|
JeffersonClay posted:To be more specific, helping Trump pass policies that don't have enough republican support to succeed without democrats is the worst. Giving him bipartisan support on policies that would pass anyway is still bad but less so. Confirming nominees is a little different insofar as confirming a cabinet nominee is more a signal that the nominee isn't crazy and incompetent than a ringing endorsement, but democrats who voted for Pruitt or sessions are still terrible. Ah, I understand. Our betters are permitted to betray the weak to Trump, who is Bad, without necessitating any action against them. We, however, must be unfailing and unquestioning in our loyalty to them. Otherwise we are complicit in Trump's Badness. This is definitely an anti-trump strategy, and not an anti-left strategy. You can tell, because materially supporting the agenda of Donald Trump is considered less worthy of reprisal than saying Democrats shouldn't materially support the agenda of Donald Trump.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Yes, you should be more willing to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt than trump. At minimum you should refuse to give either the benefit of the doubt. But people who think democrats are all trash but caution us to wait and see before we assume Trump is terrible are being pretty transparent about where their loyalties lie, and it ain't with us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, you should be more willing to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt than trump. The Anti-Trump Strategy: Democrats voting for Donald Trump's agenda is okay. Hashtag The Resistance, baby.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not just Pruitt or Sessions. Sessions was probably one of Trump's better appointees, he at least has a law degree and has been a practicing attorney. Ben Carson for HUD? DeVos for education? Rick Perry for energy? I'd be a little careful because it doesn't matter whether he's bad it matters whether people think he's bad. People have low expectations of government and he'll try his hardest to deny failure (fake news) and throw blame in every other possible direction (republicans, democrats, Obama, the media and the deep state) and some of it will stick. With his base at the least. His popularity is poor but last I saw he was like 50/50 with independents and still had overwhelming republican support. And again, as an aside, part of the reason his crap works is because faith in government (and institutions in general) is at an all time low. That's why you won't see me enthusiastically endorsing pure obstruction or sabotage. That, and basic principle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
If Trump can keep the con job going through the next election we've lost anyway due to incumbency advantage. Trump falling on his face and being obviously horrible to even the most casual observer is a sine qua non for Democratic resurgence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The Anti-Trump Strategy: Democrats voting for Donald Trump's agenda is okay. That's exactly the opposite of my point here but thanks for your contribution! Democrats that voted to confirm perry were bad. Democrats that vote for trump's policies that would pass anyway are worse. Democrats that vote for Trump's policies that wouldn't pass without them are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Isn't the "infrastructure plan" just "Give money to some contractor friends of mine"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
So is the entire premise of this thread basically just "how can the Democrats oppose Trump without actually changing anything about the Democratic party?" asdf32 posted:And again, as an aside, part of the reason his crap works is because faith in government (and institutions in general) is at an all time low. That's why you won't see me enthusiastically endorsing pure obstruction or sabotage. That, and basic principle. The Democrats dominated national politics during the post-war era because they enacted popular and visible government programs during the Great Depression and then successfully prosecuted the Second World War. Part of how the Democrats were able to position themselves to fight the Depression was to acknowledge the real anger and anxiety that the population was feeling by tapping into the extreme anti-establishment anger of the 1930s. They really weren't asking people to have "faith" in government, they were actively providing their constituents with concrete and visible motivations to turn out at the ballot box and elect Democrats. Tying yourself to an unpopular and visibly dysfunctional establishment because you've got some vague notion that people need to have "faith" in government is not a recipe for success. Confidence in government has to be earned, and part of how you earn that confidence necessarily involves criticizing problems. If pointing out those problems further diminishes people's faith in government in the short term then that is a necessary and unavoidable fact of life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
I well remember how the third fireside chat was just chewing noises as FDR and Frances Perkins ate a stockbroker alive to appease the anger of the population. Hell, Social Security was more or less a program totally built on spite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So is the entire premise of this thread basically just "how can the Democrats oppose Trump without actually changing anything about the Democratic party?". It's about the strategy democrats should use to oppose trump. If you think they need to make fundamental changes to the party in order to be successful, or if you think democrats shouldn't worry about Trump and instead worry about their own flaws, you can make those arguments. Both strike me as long-term strategies--replacing bad dems will take multiple election cycles--and we need to oppose trump now. If you're suggesting the democrats need to change their messaging and focus, what changes would you propose?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So is the entire premise of this thread basically just "how can the Democrats oppose Trump without actually changing anything about the Democratic party?" Bingo! Please select your prize: Prize #1: OP gives you a signed color copy of "This is fine" dog. Prize #2: Green anime person berates you. Prize #3: This wonderful, DNC sanctioned, hat!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I well remember how the third fireside chat was just chewing noises as FDR and Frances Perkins ate a stockbroker alive to appease the anger of the population. Hell, Social Security was more or less a program totally built on spite. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I well remember how the third fireside chat was just chewing noises as FDR and Frances Perkins ate a stockbroker alive to appease the anger of the population. Hell, Social Security was more or less a program totally built on spite. FDR posted:We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. . . . Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So is the entire premise of this thread basically just "how can the Democrats oppose Trump without actually changing anything about the Democratic party?" Yeah and they should do that by not adopting republican style pure obstruction. Quickly every institution has declining faith. Religion, unions, both parties, doctors, science. There is more going on than bad policy. Democratic party example: lots of people think Hilary was a uniquely bad/criminal/liar. You have a good sense of history - how dumb is that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
You have to win before you can enact policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
I find it endlessly fascinating how people want to warp the past into an endless orgy of bloodshed. Imagine, if you will, someone straightfacedly concluding that the NLRB existed as a glorious force for violence against the bourgeoisie just so that they can get their cult of action for action's sake on. Imagine assuming that World War 2 was violence directed at the bourgeoisie. Or perhaps this is just postmodernist politics where the idea is to create the cognitive perception of accomplishing things rather than actually accomplishing things. As a member of the reality-based community, I have to say no thank you to drinking from that cup of cyanide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I find it endlessly fascinating how people want to warp the past into an endless orgy of bloodshed. Imagine, if you will, someone straightfacedly concluding that the NLRB existed as a glorious force for violence against the bourgeoisie just so that they can get their cult of action for action's sake on. Imagine assuming that World War 2 was violence directed at the bourgeoisie. Truth. There's a degree of desire for pointless violence that is unsettling, but as FDR knew, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, and Hillary Clinton so painfully learned: when there is anger, you do nobody any favors by pretending it does not exist. The question is how best to productively channel that anger, and "by shouting "RUSSIA" really hard" is transparent deflection from a democratic party whose answer to questions about what it will actually DO for the disenfranchised is "Want a selfie?" quote:Or perhaps this is just postmodernist politics where the idea is to create the cognitive perception of accomplishing things rather than actually accomplishing things. On a related note, don't sign your posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Truth. There's a degree of desire for pointless violence that is unsettling, but as FDR knew, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, and Hillary Clinton so painfully learned: when there is anger, you do nobody any favors by pretending it does not exist. The question is how best to productively channel that anger, and "by shouting "RUSSIA" really hard" is transparent deflection from a democratic party whose answer to questions about what it will actually DO for the disenfranchised is "Want a selfie?" I'd make a snide comment about sniping anyone concerned that the President is palling around with a brutal right-wing authoritarian, but hell, this is the first time one of you motherfuckers has managed to make a serious response, even if it's still loaded with blubbery insults. The basic problem I have with this is that you're arguing that anger can only be channeled in a particular way, and while I suspect that that way isn't the incredibly stupid one most people propose of symbolic sacrifices, it's not something I find convincing because the Republican method of channeling anger against racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities works well enough on millions of people. So using it as an argument that Democrats should never talk about the administration's Russian connections fails to convince me, because there's nothing you've provided to argue that only welfare programs, or job programs, or even something as broad as a Third New Deal, can use that anger. And a Third New Deal or other left-wing social and economic policy is something that I want personally, so when it comes to putting pressure on people who don't personally want it or feel it's implausible, I don't see how this is supposed to be convincing. Anyways, the part you got all huffy about was more addressed to "The Kingfish".
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's about the strategy democrats should use to oppose trump. If you think they need to make fundamental changes to the party in order to be successful, or if you think democrats shouldn't worry about Trump and instead worry about their own flaws, you can make those arguments. Both strike me as long-term strategies--replacing bad dems will take multiple election cycles--and we need to oppose trump now. If you're suggesting the democrats need to change their messaging and focus, what changes would you propose? Simply put, it seems to me as though the Democrats are suffering from the huge gap between their stated commitments and their actions as a party. If the Democrats want to continue running as a progressive party then they need to seriously rethink their relationship with big money donors and corporate America. We've seen that you can run a national campaign with small donor money and that you can be massively outspent in a race and still remain competitive in at least some circumstances. We've also seen that a large part of the Democratic establishment finds this threatening since their own political influence and power is largely dependent on the relationships they've cultivated with lobbyists. It's really not clear what the Democratic party stands for at this point. Obama, in some of his more candid moments, was fairly open about wanting to govern as a 1980s Republican. Some of his more vociferous media defenders like Jonathan Chait were pretty open about that as well. Yet when Obama was actually running to lead the party he explicitly rejected the New Democrat label and took stances like opposition to NAFTA, opposition to the Iraq War, and opposition to the South Korean trade deal which all clearly signaled a more progressive presidency than the one he actually delivered. You can blame some of that on the realities of governing in Washington but not all of it. It's very very hard to square the tone of Obama's campaign in 2008 with the rather unseemly behind the scenes revelations about almost his entire cabinet being forecast by a Citibank executive months before he won. There's clearly some kind of underlying incoherence in the party when the candidates primary run is so starkly different from their record in office. That's certainly not unique to the Democrats but I believe that the Democrats attempts to cast themselves as a progressive party means that this kind of incoherence hurts them in a way that it doesn't necessarily hurt more conservative political parties like the Republicans. If you want to run on a people power message in this day and age then you need to find a way to signal your authenticity more clearly to voters, and I think Democrats have failed to do that in recent electoral cycles. asdf32 posted:Yeah and they should do that by not adopting republican style pure obstruction. I guess you could say that mistrust in government is overdetermined. There are so many plausible explanations for why people have lost confidence in the government, ranging from concrete policy failures to the rise of the internet, that people tend to pick and choose the explanations that best suit their argument. But whatever explanation you prefer I think that the lesson of the past is that the Democrats built confidence in New Deal era government by implementing visible and popular programs that demonstrably improved the situations of their constituents. The Obama era Democrats, by contrast, waffled on many of their commitments and, in situations where they did deliver new benefits, they often seemingly went out of their way to obscure what they were doing. In contrast to the big government programs favoured by an older generation of Liberals the Obama era technocrats crafted programs in which the costs (like the individual mandate to buy health insurance) were often much more visible to voters than the benefits. Some of this was perhaps beyond the Democrats immediate control but one could also argue that this was the predictable result of trying to implement big government social programs through a technocratic approach rather than a populist one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
There's definitely been a trend of Democrats trying to distance themselves from big-ticket achievements/popular members of the party; Gore distancing himself from Clinton in 2000, congresspeople from Obama/the ACA in 2010/2014, Schumer calling Obamacare a mistake in 2014, etc. They've finally started turning it around, but it's been a problem for their image for years now, where they've kind of built a reputation for being sort of spineless and afraid to really get behind stuff they ostensibly support. I feel like Dems have done a poor job of laying out in clear, concrete terms what a vote for them means. Lots of good rhetoric about a more equal society and better support for working families and such, sure, but by and large actual policy aims are shied away from or made too hard to sell by explaining them in too much detail (too "wonkishly" you might say). It kind of feels like they're taking what they think the final bill would look like and campaigning on that, instead of putting forward a simple idea ("paid parental leave for all") and carving it down to the final passable bill after seizing power.* My gut is telling me that comes from Beltway types telling them "woah you'll never get that passed, you can't campaign on it nobody will take you seriously," but I'm just some idiot schmuck and am wrong about many things. Basically I agree with what Blythe says starting here (except I haven't given up hope for the Dems yet): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGiHiZyKuAE&t=2703s And am very worried by how Weir draws a blank after Social Security and Medicare here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGiHiZyKuAE&t=2808s *Not to say it's bad to know the limits of what you're likely to achieve and have the policy specifics worked out in advance, but it's just not going to penetrate or excite the way a more simple message can. And if we're being cynical, having some vagaries that allow people to project their hopes on you can be pretty useful in and of itself, looking at the Obama and Trump campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
z0glin Warchief posted:It kind of feels like they're taking what they think the final bill would look like and campaigning on that, instead of putting forward a simple idea ("paid parental leave for all") and carving it down to the final passable bill after seizing power.* If feels this way because that's exactly what they're doing. Most major policy ideas have already been heavily negotiated with various donors/interest groups by the time politicians start discussing them publicly. Imagine Obama going to Blue Cross and working out a deal where he won't push for single payer if they agree not to spend millions blocking the bill altogether. It's yet another way that money in politics makes it so we can't have nice things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Has anyone seen this article from Vox? http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism. It seems quite well sourced.quote:The answer to Trump’s right-wing populism, Sanders argued, was for the left to develop a populism of its own. In addition to this article, there's plenty of other research that backs up the idea that welfare and social programs in general aren't palatable to Americans because of racism (see this Harvard study). This is pretty depressing for me as a minority whose politics tack left and I have no idea what to do about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Yeah that article is a pretty brutal smackdown of "turn left problem solved". I had no idea Corbyn's approval rating was so far underwater.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Hey look another pundit arguing that it's never the economy, it's actually racism. Vox is hot centrist garbage and you should be embarrassed to post anything from them. Also, leftism isn't just about economics. It's about egalitarianism. You wanna argue that a more equal society makes racism worse? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
I'd rather have white racists saying, "I love our wonderful healthcare system and we need to protect it by excluding these other groups" than to have white racists saying "I hate our failing healthcare system but we can't improve it because of these other groups." At the end of the day they are both really expressing the same sentiment but wanting to preserve a good system (status quo) is a lot easier than trying to build a new one (radical change). Things like NHS can be slowly eroded, so what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Also lol at this dumb loving graph: Of course states with more black people pay less in welfare. They are historically poor you loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
If you bother reading the article it cites studies which suggest that far right populism actually accelerates when social welfare systems improve. Also, why is Jeremy Corbin at a negative 40 net approval? Could it be radical socialism isn't an electoral panacea? Frijolero posted:Also lol at this dumb loving graph: The southern strategy? What's that? A bunch of liberal centrist bullshit I bet! -- a teenage leftist. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you bother reading the article it cites studies which suggest that far right populism actually accelerates when social welfare systems improve. Jeremy Corbyn is Jeremy Corbyn. Also, he hasn't ever ruled or enacted policies so arguing that people don't like his economic policies is inherently loving wrong. JeffersonClay posted:The southern strategy? What's that? A bunch of liberal centrist bullshit I bet! -- a teenage leftist. You heard it here folks. Leftist economic policies cause RACISM Clinton 2020 Frijolero fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Also lol at this dumb loving graph: In your haste to drop burns on Vox (an admirable goal), you seem to have misread the graph. Take another shot with the axis title. I'd rather complain that it measures black population rather than nonwhite in general, though I'd guess that skews the findings some.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:In your haste to drop burns on Vox (an admirable goal), you seem to have misread the graph. Take another shot with the axis title. "In 2001, three scholars at Harvard and Dartmouth found that the higher the percentage of black residents in a state, the less its government spent on welfare payments." Those states on the right are also part of the poorest states in the union: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-poorest-states-in-america-2014-12 Poor state, poor government, poor budget, poor welfare. Now sure, Republicans are racists. But you can't dismiss leftist policies simply because racism exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:"In 2001, three scholars at Harvard and Dartmouth found that the higher the percentage of black residents in a state, the less its government spent on welfare payments." Those states like Alabama and Mississippi are also some of the most Right Wing and racist so they are incredibly hostile to welfare to begin with
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Those states like Alabama and Mississippi are also some of the most Right Wing and racist so they are incredibly hostile to welfare to begin with And thus, Democrats must set themselves the easy task of solving racism, THEN we can worry about silly old social programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:And thus, Democrats must set themselves the easy task of solving racism, THEN we can worry about silly old social programs. Also, then we've got all these other social programs to solve. IN fact I think we need to ensure that cows are properly slaughtered first before we have universal healthcare, What you think that is unreasonable that we would put that above peoples healthcare. What are you? Some sort of sadist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
the only way to stem the rising tide of far-right populism is for the left to become republicans (except on social wedge issues) - a democrat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:the only way to stem the rising tide of far-right populism is for the left to become republicans (except on social wedge issues) - a democrat? I've been saying it for years that the Democrats deep down have always wanted to be the less racist conservative party. I guess their cult leader falling on her face as badly as she did has made them decide to accelerate the process
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you bother reading the article it cites studies which suggest that far right populism actually accelerates when social welfare systems improve. It also could be that half his party spends most of their efforts tearing down the only people among them who appear to have an actual plan aside from "stay the course, since that's been working so loving well". As a centrist shitbird Democrat this might sound familiar to you. At least in Labour's case though, the people with ideas are in charge (barely). So they're better off than your joke of a party, in any case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Also the Democratic party is polling pretty terribly as well, despite being centrist as gently caress and the leadership giving every indication they're not going to change a single thing of substance as long as they have power, which they will hold on to even if it means the death of the party. So I guess if we're going to adhere to the JeffersonClay school of shallow cherry-picked boneheaded bullshit political analysis, centrism doesn't work either. What else do we got? Suicide booths?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
 crazy idea Maybe Dems should put a national jobs program as a major part of their platform in the spirit of CCC? A possible take on it would be to hire out individuals as subsidized contract labor, from unskilled to skilled, to employers at a subsidized wage with unique insurance plan. A weird proposition with low unemployment, but provides a potential rhetorical and policy solution to complaints about exporting jobs, expense of labor, and the protestant notion that lazy people shouldn't be rewarded. A lotta folks stand to benefit though unions would be big losers. There might be some considerations which may safeguard their interests - like qualifying where people can work - so who knows? Whichever way, a bold policy initiative that would contrast with in inevitable failure of republicans to meet the needs of people in the next two years seems like a good place to start. Maybe showing backbone might actually...work!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you bother reading the article it cites studies which suggest that far right populism actually accelerates when social welfare systems improve. "Raised expectations caused the French Revolution" is a longstanding truism. But it's not a defense of the sort of weak "stay-the-course" that Hillary et al. advocate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
I'm confused as to what that Vox piece is arguing for. They present a lot of evidence that economic policies will not win over Trump/far right/racist voters, and make that case a lot:quote:There’s at least suggestive evidence, as my colleague Andrew Prokop writes, that Sanders misread the election results — that embracing left-wing populism won’t, in fact, win over Trump voters. quote:The upshot is that a significant shift to the left on economic policy issues might fail to attract white Trump supporters, even in the working class. But...that's all. What am I supposed to take from that? That it's impossible to ever make progress because any progress you could make just makes the racists stronger? Certainly that's not what the author is probably intending to say*, but that seems to be the logical end point of his argument. I can't imagine that if "vote for me, I'll get you a better job/healthcare" won't convince a racist, "vote for me, I want racial equality" somehow will. It seems very fatalistic. Personally I would say that they are right that no amount of economic policy will convince (meaningful numbers of) Trump voters to vote for a Democrat. I would also say, though, that we shouldn't even be trying to appeal to those voters. They're not a majority of the electorate, let alone the population. By making efforts to pander to them, all you do is shed votes on your left flank, while picking up ~zero on your right. I.e., you'll do a lot better if you try to get left and center-left voters than if you try to get center-left and center-right voters. That may not be true in every political landscape, but it looks like it is for the current US at least. Of course, none of that is to say an economics-only argument will get anywhere either; social issues/idpol have to play a major role too. *He says at the end: quote:If Democrats really want to stop right-wing populists like Trump, they need a strategy that blunts the true drivers of their appeal — and that means focusing on more than economics. Which I'd guess imply he thinks they should focus on economics as well as whatever other issues he thinks are important (he doesn't actually state any directly afaict), but the whole rest of the piece read like a "don't move left on economics, period, it's a bad idea" screed, rather than a warning that economics alone is not enough. This line also struck me as pretty lol: quote:Corbyn himself is now pandering to the right wing; he ordered Labour MPs to vote to begin the Brexit process in Parliament. And his numbers keep falling and falling. Perhaps those things are related. (There are other reasons for Corbyn's unpopularity that just this of course, but his handling of the whole Brexit thing is not helping.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2017 09:04
|
|