|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
gtrmp posted:Racists love to use "illegal immigrants" as a synonym for "all Latinos". They don't assume that Mexican immigrants are more likely to break one law because they already broke another, they assume that Mexican immigrants are more likely to break the law because they aren't white, and that leads them to assume that all Latinos (even US-born citizens) are in the country illegally. Especiallyif if they're not speakin' 'murican!
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, you're not wrong, but think for a moment about the state of Democratic Party leadership, as it has existed for the last few decades. You'll get no argument from the DNC that racism played a role, and they need to put more focus and energy into protecting voting rights/expanding access. The Tom Perezes and David Brocks are all 100% onboard with that. the centrists don't like to deal with racism either. that's why they allow the drug war to continue and hide evidence of police shooting innocent PoC https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/31/democrats-black-voters-granted-abandoned-them dealing with racism is not politically safe. and centrists, being the cowards they are, avoid it as much as possible Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Also, I think there's a big difference between saying "these people are racist" and "these ideas/positions are racist." Ultimately everything is racist to some extent, so it doesn't make sense to randomly draw the line (which just happens to fall along partisan lines) in such a way that some people definitively "are racists" and others aren't. I 100% agree that we shouldn't hesitate in the slightest to say "this idea/policy is racist." But defining people as racist effectively turns it into an identity of sorts, and also carries a LOT of really dangerous implications when it just so happens that racist people are also more likely to be poor. I strongly disagree with this assertion in principle. I mean, I think I know why you're arguing it - the idea that accusing someone of being a racist just tends to shut down discussion with that person. So yes, it can be counter-productive to tar an massive group (e.g. Trump voters as a whole, as opposed to specific sections of Trump voters) with the label "racists." But there are some individuals, particularly in the public sphere, whose actions are so beyond the pale that they need to be outed as racists. Trump is a racist - we know this because of the things he's done, both before becoming a candidate and after. We know David Duke is a racist for similar reasons. There are organizations with explicitly racist goals in the world, and those organizations and the people who belong to them deserve that label. Hand-wringing about "ideas and policies are racist, not people" is just erring way too far in the other direction, and letting too many people off the hook. gtrmp posted:Racists love to use "illegal immigrants" as a synonym for "all Latinos". They don't assume that Mexican immigrants are more likely to break one law because they already broke another, they assume that Mexican immigrants are more likely to break the law because they aren't white, and that leads them to assume that all Latinos (even US-born citizens) are in the country illegally. I'm aware of the existence of that as dogwhistle racism. But that just puts it back in the territory of the typical Republican playbook, the sort of thing they've been saying since Reagan, rather than something exceptional to this election. It also doesn't change the fact that twisting what Trump actually said into something else is disingenuous. Dog whistles work because they can mean one thing to one group of people, and something else to another. No matter how you want to cut it, Trump didn't claim all Mexicans are rapists - not in the context of the speech he was giving, and not even in the most literal interpretation of the quote taken out of context. poo poo, he's said so many horrible things you can just go for the low-hanging fruit rather than spread misinformation. It's not even hard. Falstaff fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
fsif posted:I'm losing you here. We should stop talking about issues once they are identified? This logic can extend to literally any issue. Income inequality, climate change, and access to healthcare have been identified as issues and Republicans have run against fixing them to varying degrees the past several election cycles. No one is denying that the racism played a major role part in the US election, likewise no one is denying that economic policy played a part. The question is what mattered, and what brought about Trump. What was the causing factor? The heat wave that created Hurricane Trump? If we accept that racism was the big factor, what does that mean? It means that the democrats didn't fail, they were failed, by a racist system that awards dog whistling and putting groups against groups. Since that's the case, the democrats have no real reason to innovate beyond trying to reach progressives more, and can run the same strategies as with Hillary. Hillary ran progressive platform and built it around minorities, but it was ultimately failed, and the largest argument against her is her lack of charisma. So hopefully a more charismatic person will run next time. We just need to hold of Trump from doing something stupid, and then the anomaly will disappear. If we accept that economics was the big factor, what does that mean? It means that the democrats were totally off message with the people that they were trying to reach, and that Hillary's policies failed to reach both her own base and much of what's classically seen as "belonging" to the democrats.. It means that Hillary failed and Trump won, not only as a matter of "message", demographics or charisma, but in policy. Trump supported policies that people liked, beyond racism. That in turn calls for a great reorganization of the democratic party, and actually changing policy stances. Now i'm obviously in favor of the second explanation because it explains how relative success of forces like Trump, UKIP and Le Pen, can co-exist with the relative success forces like Mélenchon, Bernie and Corbyn. Economics answers the question of "Why now?" much better then race. It also brings us an alternative to the status quo, a strategy for success. If we take the first argument for granted, what can we actually do to "cure" racism? At best we can write off the deplorable's as lost causes and try to find other sources of votes. I for one am fine with talking about how race was a big issue and how to work against it in the next election, but there is a big divide in the Democratic party right now, and whenever i hear race brought up it almost always to boost the first narrative at the expense of the second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I for one am fine with talking about how race was a big issue and how to work against it in the next election, but there is a big divide in the Democratic party right now, and whenever i hear race brought up it almost always to boost the first narrative at the expense of the second. it's literally only brought up as an excuse for hillary's loss to one of the easiest to beat candidates ever. you'd think they'd give up after hillary shamefully said that she had a tougher time with racism than obama, but apparently they still need to defend their overprivileged abuela Condiv fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
The centrists want to use these social issues as a bludgeon to turn out the left regardless of economic policy, like the right uses abortion or guns to turn out people who don't necessarily agree with their economic dogma. Look at the (incorrect) gnashing of teeth at Bernie bros for not being With Her, or the accusations of racism for people not wanting to vote for Hillary. The Dems have no interest in courting the left any more than they need to reach 50.1.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
They've learned absolutely nothing
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:I strongly disagree with this assertion in principle. I mean, I think I know why you're arguing it - the idea that accusing someone of being a racist just tends to shut down discussion with that person. So yes, it can be counter-productive to tar an massive group (e.g. Trump voters as a whole, as opposed to specific sections of Trump voters) with the label "racists." Yeah, my post wasn't clear about this, but I think that, assuming you don't just call everyone a racist (which is basically true, but it seems like most people are tacitly agreeing on not doing this), the main thing that determines whether someone "is a racist" is whether they either make racism an important part of their identity or hold views that are explicitly racist (for example "I think black people are naturally less intelligent than white people" or something). But even then it's tough to know where to draw the line. I have no doubt that the vast majority of Americans, Democrat or Republican, are probably fine with various forms of casual racism, whether it's imitating AAVE for the purposes of humor or responding more negatively to reports of black crime than white crime. I think the way that I personally mentally distinguish someone as "a racist" (in terms of it being an important part of their identity), is whether they're the sort of person who would actively choose to engage in racism-related arguments (on the racist side, obviously). I think there's a difference between this sort of person and someone who holds racist views but doesn't feel strongly enough about them to frequently and actively express them. Either way, I don't think most people really cross the line where their actions are, as you put it, "so beyond the pale they need to be outed as racists." And, more relevant to the topic of this discussion, I don't think it's useful to define people as racist along partisan lines (though obviously in practice conservatives are definitely more racist on average). I think a big reason why modern liberals accomplish so very little aside from opposing Republicans is that they harbor massive blind spots regarding any of the flaws of the status quo that aren't directly associated with Republican/conservative policy and ideology. They don't tend to focus on any sort of issue that isn't directly tied to Republican wrongdoing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
This is exactly what I meant. Even if the Dems gain power on the backs of these socially liberal economically conservative white ladies nothing of substance changes. There will be no racial justice while minorities stay impoverished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Oh my God, I think I'm having a stroke, because this article is making my face look like Troi's in your av.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
The Democrats really, really want to be non-bigot Republicans. "Romney-Clinton voters," are, "the future of the Democratic Party," said HRC's former National Press Secretary and Senior Spokesperson. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's funny how liberals sold free market reforms and laissez-faire capitalism in the 70s-90s as a universally benevolent force that would lift all boats in a rising economic tide and end poverty forever at the end of history. But when that didn't happen and instead the poor got poorer, the middle class hollowed out and dropped into poverty, and the rich got richer, then instead of admitting they were wrong, liberals just adopted a new narrative that actually burgeoning poverty is good because those people suck anyway and now that we know who they are they can finally suffer as they always deserved. The 'we believe in the free market' is just cover for greed and corporate collusion. There's nothing 'free market' about blocking the importation of cheaper drugs to break up the pharma price cartel, but the democratic establishment seem to go against their cherished free market principles in this case: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-republicans-and-democrats-blocking-drug-reimportation-w485638 Weird!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
and if you point out massive wealth disparity the retort is something like "even the richest billionaire in 1910 couldn't buy an iphone"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:and if you point out massive wealth disparity the retort is something like "even the richest billionaire in 1910 couldn't buy an iphone" On the other hand, poverty entails survival stress. That poo poo warps your mind and ruins quality of life. What's 'stuff' to worrying about food, shelter, health and your future?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
This is just one stupid Politico article so I wouldn't read that much into it, but that title is also a little bit click baity. I mean, this isn't actually unreasonable: quote:Winning these voters doesn’t mean that we have to change our agenda. Rather, we have talk about the type of quality-of-life issues that matter to these suburban voters—which means advocating our same policy priorities in tailored ways. For example, most Democrats are committed to a robust investment in infrastructure—and that shouldn’t change. The difference may be in the way we talk about that idea to voters who are on the fence: Obama-Trump voters may see the infrastructure plan in terms of its ability to create jobs, while Romney-Clinton voters see infrastructure’s appeal in boosted productivity and reduced amounts of time wasted each week stuck in rush-hour traffic. Democrats across the spectrum have increasingly found common ground in the fight for affordable college—an issue important to some voters because it’s their only chance to send their kids to college and important to others who are concerned that their college-bound children will be saddled with record levels of debt for decades. You can court voters through targeted messaging without sacrificing anything, and I don't think it's really breaking news that the white professional class has its fair share of selfish babies who don't really care about policies that don't affect them. And the truth is that Democrats should be working for everyone, including people who don't necessarily need direct assistance but who do still rely on the government like everyone else. Hell, I'd even argue that it's important that we do this in order to counter the relentless Republican campaign to paint government as wasteful, inefficient, and unimportant to anyone who isn't looking for a "handout." Edit- what I'm saying is that the core of this article is that Democrats need to focus on how government can work for everybody and I think that's actually pretty reasonable. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
quote:Perhaps you remember Clinton’s TV ads, many of which simply showed people—children, especially—watching clips of Trump’s speeches, wide-eyed at the bombast they were witnessing. Our internal testing showed that those spots were particularly effective among Romney voters who were leaning to Clinton. Oh, so THAT'S who those ads worked on. The "won't someone please think of the children" types.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Hillary really did expect the base to vote for her regardless of anything else, didn't she?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Corey Booker: son of wealthy IBM executives. Described by longtime friend as having a "Libertarian bent". Refused to call himself a progressive. Defended Bain Capital and equity firms from Obama in the 2012 election. Worked with Betsy Devos to push charter schools. Received donations from Jared Kushner, did not join Democrats in call for Kushner's security clearance to be revoked. Currently predictit's front runner for dem nominee in '20 Fansy fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:On the other hand, poverty entails survival stress. That poo poo warps your mind and ruins quality of life. What's 'stuff' to worrying about food, shelter, health and your future? but yeah, fair enough
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Oh, I wasn't aware that a writer on Politico that I've never heard of speaks for the entire Democratic Party
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Oh, I wasn't aware that a writer on Politico that I've never heard of speaks for the entire Democratic Party quote:Jesse Ferguson (that writer on Politico) was Hillary Clinton's deputy national press secretary during the campaign. quote:Jesse Ferguson is a battle-tested political communications professional. He has top-level experience ranging from presidential campaign media relations with every major national outlet to managing polling and advertising for a nearly $70 million independent expenditure in the midterms and beyond. Of his media relations work, the National Journal wrote, “Jesse Ferguson’s skill is shaping a media narrative while remaining behind the scenes.” BuzzFeed named Ferguson to the 24 people who will be running Washington Next Year, and the National Journal selected him as one of its “35 and Under Power Set.” Recently, his op-eds have been published in USA Today, Time Magazine and the Richmond Times-Dispatch. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesse-ferguson-015625b1/
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Oh, I wasn't aware that a writer on Politico that I've never heard of speaks for the entire Democratic Party He doesn't, but his bs is representative of a lot of Democratic Party leaders' mindsets. As is the degree of support that Ossof's campaign has gotten relative to Quist's or Thompson's. Not to say that I don't want Ossof to win, of course; it's just not a race that represents a viable future for the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Are you guys actually reading that article? I don't see what the major disagreement is here, and I'm lefty as gently caress. It's not about moving party positions to the center, it's about appealing to moderate Republicans through targeted messaging. That is 100% unrelated to "triangulation" or Third Way politics, which are focused on changing actual platform positions to appeal to moderate voters. A hypothetical labor-focused Democratic party should appeal to the white professional class that makes up a lot of the Republican base because those people are part of the working class, even if they don't want to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Are you guys actually reading that article? I don't see what the major disagreement is here, and I'm lefty as gently caress. It's not about moving party positions to the center, it's about appealing to moderate Republicans through targeted messaging. That is 100% unrelated to "triangulation" or Third Way politics, which are focused on changing actual platform positions to appeal to moderate voters. A hypothetical labor-focused Democratic party should appeal to the white professional class that makes up a lot of the Republican base because those people are part of the working class, even if they don't want to admit it. All they want is tax cuts. Every strategy has a cost, because you can only implement so many strategies. Focusing on a fickle minority of voters who will not be loyal to you is a poor strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Are you guys actually reading that article? I don't see what the major disagreement is here, and I'm lefty as gently caress. It's not about moving party positions to the center, it's about appealing to moderate Republicans through targeted messaging. That is 100% unrelated to "triangulation" or Third Way politics, which are focused on changing actual platform positions to appeal to moderate voters. A hypothetical labor-focused Democratic party should appeal to the white professional class that makes up a lot of the Republican base because those people are part of the working class, even if they don't want to admit it. The problem is when we put our resources into a hopeless cause again and again and again. These are the same type of voters who Schumer thought we'd get two of for every blue collar worker we lost in 2016. They're the demo that Clinton wasted time, money, and energy ineffectively wooing in Pennsylvania suburbs, when she should have been campaigning in rural areas and economically depressed former factory towns. That's not a mistake that the Dems can afford to keep making. Affluent white moderate Republicans cannot be relied upon to jump ship, no matter how absurd and grotesque Trump shows himself to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Are you guys actually reading that article? I don't see what the major disagreement is here, and I'm lefty as gently caress. It's not about moving party positions to the center, it's about appealing to moderate Republicans through targeted messaging. That is 100% unrelated to "triangulation" or Third Way politics, which are focused on changing actual platform positions to appeal to moderate voters. A hypothetical labor-focused Democratic party should appeal to the white professional class that makes up a lot of the Republican base because those people are part of the working class, even if they don't want to admit it. The line They value fiscal responsibility is code for tax cuts
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
flashman posted:The line They value fiscal responsibility is code for tax cuts You're taking that out of context: quote:They value fiscal responsibility but also believe in investing in the future, especially education. They remain deeply worried about Trump’s qualifications, scared about his temperament and alienated by his misogyny and ties to extremists. For the first time in a long time, they’re willing to hear about and vote for Democrats. This does not strike me as someone saying "they want tax cuts so we should give them tax cuts." The writer's point here seems to be that these people want tax cuts, but maybe there are cracks in their armor (like education) that we can use to convince them of the value of government spending. Sorry, but I think you guys are seriously overreacting and tilting at windmills. I don't want to waste excessive time and energy focusing on a white suburban middle class that will probably never be reliable either, but nobody (author of that article included) is suggesting that. Messaging that can help build bridges between the poor and those one or two rungs up is incredibly valuable as long as it doesn't come at the expense of actual policy outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
There's no magical perfect message that will convert tons of Republican voters without changing policy. Like, that's a laughably naive West Wing interpretation of politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You're taking that out of context: I don't disagree in principle, but the issue that concerns me is how much inertia is on the side of Democratic leaders who are already 100% onboard with doing that, and only that. What Ferguson suggests has kind of been the status quo strategy for the past few decades, and it usually fails. IMO, progressives need to push with all their energy to get Dem leaders to cater to the working class. That's the only way they're going to meet us even halfway. Believe me, even if we succeed at that, there are still going to be plenty of dollars spent on wooing moderate Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You're taking that out of context: This strategy only works if all the other Dem voters have no where else to go. We saw how this worked last election. People either stayed home or voted Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Republican voters who value education And infrastructure spending.. sounds legit
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Sorry, but I think you guys are seriously overreacting and tilting at windmills. I don't want to waste excessive time and energy focusing on a white suburban middle class that will probably never be reliable either, but nobody (author of that article included) is suggesting that. Messaging that can help build bridges between the poor and those one or two rungs up is incredibly valuable as long as it doesn't come at the expense of actual policy outcomes. It's not overreacting and tilting at windmills when a former press secretary for Hillary Clinton makes the argument that targeting Romney-Clinton voters is the way forward while also revealing that the terrible Hillary ads that were ran on a loop in battleground states were actually run because they tested well with Romney voters who were leaning to Clinton. quote:Perhaps you remember Clinton’s TV ads, many of which simply showed people—children, especially—watching clips of Trump’s speeches, wide-eyed at the bombast they were witnessing. Our internal testing showed that those spots were particularly effective among Romney voters who were leaning to Clinton. There was a deliberate strategy behind the “show don’t tell” approach of letting Trump speak for himself: Highly educated Americans were often skeptical of advertising with overstated or undocumented claims, but were very open to evaluating Trump on his own words and deeds. That's really concerning when you remember all of that is coming from a party that's debating whether to focus on health care (populism) or Russia (donors) in upcoming elections and the same party that produced this great quote. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Are you guys actually reading that article? I don't see what the major disagreement is here, and I'm lefty as gently caress. It's not about moving party positions to the center, it's about appealing to moderate Republicans through targeted messaging. That is 100% unrelated to "triangulation" or Third Way politics, which are focused on changing actual platform positions to appeal to moderate voters. A hypothetical labor-focused Democratic party should appeal to the white professional class that makes up a lot of the Republican base because those people are part of the working class, even if they don't want to admit it. The article mentions appealing to Romney voters in the context of doing so as opposed to poor voters. I also think that a stated attempt to specifically appeal to such voters heavily implies that existing policy goals (that are often spoken of in vague terms with many possible forms of implementation - see "achieving affordable college") will, at the very least, be "interpreted" in ways that don't end up upsetting those groups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Oh my god everyone involved in the Hillary campaign should be exiled to political Siberia. The Democratic party doesn't give a poo poo about winning elections or whatever just how much they can desperately try to be the slightly less racist Republicans. We are going to get so hosed because the supposed opposition is going to enact political malpractice again. It's one thing to not go hard left or whatever but shooting for these mythical not-shitbag Republicans a-loving-gain it's maddening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
I think it will be intriguing if Bernie runs again to see how the DNC treats him this time around (if he doesn't run as an independent)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Politician who spends most of her time carousing with billionaires and their lackeys targets billionaires and their lackeys, to the collective surprise of the nation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The problem is when we put our resources into a hopeless cause again and again and again. These are the same type of voters who Schumer thought we'd get two of for every blue collar worker we lost in 2016. They're the demo that Clinton wasted time, money, and energy ineffectively wooing in Pennsylvania suburbs, when she should have been campaigning in rural areas and economically depressed former factory towns. That's not a mistake that the Dems can afford to keep making. Affluent white moderate Republicans cannot be relied upon to jump ship, no matter how absurd and grotesque Trump shows himself to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:There's no magical perfect message that will convert tons of Republican voters without changing policy. Like, that's a laughably naive West Wing interpretation of politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I think it will be intriguing if Bernie runs again to see how the DNC treats him this time around (if he doesn't run as an independent) If Bernie runs again in 2020, the Democrats are in much worse shape than anyone though
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:16 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:I mean, it would also be nice to come up with some policy platform based on some ethical principles which inform you of what is The Right Thing To Do. Not only do you come up with a more consistent platform that way, but the part where you explain why you want to do things a certain way is baked in to the messaging. Democrats have been triangulating for so long they've forgotten how to do anything else. In fact, they've forgotten there is anything else. Modern Democrats basically view politics/government as a maintenance role. Like, if you consider an analogy where the nation is a house, Democrats believe their role as government officials is to fix various small problems with the house (plug leaks, replacing wiring, etc) but generally not to let their role extend beyond that of maintenance (as opposed to people who think there are fundamental problems with the house that requires adding entire new rooms or otherwise changing its underlying structure). So while Democrats genuinely don't believe the status quo is ideal, and acknowledge there are problems that need to be fixed, they ultimately believe these are fixable problems within an otherwise working system* and that the risk of attempting anything more significant is too great. It's not surprising they feel this way; most people who become politicians have comfortable lives, as does everyone else they know, so the suffering of other Americans becomes more of an intellectual problem they're distanced from. Even if they don't explicitly articulate things this way, at the end of the day they don't feel any sort of pressure to address present suffering, instead believing that, as they continue to figuratively plug various leaks in the house, those problems will ultimately be resolved someday (consequently, this is why I believe that the more serious problems our country faces will never be addressed by the form of incrementalism practiced by mainstream Democrats. It's not so much that I'm against incrementalism itself, but that I feel the incremental changes they make will never lead to the outcome I - and obviously many others - desire). *When I say "system" I'm not just referring to capitalism or our government/constitution, but to the general power relationships that exist between government and industry, etc. Someone like Bernie Sanders obviously doesn't seem to want to end capitalism or rewrite the constitution, but he does want to make big, fundamental changes to the way important industries like healthcare or finance function (in a way that would significantly reduce the power of people who currently have power, etc). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 02:53
|
|