- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Work to actually grow the party in local state elections. Increace labor turnout, stand with the 15$minimum wage people. Work to empower rural workers and not think they are all rednecks.
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 09:28
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2024 15:24
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Well in a very real sense they do, but the typical assertion is Racism Just Because, which I'm not a terribly large fan of. Many people, especially the poor, are nowhere near as stupid as other seem to think, sometimes (in fact, I'd argue basically all the time) its having a kind of legitimate desire/concern, but not having the right language, framing or ideology to properly express, so it comes out all wrong. So anti social-liberalism as a kind of expression of 'I feel alienated, I don't have a place to belong, not in the modern democratic party, so I vote republican'. And that of course can lead to direct racism, as well as anti-gay or anti-abortion stuff, but the racism/christian-fanaticism acts to fill a kind of void in their lives, as opposed to being something that's intrinsic to them. At least, that's my impression.
What I'm saying is, make me dictator and I'll solve this poo poo post-haste.
Actually more of them vote democrat then Republicans. The problem is most don't vote at all. In part I would argue because no one (except right now with Trump) ever even tries to communicate with them. Yeah some of their antipathy is racism, but most of all its that no one reaches out to them. Period. Everyone tells them to get in debt and go to college. Well why should they want to get into debt for ten years. They want jobs, they want good pay, and they want their jobs to be appreciated. Actually appreciated and not just be written off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 13:10
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Abandon gun control as an issue.
It only appeals to people who are already solid Democrat voters and it alienates the rural working class.
Also stop trying to elect Hillary Clinton to things she has all the charisma of a sack of damp leaves and carries more baggage than your average 747.
This too. At best talk about gun policy and attack insane poo poo like Texas style poo poo. Don't be trying to restrict mag size.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 03:22
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
And for gently caress's sake go after things that make sense. The vast majority of gun murders are done with cheap, small-caliber handguns. Assault weapon bans don't address the actual circumstances under which gun murders are committed and only give gun dorks the chance to be absolutely correct when they attack them as pointless nonsense.
This, for instance coming out against open carry would be fine with most Americans and most gun owners. Its trying to restrict what they can own period that pisses them off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 07:34
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Amend the constitution to eliminate gerrymandering and redraw all congressional districts in a fair formulaic way.
Also adopt the Wyoming Rule.
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Feb 7, 2016
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 04:48
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Again, is there any evidence that more representatives leads to less gerrymandering and a less stacked House?
It would certainly see a states represented better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 18:41
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
I understand but I'm looking for evidence. Again it's been said that state houses are still very gerrymandered. Not sure how true that is though. But I see that Flordia's state house is 1/3rd Democrats and 2/3rd Republican despite voting Democrat the past 2 elections.
I would also argue it be a decent issue to run on in all but the smaller states. Tell the populace that their getting screwed because of these smaller backwaters having to much influence. Also I would run on fear with a proposal to implement an amendment making rigging elections an act of treason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 19:14
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
It doesn't matter if 50-60% of the country are in favor of something as vague as "stricter gun laws" without accounting for all the people who drop out when you propose a stricter law that isn't what they might specifically have in mind or do it in a way they see as inefficient and counterproductive. The percentage split has pretty much always been that way going back decades and even if 50-60% could be counted on being OK with any gun control increase, it doesn't matter because they're waaaaay less motivated that pro-gunners.
If Republican congress critters suddenly said, "Hey guys you know what we're cool about abortion. Let's move on," would you immediately take them at their word tomorrow or would you look at their home states over a few years to see if they're leaving their restrictive laws as-is, increasing restrictions, or reducing restrictions in deep red areas they have supermajorities in and in no way have to compromise with the other side? The NRA absolutely will change their mind about Dems waging a culture war when the day comes that NY, NJ, and CA pass bills to reinstate private ownership of larger magazines and machine guns which are all statistical background noise in terms of crime.
Yeah most gun owners arn't libertarians poo poo stains though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 04:29
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Republicans were okay with gun control back in the 70s when it was "hey maybe we should do something to keep all these minorities from owning guns", they've never been on board with having their gun rights taken away. Trying to act like this is the same debate they were in support of in the 70s is about as intellectually honest as claiming democrats are the real racists because Lincoln was a Republican.
This is one of the reasons why I also don't see why one of the left would get behind gun control. It only gets passed when its people in power wanting to restrict worker and or a specific minoriy groups rights.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 12:55
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
How, precisely, would the national Democratic party stop supporting gun control when that is what base wants? Why not stop supporting another issue like Abortion (which is even more divisive?)
The whole point is abandoning the issue is just a non-starter. It is complete fantasy.
At best as many 1/4th of the base does and they'll support the dorms anyways for standing up for social democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 20:44
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Trump's strategy is intimately tied up with Trump's public persona and his access to an unlimited warchest of his own money. I'm sure there are lessons to be learned from his campaign but the idea that you could just appropriate his tactics and slap a progressive coat of paint on them strikes me as hollow. Can you name a single political figure within the Democratic party over the last 30 years who you could plausibly imagine running something analogous to Trump's campaign? For one thing, his appeal is so tied up with racial politics right now. For another, the Democratic establishment is no more supportive of economic nationalism than the Republicans, perhaps even less in some cases.
Also you still have to address the fact that the Democratic party, as opposed to Democratic voters, has displayed zero interest in any kind of populism that would be genuine enough to threaten their access to Plutocrat Welfare. I think many of them would probably prefer that a genuine populist candidate lose than risk upsetting the system that reliably delivers so many benefits to them. Both parties know that the system inevitably puts them back into power after a few cycles, so why upset the apple cart with a risky anti-establishment candidate when you're going to win anyway eventually, and when your personal well being is guaranteed either way?
The problem is the structure of the Democratic party. They aren't stupid, they just have no incentive to pursue the kind of progressive agenda that a lot of people want. It's not for nothing that Benrie Sanders campaign has relied so much on support from people who previously didn't participate in the party or who only got involved in 2008 onward.
If you look at how the GOP ended up being a vehicle for conservative ideologues, one of the clear factors was that conservatives in the 1960s (really in the 1940s and 50s but things didn't properly get underway till the 60s) decided to seize control of the party. That was a battle that raged continuously into the 1980s. By contrast the Democrats went through a similar takeover in the 1960s by progressive activists but unlike the GOP the Democratic establishment rallied itself, kicked those people out and then rewrote the party rules so they'd never win again. Then they spun an entire mythology around why McGovern had lost so they'd have a neat little cautionary tale to point to for future elections.
To fix the Democratic party you'd need to actually start taking control of the party apparatus and changing the party's culture, much in the way that the Goldwaterites and their fellow travelers were able, through decades of trench warfare, to take over the Republicans.
While I would say that the tale of Mcgovern is more then a myth. Mcgovern really did get utterly hosed by Nixon. At the same time Democrats returning to power requires that the left takes back the party from the donor class and forces our own Rockefellers to get in line or get out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 11:49
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Other than a propensity for bombastic rhetoric I don't really see the similarity between him and Trump. I feel like you're focusing on the more superficial (though still important) elements of Trump's appeal, like his bombastic rhetoric and bullying nature. I think what you're over looking is that Trump also had a very effective strategy: one I don't see any equivalent of on the Democratic side.
Trump was able to identify a specific and dramatic divergence between the GOP leadership and the GOP rank and file, specifically immigration and globalization, and Trump has exploited that weakness. So many liberals are acting like Trump is commanding rabid support through some kind of dark rhetorical sorcery that has no connection to any actual policy or factual reality. What this view overlooks is that Trump is actually playing masterfully into a real division within the GOP to leverage his own advantages. His bombastic rhetoric helps him but his rhetoric wouldn't be so powerful if the division didn't already exist to be exploited.
What's the Democratic equivalent of that? Is there a democratic equivalent of that? Because that's more important than the rhetoric.
Honestly this post kinda approximates how I imagine Hilary Clinton and a lot of her advisers have viewed American politics. I want to highlight one statement you made that I think is particularly telling:
I don't mean to pick on you or to read too deeply into what you said but this to me is a really fallacious way to view things. You're basically treating the voting population as an inert mass upon which different political parties enact their strategies. You model implicitly suggests that when Obama has the right combination of promises he gets high turn out and wins. It calls to my mind Hilary's many frustrated attempts to "introduce herself" to voters, which invariably push her negatives higher. You can almost hear the grinding of teeth over at Hilary HQ each time they try to deploy these supposedly reliable media strategies only to have their candidates unfavorables remain dizzyingly high.
What you're ignoring, I think, is that politics unfolds in the real world. Obama's high turn out can't just be viewed as a byproduct of a clever strategy. It was part of a larger historical moment involving the middle east wars going sour and the George W. Bush economy collapsing. People's material living standards were under threat and every indication was that the future would be worse. Obama may have capitalized on these circumstances but he didn't create them. He was, if anything, lucky to be a blank slate upon which millions of people could project their own hopes (or fears, as we discovered).
I also think this misunderstanding shows up in your description of the Obama years. His policies utterly failed to actually improve the lives of ordinary Americans, which have arguably gotten worse during his time in office. The ACA might look better on paper, and no doubt some people are glad to have insurance, but basically the law sucks and is forcing people to buy expensive insurance with co-pays and deductibles that make the insurance largely unusable. I would suggest that these failures, plus the general weakness of the Democrats in any midterm, are a better explanation of the Democrats electoral defeats in the house. Sure Obama's surprisingly conservative approach to governance probably didn't help and his administration badly mishandled some important individual races such as the Scott Brown fiasco, but the real lesson of the Obama administration seems to be that soaring rhetoric can cover up a fundamentally lovely economy.
And again, this all comes back to money. Actually enacting policies that significantly improve the lives of regular voters and give them an incentive to continue voting Democratic would be contrary to the monied interests who have bankrolled the party for decades. Such a shift would also threaten the privileged position of Democratic leaning policy wonks like Jonathan Chait or Ezra Klein. It would potentially shift the balance of power within major unions, whose leadership are mostly invested in supporting the Democratic party's status quo. In other words: a more aggressively populist and left leaning Democratic party would be opposed by much of its own core leadership and functionaries.
So my suggestion would be that while the rhetoric or strategy of individual politicians can make some difference one way or the other, your focus should be the facts on the ground. What's the state of the economy, whats the orientation of major institutions like businesses, unions, the media, etc. Whats the attitude of party insiders, what's on the minds of voters. It's dangerous to get too focused on individual campaign strategy when ultimately it's the big picture that sets the conditions upon which political struggles play out. Obama won in 2008 because of the failures of the Bush years, and he proceeded to lose congress and various state governments in large part because he utterly failed to do what was expected of him and fix the economy mess his predecessors had left behind.
I say its a myth because all that is remembered today is that McGovern was very liberal. It's actually very much an example of what I am talking about above: the material situation is ignored and only McGovern's campaign strategy is looked at. So never mind that the Democratic party was in the midst of a bloody rupture as the Dixiecrats were forced out. Never mind that the civil rights legislation passed in 64 was still a major and controversial issue. Never mind that the cultural gap between unionized blue collar workers and the New Left was much more intense back then than it is now. All of these important historical factors are ignored because its more convenient for the DLC and its successors to spin the election as a clear rebuke of liberalism.
Winning I would argue requires focusing on elctions on the ground and terrorizing the DLC types. Lets be honest outside of HIlalry their a bunch of cowards who will fall in line if the fire below them is hot enough. Push against the Charter school assholes. Push for more minimum wage laws in states and in local elections and when you can primary sociopaths like Schulz.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 19:38
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
Yeah but "terrorizing the DLC types" is really the issue. They currently have a stranglehold on the party. We'll have to see how the primary elections shake out today but it really looks as though the remnants of the DLC are about to coronate another hardcore DLCer over the objections of a much more energetic grassroots campaign that numerous polls suggest would actually be more electable. And meanwhile its a Democratic president pushing one of the worst trade bills in history over the objection of some of his party's core constituencies:
What's the point of talking about "terrorizing the DLC types" when the entire party establishment is controlled by those same types.
There's an old military saying that goes like this. "Amateurs worry about strategy, experts worry about logistics." Most people in this thread want to talk about strategy: they want to discuss the killer campaign rhetoric or decisive issue that the Democrats can use to smash the Republicans in elections. These are people who seemingly think that all it took to get the New Deal was FDR calling rich people "malefactors of great wealth".
But the real issue for any progressive or left liberal or social democratic person in the USA seems to be more logistical than strategic. You guys don't have your own political party. The Democrats actively work against your interests. You lack the institutional weight to enforce your political will.
I don't claim to have any easy solution. It seems like a two front war may be necessary, in which progressives are both fighting the Democratic party's leadership and trying to win elections against Republicans. Whether that is actually doable is questionable at best but that seems to be what the situation calls for.
But the point stands that its somewhat premature to talk about the Democrats retaking the house by enacting progressive policies when really the Democrats have shown almost zero interest in deviating from the Clinton-Bush-Obama economic paradigm that the entire leadership of the party is solidly committed to.
Sanders, to his credit, at least has a theoretical explanation for how to break this impasse. It's a big vague in the particulars but it amounts to using mass mobilization and grassroots pressure to break the deadlock in Congress, and he'd try to rely on grassroots fundraising to replace big money donors. Whether any of that is feasible at the national level is questionable, but at least it's a somewhat coherent plan for weaning the Democrats off billionaire welfare.
The real problem, though, is that Sanders won't win. So where does that leave his supporters, and the Democrats more generally? Do the Bernouts launch another bid to seize control of the presidency in 4 or 8 years? Do they focus on taking control of state partys or down ticket races and nominations? I honestly don't know, but that to me seems like the more relevant conversation to be having. Instead of vesting too much hope in individual candidacies or campaigns I'd suggest that the progressive left in America should be focusing on actually creating an institutional basis that could plausibly take control of the Democratic party rather than merely being co-opted by it. How exactly that is done is impossible to predict in advance, but there are numerous 20th century examples of how particular demographics or interest groups have seized control of political parties and re-purposed them to new ends. So perhaps looking to some of those examples, such as Goldwater and McGovern, would be a good first step.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 20:20
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2024 15:24
|
|
- Crowsbeak
- Oct 9, 2012
-
by Azathoth
-
Lipstick Apathy
|
When I see the success of the WFP Iin general. Along with actions against the charter school types. The success of local raise the minimum wage efforts. ALong with movements like BLM.I think this is not only possible but something we can do by 2030.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 20:39
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 09:28
