are more likely to be grounded in reality.
What was January 6th, if not some tough-talking right-wing conspiracy theorists taking their guns to attempt to prevent a perceived tyrannical takeover?
That's why for all their tough talk, all their guns supposedly needed to prevent tyrannical takeovers, Republicans did absolutely nothing about the country's presidency supposedly being stolen.
What was January 6th, if not some tough-talking right-wing conspiracy theorists taking their guns to attempt to prevent a perceived tyrannical takeover?
There’s been a historiographic trope in this vein since at least the French Revolution. The basic premise is that the right is focused around maintaining a commonly-understood status quo, while...
Exemplary
There’s been a historiographic trope in this vein since at least the French Revolution.
The basic premise is that the right is focused around maintaining a commonly-understood status quo, while leftist progressives and reformers want to leave that status quo. However, there are many possible directions to move away in, and those progressives and reformers are rarely homogenous in their assessment of what direction to move in, as well as how far to travel from the former path.
Thus, reform comes in large, bursty eruptions - as it relies on a critical mass of a society’s population coming to the consensus that the status quo needs to change, then fizzles out once the reformers have power, and consensus fades as the marginally-less-radical decide the reform has gone far enough.
Some examples of this pattern include 1840s European reform era (with the grand fizzling of 1848), American 1870s/1910s labor movements, and the Civil Rights Movement.
Thank you for correctly explaining left vs right in political science. However I would clarify that the right is interested in further entrenching the status quo, or sometimes even “returning to...
Thank you for correctly explaining left vs right in political science. However I would clarify that the right is interested in further entrenching the status quo, or sometimes even “returning to the old ways” (reactionism). And also, the “left” is not just about “leaving” the status quo for its own sake, but specifically in order to address inequities in society that are perceived to be perpetuated by that status quo.
People on the left disagree about which of those inequities are most fundamental. This article https://compactmag.com/article/the-poverty-of-anti-wokeness reviews a few recent books about...
People on the left disagree about which of those inequities are most fundamental.
reviews a few recent books about left-wing discontent with "identity politics". The idea that 99% of the people need to rise up against the 1% is fundamentally different from attempting to form a coalition from a bunch of groups that don't see things the same way and aren't likely to support each other when the chips are down and real resources are at stake.
I think the black-white axis (as important as it is) has a way of obscuring the rich-poor axis. In extreme forms you get people like Clarence Thomas who think the black community will only get ahead when it produces a few rich and powerful patriarchs and might go so far to say the New Deal was racist because it put the brakes on capital accumulation just when blacks were starting to make it. In principle 10% of the population could raise its standard of living considerably at the expense of the other 90% so an "anti-racist" program could well say "we have to do something for blacks but we can't afford a program 10x as large that benefits everyone"... but a narrow program like that is unlikely to get enough support to succeed.
Around academia race quickly gets you into a hall of mirrors. I work at a major research university and I see a lot of black faces around, but a lot of those people are not African-Americans but rather African-Africans, Jamaican, British, etc. The black child of professors is surely in demand, the black child of the working class will find grad school every bit as baffling as does a white child of the working class, if not more.
Second-wave feminists could say the family itself is the engine of oppression and might not want to hear that people from some families get better than outcomes from other families.
You will hear some people chant things like "sexist, racist, anti-gay" but frequently it comes across as the mindless "duckspeak" that Orwell warned about, it's like people feel they have to chant all these things but do they really understand these movements, the ways they can reinforce each other or contradict with each other? I've got the fear that some of these behaviors discredit our movements and drive people to our enemies but that when things get hard these people aren't going to stick with the struggle.
Also gives American a uniquely stupid view on power dynamics, even within their own country because they assume every fight for justice will mirror the US civil rights movements. If you want to...
black-white axis
Also gives American a uniquely stupid view on power dynamics, even within their own country because they assume every fight for justice will mirror the US civil rights movements.
If you want to troll an annoying race-first activist, pretending to praise Clarence Thomas is always a good start. It's not long until he gets called an Uncle Tom or worse in those circumstances.
duckspeak
You see it right here on Tildes. I ought to be more generous with the noise tag. There are often two or four comments echoing the same duckspeak in reply, all upvoted higher than the original comment. Those are the ones I feel like I should flag as noise.
Also, thank you for providing a literary reference I can use in polite company for the behavior I've previously called "dogshitting." I named it that because, much like when the ƒamily dog hunches up to relieve himself in the fancy dining room, you can see it's about to happen, but the options to prevent it are impractical. Either don't get a dog (don't start the conversation) or put up barriers that make the dining room inaccessible to humans as well (write walls of text addressing any potential rebuttal that will be ignored anyway).
sexist, racist, anti-gay
Amen. If the dude is primarily a sexist, focus on that. Don't waste your digital breath with tenuous examples of "I told you he's a bad dude, can't you see he's also racist?"
Maybe hate is too strong a word, but there's certainly a thing where lots of leftists end up disliking each other because they support broadly similar but slightly different things. See for...
Maybe hate is too strong a word, but there's certainly a thing where lots of leftists end up disliking each other because they support broadly similar but slightly different things. See for example lots of infighting in the Democractic party, and also within leftist pressure groups and organisations (e.g. this report in the Intercept).
The thing is, it's what the US has as a generally accepted left party. Other parties are too small to even have a chance to make change. So, in the US the Democratic party is the left party, and...
The thing is, it's what the US has as a generally accepted left party. Other parties are too small to even have a chance to make change.
So, in the US the Democratic party is the left party, and the Republican party is the right party.
Note that only tends to apply in the western world. Even when you cross into eastern Europe it stops being true, let alone outside of that anglo-european bubble. This thread is about the US, but...
those on the left are generally sincere
Note that only tends to apply in the western world. Even when you cross into eastern Europe it stops being true, let alone outside of that anglo-european bubble. This thread is about the US, but since you said "on (in?) democracies", I decided to reply.
If social media is any indicator, it's less "leftists" than it is "self-proclaimed leftists". There's a lot of folks out there that author books, opinion articles, and the like and claim to be...
If social media is any indicator, it's less "leftists" than it is "self-proclaimed leftists".
There's a lot of folks out there that author books, opinion articles, and the like and claim to be speaking from a left-wing stance - but they often only attack "the left" and seem to speak only to right-wing talking points.
Yes, I'm speaking in generalizations - but so too is the person to whom you are replying.
I understand that perspective shifts everything - that some "leftists" aren't let enough for others, and some "centrists" are far too left- or right-wing for others of a different political view....
I understand that perspective shifts everything - that some "leftists" aren't let enough for others, and some "centrists" are far too left- or right-wing for others of a different political view. The terms are becoming increasingly vague too.
But I think we have to accept that in some cases, someone can call themselves one thing, but believe in things that are diametrically opposed to their self-professed label. When right-wing grifters constantly call themselves "classical liberals", we can call a spade a spade.
EDIT: and yes, I understand that a "liberal" is not the same as a "leftist". In right-wing circles, the two terms are used interchangeably, largely because they view anything that isn't far-right as being too left.
I'd say it's more people arguing because they're in similar social circles, rather than 'attacking' though it can cross the line sometimes. It's a lot harder to argue with someone that isn't even...
I'd say it's more people arguing because they're in similar social circles, rather than 'attacking' though it can cross the line sometimes. It's a lot harder to argue with someone that isn't even around.
Also you're doing the same thing that makes the arguments flourish, you're sort of creating this conspiracy that these people are somehow secret right-wingers. Naturally the moment you do that, arguments are going to flourish. 'Attack' as you might call it.
I don't know what you would expect if you're going to casually introduce this idea that self-proclaimed leftists are just using right wing talking points, which clearly implies that they're not actually leftists, other than to be 'attacked' in response to such remarks.
Likewise, conservatives, centrists, and reactionaries are quite different but lumped together as “the right.” Of course, there are also combinations of beliefs that fit any modern political...
liberal is not the same as left, but they’re used interchangeably among the right
Likewise, conservatives, centrists, and reactionaries are quite different but lumped together as “the right.”
Of course, there are also combinations of beliefs that fit any modern political alliances. Or those whose beliefs are in conflict with themselves, yet are seemingly unbothered by the dissonance…
Democrats are not a party. They disagree on just about every topic. The Brooklyn hipster has very little in common with the southern Black grandma. The Democratic party is just an equal and...
Democrats are not a party. They disagree on just about every topic. The Brooklyn hipster has very little in common with the southern Black grandma. The Democratic party is just an equal and opposite reaction to the horribleness that is the Republican party.
So yeah a they do not agree with each other on most thing, except the Republicans are terrible people and should not be in charge of anything.
I used to write grand sweeping political essays in the early 90s published in zines before social media existed. In one, I tried to document the sea change that happened at the end of the Cold...
I used to write grand sweeping political essays in the early 90s published in zines before social media existed. In one, I tried to document the sea change that happened at the end of the Cold War, where, among other things, the sense that our resources and frontiers were infinite had collapsed.
I tried to anticipate what this would mean for the dominant narratives of our culture and over 30 years later, there are a few things I got right. The fact that we no longer had easily identifiable frontiers to colonize and exploit meant that instead of always looking outward for a greater and greater expansion of our way of life, we turned inward and started playing defense with the finite resources we had. Instead of believing, as we had throughout the 20th century, that progress was an openended linear development that would continue to lead to a better world, instead we were stuck with the image of Hunter S Thompson‘s receding highwater mark in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
This inevitably led to right wing resurgence tribal withdrawal. As these pressures intensify today, with unstable climate events, catastrophic drought and floods, and the resulting waves of refugee immigration, the world order will get more and more selfish.
The traditionalists and conservatives of every country will most likely continue to be ascendant as things get worse. People will be less idealistic and generous and charitable for those less fortunate than themselves. Hoarding and selfish behavior will most likely be the order of the day.
It is in this context that the rest of us continue to struggle. But this is not some cynical appeal to surrender. It’s just that we will combat these tactics more effectively if we better understand the battlefields of today and tomorrow.
I think the solution to this is to advocate wealth redistribution – if growth is no longer possible, then the only way to make almost everyone better off is a tax on wealth. Of course this is...
Instead of believing, as we had throughout the 20th century, that progress was an openended linear development that would continue to lead to a better world, instead we were stuck with the image of Hunter S Thompson‘s receding highwater mark in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I think the solution to this is to advocate wealth redistribution – if growth is no longer possible, then the only way to make almost everyone better off is a tax on wealth. Of course this is really, really hard to implement but it would be a really amazing achievement if it were possible. It would require a lot of effort around enforcement and well-funded and well-resourced tax authorities.
Ok here is my summary of this article, and this is a phrase I've been repeating ad-nauseam for 25 years: "Republicans are smart, but evil. Democrats are good hearted, but super dumb"
Ok here is my summary of this article, and this is a phrase I've been repeating ad-nauseam for 25 years:
"Republicans are smart, but evil. Democrats are good hearted, but super dumb"
I suspect most people use mirrors like the one I linked to, Bypass Paywalls Clean, or something similar to read FT articles. A few people here probably do have subscriptions though. p.s. You can...
I suspect most people use mirrors like the one I linked to, Bypass Paywalls Clean, or something similar to read FT articles. A few people here probably do have subscriptions though.
p.s. You can also just google the FT article's title and click the link to it from there. FT allows the google referrer to bypass their paywall.
I'm not a Democrat, I'm Progressive. And I deeply resent that I'm not offered any progressive choices in America. Yet the Democrats, and the Democratic base, fucking despise me because I'll say Democrats suck and aren't on my side.
Democrats are basically fiscal conservatives. They're what Republicans were up to about the 70s, maybe mid-80s. Today's Republican brain trust is just as fiscally conservative as they always were, but they have colorful streak of social conservatism they play up to capture the Republican base. Which isn't very financially conservative, but is strongly social conservative.
Today's Democrats, the Democrat "brain trust", are quite happy with how things are financially. They all get their payments. The big dogs in business come knocking, offer money and inducements, and go away with either laws they want, or the absence of laws they objected to. Meanwhile, little people get five minutes, or a form letter from their Congresscritter that says "yeah no, but thanks for voting" when they have a concern.
By that measurement, Democrats don't have to have an actual brain trust. They can just let the Republicans do it all, since the Democrats pretty much want the same financial things Republicans do; to enable the rich, to not help the poor, and keep kicking the can down the road so it's the populace's problem if people starve or die of lacking healthcare.
I'm not cynical, I'm a realist. For decades I've observed what doesn't happen. What doesn't happen is helping the populace. Democrats don't help little people. They talk like they will. Some small pieces of help are given brief airtime on the campaign trail ... but they never actually help. Not really. Not meaningfully. Somehow the campaign talking points just disappear after the elections, only to creep back in as the next one rolls around.
Take the ACA, for example. The initial design required everyone in the country to pay for healthcare. At the market rate. I wonder whose idea that was; oh yeah, insurance companies thought that was a fucking fine idea. No actual efforts to control the costs or enforce affordability; just a requirement to open your checkbook and pay, pay, pay.
The Act talked about how those who were poor could have access to exchanges, where affordable policies would be available. But there were penalties (since overturned) for not having a policy. And to someone living below the poverty line, it is absolutely crippling regardless of if you were being fined, or shelling out for the policy that you can't access anyway due to co-payments and deductibles and policy limits.
Notice how, when they wanted to "fix" healthcare, they didn't harness the power of the government as the Big Dog in the country. How they don't set up their own drug supply lines, create pipelines to pay for medical personnel to be trained in exchange for community medical service, to remove middlemen like insurers from the system, negotiate services and supplies in bulk at the national level, and so on. How they do nothing to actually manage and rein in spiraling medical costs, which there are many, many ways to do that somehow aren't done.
One could name things for a long time that do nothing except drive up the cost of American healthcare, that are still allowed. That even flourish and expand to take still more profit each year. Always creating greater and greater wealth for these people who've inserted themselves into the midst of a captive market.
Yet the Dems waved the ACA about like it was a great thing. Like it was the fix. Which it wasn't. It just kicked the can down the road, and (thanks to lobbying) ensured the middlemen stayed in the middle, pocketing their cuts. Which continue to grow. Medical debt is destroying everyone who isn't rich, and somehow nothing is done. Why not? Because the people making money off disease and injury ensure the few who could change it don't do a thing to interfere with the profits.
Healthcare, and being afraid of Trump, are the Democrat versions of Abortion and Gender to the Republicans. Something they use to whip their base and drive turnout. Not something they want to actually do anything about, just something they want to talking point so you're shamed (or outraged) into voting for them.
The Republican problem is their base has managed to drink too much of the Kool-aid. And some of the people who've smacked their lips with gusto after draining the pitcher have ended up "catching the car" they were never meant to. Abortion Rights was a boogyman designed to get conservative Joe Schmoes riled up, not something to "fix." Fixing it has given the Democrats a car for their base to chase, taking it away from the Republicans.
About the only thing Democrats and Republicans agree on in America, other than that they like business paying them to keep the money flowing, is they don't want any version or form of ranked choice voting. Or anything similar, or anything remotely designed to do effectively the same thing it would. Namely, remove the crowbar they have of offering only two choices. Because when there's only two, they have a boogyman to scare voters like me with.
I can't support a Progressive candidate because such candidates aren't allowed to run. Those candidates are told they have to be Democrats. And they're infected and controlled by the Democrat brain trust. Those backroomers make sure any waves these annoying bright eyed optimists make are small, and soon end as they nudge them into line to stop with the boat rocking.
The progressives aren't allowed to form together into their own party. Oh no, that would guarantee the "left" loses to the right, since half of half is less than half.
If voting was proportional, voters could see where they all stand. Someone like me could join with others in voting for someone who actually represents my values and concerns. And those candidates could have visibility, have platforms to rise up to be seen. Other voters could see them, and perhaps think "oh, you mean that's an option? You can think like that? I didn't know, but here's someone who is and ... hmm, that's interesting."
No, can't have that. Crowbar, binary, toe the line. Control the citizenry. Comply, comply.
I an exceptionally disappointed with, and tired of, Democrats. The only problem is the Republicans are actually worse. They will do just as little (nothing, to be specific) to help little people, and will further actively shit all over people just because they can and want to.
Just as the Republicans whip their base up with the fear of "the Democrats want your kids to be oogled in a bathroom by a tranny", the Democrats wave rainbow flags and Trump pictures while tisking at me for daring to ask "what are you doing for me?"
Don't I know how evil and horrible Trump is? Yes, but can we talk about fiscal policy and wealth inequality? No, you just want to remind me how bad Trump is? What about how everyone I know is getting poorer and can't always afford rent or food, can't go to the doctor when they're sick? No, just Trump bad? Yes, I know he's bad, but what about ... right, Trump bad. I get it, but can we get back to .... yes, again, Trump is bad. Oh never fucking mind.
Because of first-past-the-post, I'm basically fucked. Because no matter who I do, or don't, vote for, neither of them gives a damn about me. The Democrats will dangle their boogymen at me during election season, then win or lose vanish back into their backroom clouds of cigar smoke afterwards. Where they do things like figure out how to control the handful of progressives so they don't make any headway in moving the brain trust left.
Because, in American politics, moving left is moving away from the money. Big Business is all about the money. They won't pay for politicians who don't support the money. A politician who wants to dismantle for-profit healthcare? Fuck that, who can we give money to ensuring that never happens? A politician who wants affordable housing? Fuck that, here's a check vote against that shit. Affordable healthcare? Fuck that, here's a check.
There's been speculation in recent years that the Democrat brain trust is inept. Very possible. It's also possible, just as much so in my view, that they're actually smart enough to know they can just let the Republicans do all the work while taking most of the heat. Which lets the bigwig Dems keep collecting without having to be nearly as reviled as their counterparts with Rs after their names.
At this point, this is where readers who are gay, or gender identified, or some social concern, tumble out of the woodwork to try to shame me. How dare I say the Dems are the same as the Repugs. Don't I know the Repugs want to outlaw sexual and gender identities? Don't I know how evil that is? How can I equate D and R when that's in play.
Which is my fucking point. While we're arguing back and forth over social concerns, the money keeps flowing away from you and me. The rich get richer, the politicians keep lining their pockets, no actual change in the financial inequality of America takes place, and the social issues are the cars we're told to chase.
Here is also the point where I have to fend off the accusations. No, I don't want people hunted down, jailed, or anything of the sort. People should be allowed to live their lives in peace, as long as they don't bother others. Want to be gay; be gay! Want to marry your gay partner; marry! Want to explore gender roles; that's between you and whoever agrees to support or facilitate it and I have zero interest in stopping you.
Such readers are a hostage being used to threaten me. Give up on wealth equality, affordable healthcare, equitable housing, or the (insert oppressed class here) gets it in the back of the neck! That's what I'm being threatened with, and it's just as evil as it sounds. And just as upsetting.
What I want is some actual controls on the wealth inequality. For the phrase "rich enough" to have some kind of damn meaning. For healthcare to be managed as a realistic and necessary part of life, rather than an unending profit center. For housing to be for housing citizens rather than serving as an investment vehicle.
What I want I can't get without politicians who will work toward it. And I can't get those politicians when the only two choices are "Evil Conservatives" and "Quiet Conservatives." Which are the only two choices American political parties want to offer me.
I'm really, really hoping someone with charisma and charm, who's as upset as I am, will rise up to rally the masses. Because that's what it takes. Being angry, being able to spot the problem, isn't enough. People don't follow truth, they follow charisma. They follow leaders, and leaders are charismatic.
The only real chance I think the country has is that as the fist keeps squeezing, someone on social media will actually use it for what it can do. To reach out and organize. Influencers are laughable because they use their power for greedy, petty, shallow purposes like making money and looking cool.
Somewhere, I hope, is an AOC type. Who'll take the platform of their Tiktok or Twitter or Instagram or whatever the fuck, and start rallying people to stand with them. Someone who has the charm and talent to draw people in. Someone who wants actual change driven by and for the people.
That person can maybe fix this. That person will have the human capital at their fingertips to effect change. Not affect it, effect it. To enact it. To construct and implement it. A person who has first thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions of people behind them.
Someone who can't be ignored. Someone who isn't brushed aside by the news cycle because of the groundswell they'll be at the head of. Someone who uses their power not for selfish gain, but to effect national consensus that By the People For the People shouldn't be a slogan from a document we mostly ignore. That person will be able to take us off this path of destruction we're on.
Someone who'll give the Democrats and Republicans something else to agree on; they'll both hate that person. We really need that person. Because this shit we're all stuck in right now is destroying us.
No offense, but I think a lot of your conclusions are a bit misguided. For example, the ACA DID and continues to help many many small people. For one it makes it so you can't discriminate based on pre existing conditions and extended parental coverage to yr 25.
And with regards to setting up your own government funded pharmacy... That would be very costly and very technically challenging. What we would get is essentially the same industry as our defense industry, but for Healthcare. And our defense industry is not cost effective
Not to mention the fact that the Dems have moved significantly to the left over the last decade. Joe Biden is by far the most left wing president in decades, but because he has old man vibes no one online cares about the actual policy he’s implemented. Literally the first president in history to join the picket line with striking workers, FTC and DOJ blocking mergers on antitrust lines, an incredible amount of climate action in the inflation reduction act along with finally allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a huge restructuring of the student loan system even after SCOTUS blocked mass cancellation.
I feel like many, many people have not updated their understanding of where the parties lie today. The democrats have adopted the best ideas of the left and are practically a social democratic party at this point, outside of a few moderate holdouts. Meanwhile the Trumpists have taken over the republican party to such a degree that your typical non-engaged republican voter doesn’t understand at all.
The 90’s alignment of both parties being pretty much the same in most ways is dead but that won’t stop the online rants because Joe Biden doesn’t have revolutionary vibes and I guess that’s all that matters.
Thanks for making this post. I thought about writing something similar, because the GP's post makes a lot of hyperbolic claims that undermine his overall position.
The ACA was touted as a win. Certainly not a be-all-end-all fix. The democrats had tried to pass more comprehensive reform, but that was famously torpedoed by Joe Lieberman right before he basically switched to become a republican. Also, the 2009-2011 era (the only time when the democratic party had enough control to reliably pass legislation) was a fraught time. The damage caused by 2008 was in full swing, and George W. Bush basically set the tone of the response by issuing massive bailouts/TARP and then handed it off to Obama and the democrats. The national discourse at the time was focused on the fact that people were losing their houses to greedy bankers. Pushing a large spending increase for health care through at that time would not have been politically feasible. I think, if it had been, the democrats would have don it (remember, they tried before, but Joe Lieberman tanked it).
It's easy to look back today and say, "Yep, the democrats missed their best opportunity to pass sweeping health care reform in 2010," but this wasn't obvious at that time.
I agree with the desire for more progress and more progressive action from politicians, and the democratic party could be a lot better about funding and promoting more fiscally social policies. But we need to make these arguments without hyperbole.
This r/sanepolitics post is rather insightful and furthers one of your points: the Dems have really only had a working supermajority for around six months (July 2009 - February 2010) since 1994. There was only so much they could’ve done in that time, especially since they were spending a lot of political capital on the ACA.
I think it’s also important to consider that the U.S. Constitution was one of the earliest ones written and still in use, and that for a first attempt, it was good. But there’s a lot more modern documents out that that would work better, and I’d love to copy/paste the German basic law with some updates for an American context. At the same time, I worry that calling a constitutional convention would destabilize things further, and that we’d never arrive at a workable replacement.
I agree that a corporatocracy has gripped the effective wing of the Democratic Party, but I wouldn't use the ACA as an example of them "not helping little people". First off, it was heavily modeled after Romney's health care system in Massachusetts (largely written by a Heritage Foundation member), but it was also an improvement over what we had and a bill Obama and the Dems at the time thought could actually pass because (see above). Those Dems didn't let the perfect be the enemy of progress.
Yeah the OP here makes valid points overall, but passing the ACA was maybe one of the most effective uses of American political power in the 21st century. It was the most expansive policy that stood a chance of passing, it would've even had a public option except for the hold out of Lieberman. And it proved so effective and popular, that even when the Republicans controlled all three chambers in 2017 after having campaigned on repealing Obamacare, the votes to repeal it weren't there.
It's shitty that we Americans have to fight for these absolute scraps of a decent livelihood, but until we learn the secret to deprogramming the conservative cult, this is the reality we have to navigate. I'm sure I'll keep being disappointed that Democrats are not more progressive, but it's night and day when the other party just dismantled Roe and are smacking their lips at the prospect of stripping away even more of our rights.
How do you feel about recent student debt cancellation or subsidies for household adoption of clean energy?
More broadly, investment in semiconductors and infrastructure along with the inflation reduction act are intended to provide a broader economic and manufacturing base that should hopefully support American jobs.
Yeah, the healthcare system isn’t ideal, but fixing it - when there are so many stake holders with financial interests - is no easy task. At least the poor have (somewhat expensive) coverage now, although there is definitely room for improvement.
I’m anything but an expert when it comes to politics, but I think that many of these problems would sort themselves out if there were as much of an imperative to separate money and state as there is to separate church and state, with those found to be abusing their position to enrich themselves, their parties, or their connections quickly finding themselves deposed.
Your grievances are shared by many, I believe, even by those who don’t have as well-defined political identities. It’s awful for the only available choices to be slow decline in the status quo or for everything to be burned down in a backslide into facism.
Not sure if Ranked Choice Voting is a real solution. This
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
demonstrates that any procedure for choosing from 3 or more alternatives is going to have problems. It seems almost certain to me that if the pattern of having one party that frequently wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote continues it will eventually lead to a political crisis of some sort. We just don't need any additional complexity that will cause strange results that people won't understand and that will make people question the legitimacy of elections more than they already do.
I dislike where the 2-party system has wound up, I used to be an activist in the Green Party, we got 25% of the vote for Ralph Nader in a city near me and I've been a fundraiser at Howie Hawkin's house. Still I am not impressed with multi-party democracies like Germany, Italy in Israel. Germany has a legendary ability to equivocate about absolutely everything such as shutting down nuclear power plants, supporting Ukraine, even buying helmets for their soldiers. For a long time it has been common to have coalitions between parties that fundamentally disagree about most things: a cynic would think that the the three biggest parties will get together to shut out the smaller parties to create a system that has basically the same intention as the U.S. system. Meanwhile Italy and Israel have both had chaotic systems that have been dominated by right-wing politicians that never seem to fade away.
Firstly, Arrow only deals with ranking options. Not 3 or more options. The difference seems pedantic, but it's not.
Secondly, Arrow himself said the first thing he would do to improve elections is to use one of the ranked systems that he proved were imperfect.
I think in the current climate, any system that would allow left wing candidates to say "I prefer Biden/Clinton to <moderate third party candidate>, and prefer <moderate third party candidate> to Trump". And for right wing candidates to say "I prefer Trump to <moderate third party candidate>, and prefer <moderate third party candidate> to Biden/Clinton" would be very interesting. Suddenly you'd end up with a moderate third party candidate. The third party would get funding and viable candidates because the odds of a third party winning go way up when voters hate the other team more than they like their own candidate.
I don't even think this has to be true for your example to work. On a left-to-right political spectrum, anyone who falls on either side of the centrist candidate's section would always be more likely to list the moderate as their second choice. It's not necessarily spiting the other party, just settling for second best.
Of course it's never safe to assume people act perfectly rationally but on the whole I think the pattern would stand.
You may not be impressed, but many multi party democracies have much higher living standards than the US.
We’ve already had an attempted coup by a sitting, but defeated, President. We’ve also had the Supreme Court stacked with partisans such that voting rights and civil rights are being struck down at will on the flimsiest of legal reasoning. And one of the two major parties attempts to force the country to default on its debts every time they are given the reigns on power, and it’s only a matter of time before the center fails to hold.
The political crises are already here. The system is resilient enough to plod along despite them, but it gets weaker every time.
Although I don't think courting far-right voters is a good strategy for the Democrats (much better to try to drive turnout of their voters by delivering for them), I do think it's important to see how effective a political machine conservatives have. Even if they hate each other (like many leftists) they hate their opponents more, and are pretty single-minded in terms of trying to implement their (bad) ideas.
It would be nice if the left could try to regain some of this organsing power it had during e.g. the Civil Rights Movement.
Just a hot take inbound. The right also has an unbelievable amount of capital, and in a capitalist system gives them a pretty significant boost. I think if progressive agendas had access to the same level of funding we'd be living in a very different world, but because the agendas and ideals are at odds with consolidated capital we'll never see it.
I think this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
is one of the most disturbing books ever written as it explains exactly why the right wing seems to win all the time. Unfortunately we've gotten in the habit of thinking a "minority" is an outgroup that has it worse than the "majority" but many important "minorities" are privileged.
A billionaire can put $25 million into a foundation and know how the money is spent. In theory a group of 1 million people could chip in $25 but groups like that have no accountability so many people will balk at donating and we've got a lot of experience with groups like that becoming corrupt (like the NRA) or simply spending 90% of the donations they get on getting more donations like a turbocharger that creates a seemingly large monetary flow that justifies huge salaries for executives.
I read
https://www.amazon.com/Political-Economy-Dictatorship-Wintrobe/dp/0521794498
in the Bush years and immediately thought "that explains the Clinton years!"
There is one case study of a tinpot dictator who wants to maximize how much he can steal from the government but knows that he has to deliver some spoils to his constituents to stay in power. I think it explains Clinton's "triangulation". If a politician won by a landslide they could claim a mandate and would feel a lot of pressure to deliver on their promises. Opposition can create a form of theater: when Clinton got impeached for lying about having an affair, the National Organization for Women came to his aid! They, as well as environmental and other Democrat-aligned groups were not going to complain about broken promises and a lack of action (got our last Clean Air Act in the Reagan years) I think Clinton might have been much more happy to win 50.1% of the vote at risk of losing with 49.9% of the vote and having freedom to give patronage to K Street organizations than to win 65% of the vote but risk his supporters turning on him.
That book has a great analysis also of South Africa from which led me to this conclusion:
Imagine a country like South Africa where (roughly) 10% of the population is privileged. Say they steal just 25% of what the other 90% makes, that roughly doubles their standard of living and certainly buys their political support. If the numbers are reversed, say 90% of the population steals from 10% and the privileged people steal everything from the underclass and only increase their standard of living by about 10%. That's not a going concern the way the first society is. (Note a corporation can steal $1 from 200 million people and you might not even notice!)
I'd say the word "minority" in US political discourse is hazardous and in particular using blacks as a model for what a "minority" is leads Democrats and their hangers-on to disaster over and over again. It seems every 4 years as long as I can remember some Democrats boast about Hispanics being the most rapidly growing demographic and they are a minority like blacks so they're going to vote for us so pretty soon we will win all the time and not have to work hard to win... And every time they are blindsided when Hispanics don't vote for them and they never seem to remember what happened in the last election.
Oh that is definitely a big part of it, but I still think they are often pretty strategic and good at capturing specific institutions, e.g. the legal system. Historically left wing groups have also been able to do this really successfully (e.g. Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) so I think it's also partially about working out better long term strategies for change.
Absolutely, I think it's just easier to "weather the storm" as it were with the excess capital. If most of your constituents can't afford short term losses for long term gain then you can't meaningfully run on long term strategies. I think it's an overlooked part of wealth, it allows for generational planning.
The legal system and also state governments.
Thats because generally it's a one-way transaction, where we offer them empathy and they offer nothing in return. Or perhaps they then throw pig blood at us and call us baby murders for supporting letting rape victims get abortions. Eventually you don't bother and just reflect their vitrol back at them.
And I'm saying this as someone that transitioned from right-wing bigot, to libertarian, to centerist, to leftist as I got older. It took being exposed outside of the right-wing bubble to even begin that process.
I disagree that the right "understands the world better." The left understands the world perfectly well. It's just that when examining it, the right largely sees the world as being just fine, or better before we let all those minorities have rights. And the left (correctly) sees that worldview as a persistent threat against the progress that has been made.
Dobbs is all the proof I need to see what happens when the left gives the right the benefit of the doubt. The left generally acts in good faith, and the right does not.
You're continuing to damn the left with faint praise, and this is a trend I've noticed throughout your posts here.
You claim "the right" - which just recently claimed that The United States is not a racist country - as being "grounded in reality." May I ask, what reality are they grounded in?
You claim "the left" refuse to compromise, and yet the left-wing groups in the US government continue to compromise, both within the Democratic Party and with the Republicans where able. If anyone is unwilling to compromise, it has historically been the right - which is almost exclusively the Republican Party.
I would argue that your example of Biden being one of the most effective achievers of progressive policy is exemplary of the fact that the left DOES compromise - seeing as how a majority of Biden's achievements would not have been possible without support from the left-wing side of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have been almost exclusively opposed to everything Biden does.
As someone who grew up right-leaning but has leaned left with age, while I can understand and even somewhat empathize with some right-wing viewpoints, I have yet to find practical uses for this ability. It’s theoretically helpful in conversation/debate, but the problem here is that these topics never naturally come up when interacting with individuals who are willing to hear you out, no matter the approach taken.
I don’t agree that right-wing views are inherently more grounded. They might appear more grounded at a quick glance but many don’t hold up very well to any amount of scrutiny. Unfortunately, popular appeal relies chiefly on superficialities and emotional engagement, which is why right-wing populism has legs.
The left absolutely has a problem with letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, though, that I absolutely agree with. It’s resulted in a lot of dysfunction as legitimately well-meaning people get tangled up trying to do better.
Coalitions also change over time. "Movement conservatism" headlined by the likes of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Rush Limbaugh had a really good run for 50 years but Trump found a formula that sells a lot better. It's not inevitable that a Christian conservative is going to get behind economic libertarianism when that means corporations are all the more free to undermine traditional values. For a long time it seemed clear to me that anti-immigration policies would sell really well but the Republican establishment kept it off the table. It was so surreal to see every other Republican go around to various groups, kiss rings, and promise to support the same conservative orthodoxies in 2016 and Trump made it look so easy to pick policies that were popular among voters instead of donors.
The other replies seem to miss the point that while understanding how someone becomes right-wing may not be the key to convincing them to change their views, it is an indispensable tool in understanding how to stop centrists, the apathetic, and normies from entering the right-wing recruitment funnel. "You do realize we're right" is profoundly unconvincing.
Also, it would do well to separate "the right" into conservatives who wish to preserve the current status quo (or return to no more than a decade ago) and reactionaries who are less economically focused and wish to return social norms to at least one generation back.
Part of the problem is that especially online we never know if we are encountering an honest person or a shill.
This was a central thesis of a recent episode of the Arthro Pod when it comes to dealing with cases of delusory parasitosis. Their sensations are real, even if it's all in their head. They may be equally real, but caused by something other than insects (not sure how this wrinkle works as a political analogy).
I feel like I ought to be more generous with the noise tag around here. These conversations seem to be quickly filled with highly-upvoted inter-left/lib duckspeak or people trying to convince us the author isn't writing in good faith instead of engaging with any points an author made.
What part(s) of your linked response is duckspeak? I speak from what I consider to be a pretty left-wing standpoint and none of that sounded particularly controversial or confusing, which is why I'm not sure what parts of it are duckspeak.
EDIT TO ADD: Turns out I misinterpreted the meaning of duckspeak. Leaving my misinterpretation up all the same.
As far as engaging in points that authors make, it's probably something all of us could work on, myself included. But it doesn't help when questions are posed but not answered.
I edited my post to clarify that the link about duckspeak provided the definition, not an example.
For an example of duckspeak, the responses to this comment are the "very smart" rhetoric more at home on Hacker News than good-faith discussion. [Reddit would've just went for an insult like "OK, Hitler"]
Grounded in reality? 70% of them believe the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. They live in a fantasy world.
What was January 6th, if not some tough-talking right-wing conspiracy theorists taking their guns to attempt to prevent a perceived tyrannical takeover?
Do leftists hate each other?
There’s been a historiographic trope in this vein since at least the French Revolution.
The basic premise is that the right is focused around maintaining a commonly-understood status quo, while leftist progressives and reformers want to leave that status quo. However, there are many possible directions to move away in, and those progressives and reformers are rarely homogenous in their assessment of what direction to move in, as well as how far to travel from the former path.
Thus, reform comes in large, bursty eruptions - as it relies on a critical mass of a society’s population coming to the consensus that the status quo needs to change, then fizzles out once the reformers have power, and consensus fades as the marginally-less-radical decide the reform has gone far enough.
Some examples of this pattern include 1840s European reform era (with the grand fizzling of 1848), American 1870s/1910s labor movements, and the Civil Rights Movement.
Thank you for correctly explaining left vs right in political science. However I would clarify that the right is interested in further entrenching the status quo, or sometimes even “returning to the old ways” (reactionism). And also, the “left” is not just about “leaving” the status quo for its own sake, but specifically in order to address inequities in society that are perceived to be perpetuated by that status quo.
People on the left disagree about which of those inequities are most fundamental.
This article
https://compactmag.com/article/the-poverty-of-anti-wokeness
reviews a few recent books about left-wing discontent with "identity politics". The idea that 99% of the people need to rise up against the 1% is fundamentally different from attempting to form a coalition from a bunch of groups that don't see things the same way and aren't likely to support each other when the chips are down and real resources are at stake.
I think the black-white axis (as important as it is) has a way of obscuring the rich-poor axis. In extreme forms you get people like Clarence Thomas who think the black community will only get ahead when it produces a few rich and powerful patriarchs and might go so far to say the New Deal was racist because it put the brakes on capital accumulation just when blacks were starting to make it. In principle 10% of the population could raise its standard of living considerably at the expense of the other 90% so an "anti-racist" program could well say "we have to do something for blacks but we can't afford a program 10x as large that benefits everyone"... but a narrow program like that is unlikely to get enough support to succeed.
Around academia race quickly gets you into a hall of mirrors. I work at a major research university and I see a lot of black faces around, but a lot of those people are not African-Americans but rather African-Africans, Jamaican, British, etc. The black child of professors is surely in demand, the black child of the working class will find grad school every bit as baffling as does a white child of the working class, if not more.
Second-wave feminists could say the family itself is the engine of oppression and might not want to hear that people from some families get better than outcomes from other families.
Gays are richer than average (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_wage_gap) and may or may not see that they have common cause with other "left" groups.
You will hear some people chant things like "sexist, racist, anti-gay" but frequently it comes across as the mindless "duckspeak" that Orwell warned about, it's like people feel they have to chant all these things but do they really understand these movements, the ways they can reinforce each other or contradict with each other? I've got the fear that some of these behaviors discredit our movements and drive people to our enemies but that when things get hard these people aren't going to stick with the struggle.
Also gives American a uniquely stupid view on power dynamics, even within their own country because they assume every fight for justice will mirror the US civil rights movements.
If you want to troll an annoying race-first activist, pretending to praise Clarence Thomas is always a good start. It's not long until he gets called an Uncle Tom or worse in those circumstances.
You see it right here on Tildes. I ought to be more generous with the noise tag. There are often two or four comments echoing the same duckspeak in reply, all upvoted higher than the original comment. Those are the ones I feel like I should flag as noise.
Also, thank you for providing a literary reference I can use in polite company for the behavior I've previously called "dogshitting." I named it that because, much like when the ƒamily dog hunches up to relieve himself in the fancy dining room, you can see it's about to happen, but the options to prevent it are impractical. Either don't get a dog (don't start the conversation) or put up barriers that make the dining room inaccessible to humans as well (write walls of text addressing any potential rebuttal that will be ignored anyway).
Amen. If the dude is primarily a sexist, focus on that. Don't waste your digital breath with tenuous examples of "I told you he's a bad dude, can't you see he's also racist?"
Maybe hate is too strong a word, but there's certainly a thing where lots of leftists end up disliking each other because they support broadly similar but slightly different things. See for example lots of infighting in the Democractic party, and also within leftist pressure groups and organisations (e.g. this report in the Intercept).
I feel it's a far stretch to assume and call the Democratic party in the US left. If you consider Cuba left, the US democratic party is very centered.
The thing is, it's what the US has as a generally accepted left party. Other parties are too small to even have a chance to make change.
So, in the US the Democratic party is the left party, and the Republican party is the right party.
Note that only tends to apply in the western world. Even when you cross into eastern Europe it stops being true, let alone outside of that anglo-european bubble. This thread is about the US, but since you said "on (in?) democracies", I decided to reply.
If social media is any indicator, it's less "leftists" than it is "self-proclaimed leftists".
There's a lot of folks out there that author books, opinion articles, and the like and claim to be speaking from a left-wing stance - but they often only attack "the left" and seem to speak only to right-wing talking points.
Yes, I'm speaking in generalizations - but so too is the person to whom you are replying.
I understand that perspective shifts everything - that some "leftists" aren't let enough for others, and some "centrists" are far too left- or right-wing for others of a different political view. The terms are becoming increasingly vague too.
But I think we have to accept that in some cases, someone can call themselves one thing, but believe in things that are diametrically opposed to their self-professed label. When right-wing grifters constantly call themselves "classical liberals", we can call a spade a spade.
EDIT: and yes, I understand that a "liberal" is not the same as a "leftist". In right-wing circles, the two terms are used interchangeably, largely because they view anything that isn't far-right as being too left.
I'd say it's more people arguing because they're in similar social circles, rather than 'attacking' though it can cross the line sometimes. It's a lot harder to argue with someone that isn't even around.
Also you're doing the same thing that makes the arguments flourish, you're sort of creating this conspiracy that these people are somehow secret right-wingers. Naturally the moment you do that, arguments are going to flourish. 'Attack' as you might call it.
I don't know what you would expect if you're going to casually introduce this idea that self-proclaimed leftists are just using right wing talking points, which clearly implies that they're not actually leftists, other than to be 'attacked' in response to such remarks.
Likewise, conservatives, centrists, and reactionaries are quite different but lumped together as “the right.”
Of course, there are also combinations of beliefs that fit any modern political alliances. Or those whose beliefs are in conflict with themselves, yet are seemingly unbothered by the dissonance…
Democrats are not a party. They disagree on just about every topic. The Brooklyn hipster has very little in common with the southern Black grandma. The Democratic party is just an equal and opposite reaction to the horribleness that is the Republican party.
So yeah a they do not agree with each other on most thing, except the Republicans are terrible people and should not be in charge of anything.
I used to write grand sweeping political essays in the early 90s published in zines before social media existed. In one, I tried to document the sea change that happened at the end of the Cold War, where, among other things, the sense that our resources and frontiers were infinite had collapsed.
I tried to anticipate what this would mean for the dominant narratives of our culture and over 30 years later, there are a few things I got right. The fact that we no longer had easily identifiable frontiers to colonize and exploit meant that instead of always looking outward for a greater and greater expansion of our way of life, we turned inward and started playing defense with the finite resources we had. Instead of believing, as we had throughout the 20th century, that progress was an openended linear development that would continue to lead to a better world, instead we were stuck with the image of Hunter S Thompson‘s receding highwater mark in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
This inevitably led to right wing resurgence tribal withdrawal. As these pressures intensify today, with unstable climate events, catastrophic drought and floods, and the resulting waves of refugee immigration, the world order will get more and more selfish.
The traditionalists and conservatives of every country will most likely continue to be ascendant as things get worse. People will be less idealistic and generous and charitable for those less fortunate than themselves. Hoarding and selfish behavior will most likely be the order of the day.
It is in this context that the rest of us continue to struggle. But this is not some cynical appeal to surrender. It’s just that we will combat these tactics more effectively if we better understand the battlefields of today and tomorrow.
I think the solution to this is to advocate wealth redistribution – if growth is no longer possible, then the only way to make almost everyone better off is a tax on wealth. Of course this is really, really hard to implement but it would be a really amazing achievement if it were possible. It would require a lot of effort around enforcement and well-funded and well-resourced tax authorities.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/0FCig
Ok here is my summary of this article, and this is a phrase I've been repeating ad-nauseam for 25 years:
"Republicans are smart, but evil. Democrats are good hearted, but super dumb"
Do you all really have paid subscriptions that you are able to read this??
I suspect most people use mirrors like the one I linked to, Bypass Paywalls Clean, or something similar to read FT articles. A few people here probably do have subscriptions though.
p.s. You can also just google the FT article's title and click the link to it from there. FT allows the google referrer to bypass their paywall.