|
The "liberalism" he's talking about isn't liberalism even in the American sense. It's just "How To Do Politics Without Resorting To Murder". One of our major political parties figured out that they can abandon those rules for huge electoral and cultural gain, and without much dire consequence for themselves provided the other major political party continues to follow them. What remains to be seen is whether the other major political party continues to follow them or not: if they do we'll have authoritarianism, and if they don't we'll have civil war (and then authoritarianism, probably). The probability space left over for other outcomes seems vanishingly small, e.g. the Democratic party is actually for real hijacked by an actual no-bullshit leftist movement that takes no prisoners - that will result in option two: civil war, since there is no way on Earth the American ruling class is going down without a fight, and they've got enough lower-class dupes on their side to put up an actual fight (and win, in my opinion, but that remains to be seen). Anyway, and apologies in advance for the quibbling, but I don't see much difference in the "European" understanding of "liberal" vs. the American one anyway. They both describe center-right, capitalist ideology. It's just that in America actual leftist political discussion isn't a thing in public discourse, so a "merely" center-right, somewhat mixed-market capitalist platform is seen as far left because, in a sense, it is. (It's the farthest left you can go and still be taken seriously.) Anyway I use them interchangeably.
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Higsian posted:I think the individualism and worthiness are the aspects of American liberalism that are incompatible with real change. I'm not a fan of capitalism but I think it could be workable if income was seen as a benefit from society and capitalists were seen as managers of societal wealth rather than owners of wealth. Basically if capitalism was seen as the means of determining where labour and resources are used for society rather than as a way to enrich the individual. You know, we demand payment for goods and services so that goods and services that don't get paid for are discontinued and the resources reassigned by what people are willing to pay for and allowing you to pick and choose what you want, rather than say deciding centrally what people want.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It probably depends on how the military's loyalties shake out, but civil war speculation is best left for another thread. As for what "liberals" (or former liberals) do now, I don't know what else there is to do but advocate socialism. That's not even a statement on the merits of socialism - I just can't think of anything else in the first place. Trying to humanize capitalism is what got us into this mess. Capitalism is inherently inhuman and corrupting and we see the influence of that corruption in the Democratic party. Even now, with the left pissed off at the Democrats and ready to revolt, the (for the moment) most likely 2020 Presidential candidate for the Democrats couldn't even marshal the fortitude required to make a totally symbolic and consequence-free (in terms of actual policy, anyway) vote in favor of cheaper prescription drugs. Him and 12 other morons. I mean on the flip side if you think there is not much wrong with the Democratic party as it is presently constituted then the answer seems pretty clear, and we've heard it a lot on this board and elsewhere: keep, ah, doing the same thing, and hope it works next time. So I guess it still means what you mean by "liberal", alas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Yeah let me walk back my talk about what liberal means a bit, and Tiny Brontosaurus sorry but I'm doing this so it's easier (for me) to talk about what "liberals" are going to do. A lot of people on the right pretty much lump "everyone to the left of John McCain" into the "liberal" bucket and if this thread is supposed to be about what these people are going to do collectively, then I think we need two threads because I don't believe liberal, as defined by your typical idiot Republican anyway, can continue to exist as a unified bloc for much longer. Democratic socialists, Marxists, Leninists, basically whatever other "not-capitalist" label you want to throw out, and perhaps also those at the left edge of what can still be considered capitalism (Nordic model, social democratic types, basically) are either going to be running the Democratic party soon or they aren't going to identify as Democrats or vote for Democrats. I don't think there is much room for compromise because they think they've been compromising all along anyhow, in the interest of winning elections, and welp. As such, they're a lot harder to appease than the other group, which is: People who are actually just a little bit to the left of John McCain. I don't know what these people are going to do. Continue to run the Democratic party into the ground, most likely, and since that's about all they're going to be able to achieve I think there is not much else to discuss there. I do think, all else being equal, it would be easier for leftists to get these people to go along with what they want than the other way around, but on the other hand they are entrenched in the party and in all the support organs that surround it, and somehow they continue to perceive, despite November 2016, any strong reasons to appease the left. So all else is not actually equal, and we're stuck with a left that doesn't want to budge (and good for them, IMO) and a center that seems to think "the left" consists of one old dude from Vermont and a handful of schoolkids. Is there any way forward from that which doesn't involve one side browbeating the other into compliance?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:I think one of the distinct challenges Liberalism faces is the inability to rally around any figurehead. I think it's instructive to compare the situation we have with the GOP now to the situation the Democrats found themselves in, in 2008. It's hard to believe but the Democrats were in an even more dominant position then than the Republicans find themselves in now. What did we get out of that? Obama had campaigned on a public option and abandoned it before ever sitting down at the negotiating table. So we got a weaksauce health care law (that's going to be repealed anyway) and nothing else of major import. Instead we were lectured to about "political capital" until 2009 happened and wiped it all away. Meanwhile the GOP is stretching the Constitution to the limit of reasonable interpretation (and often going over that line e.g. the Supreme Court) to deliver their horrible agenda. Like it or not in terms of actually being able to rely on a politician to do the things they say, the GOP have the Democrats beaten, hands down. If what you are saying were a universal thing it would have happened to Bernie Sanders as well. Dude has been in politics for a long time and has said and supported some stupid poo poo. And, Hillary's camp tried to capitalize on that and it mostly didn't work. That's not because the left has blinders on for Sanders specifically, it's that Sanders is unequivocally a credible leftist and once you establish that a lot else can be forgiven, and will be forgiven.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
I might have been one of those voters, actually. I'm not exactly young and was happy to vote for Hillary because, somehow, despite the situation at the state level, I thought it was still right and good to vote for and support centrists because they can win elections and half of what you want is better than nothing. In the aftermath of the election in trying to process what the gently caress just happened I guess I decided on two things: leftists don't actually get close to "half" by electing and supporting centrist Democrats in the first place, and centrist Democrats are actually pretty bad at winning elections. So that's why I said earlier to just advocate socialism going forward because what else is there to do? Now, you might say that since I am talking in terms of compromise in the first place that I'm actually a leftist all along and so I don't count in terms of this discussion. You might be right, but also keep in mind that you probably wouldn't have taken me for a leftist before November. I didn't take myself for one. So for how we radicalize your mom (mine is probably a lost cause) I think that goes along similar lines: change how they actually think about things. Talk about democratic workplaces and profit sharing, both of which are a surprisingly easy to sell in my experience. Bring up basic income framed as a replacement for minimum wage, social security, unemployment, etc. And as for actually turning out to vote, is that a problem with older Democrats? I think it was mainly the younger ones and the older ones turn out at roughly the same rate as older Republicans. No?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:I have seen this from another angle too, where someone has indeed lived legitimate hardship but worked their way out of it, so now they can sympathize with the hardship of others but feel like that's just part of the deal and it will soon turn out all right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
il_cornuto posted:I may be biased, but I think Democrats should probably look at what's been happening to Labour in the UK for a living of example of the left trying to take control back from (centre) Liberals - the Liberals are doing everything up to and including sabotaging their own party to stop it happening, and the left are showing their lack of experience actually running things. I absolutely hope that both Labour and the Democrats are eventually able to move solidly left, but in the UK at least the attempt has led to a weakened left and centre and a stronger right so far - and I say that as someone who would love to see Corbyn win. I mean of course they don't have much experience running things - they've been shut out of power by the centrist "left" for decades. It's like the thing in Arizona with Sanders supporters during the primary: of course they don't know what they're doing if they've been ignoring politics while the busybody nihilists who run the party also ignore them. The answer to that (for the busybodies) should be "stop ignoring them and engage them" and if they don't do that (they haven't and they won't) the answer for the people being ignored is to drive these fuckers out of power by any means necessary and make sure they never have it again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I think we all agree on that, the question is how to help them do that. It's not exactly easy but as I said before I don't know what else to do. If they're a milquetoast liberal and they think some form of socialism could maybe work but it would never get past the electorate so better triangulate, triangulate, triangulate, then it might be as simple as pointing out that this is exactly what centrists have been fiddling with since Reagan at least and in the meantime the government has moved steadily to the right despite the population moving steadily to the left (so I'm told, anyway - not sure how much I believe this). If they continue to balk at it then just say you're also tired of compromising on your ideals with people who have none, and who can't really win elections anymore anyway. And if socialists can't win elections either then at least you're voting for the people that you would want administering the government even if they're never going to get the chance. The truth, in other words. There might be a less grim way to put it but that's the gist. A little "rather die on my feet" sort of spirit is what the left needs. If they're holding on to capitalism a little tighter than that, then at that point you have to actually sell socialism. I think a lot of people who like capitalism do so out of a desire for economic self-determination. But in truth capitalism doesn't deliver on this so make that case. Stuff like democratic workplaces can be an easy sell and you don't even have to mention the word socialism in the first place. I tell people I'd like to see the charter for public corporations reworked so that half the board is elected by the employees, and the other half by shareholders. I've also brought up mandatory profit sharing as well but that's a lower priority for me than democratic workplaces and more abstract than "you'll vote on the CEO and determine what he's paid". (It would likely be a consequence of democratic workplaces anyway.) It's also a good answer to shipping jobs overseas, since if workers are playing a big part in the management of a large company they're not going to vote themselves out of work unless they're voting on a fair severance at the same time. Finally, if they're low information and easily swayed by bullshit (and maybe even voted for Trump) then appeals to emotion and conscience. That's how you get people to give a drat as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's appealing to draw corollaries to the Civil War, but I think our current state of affairs is weirder than it was back then. We aren't divided on clean geographic lines, but generational and cultural ones. Not "rural" so much as people who think of themselves as good old-fashion country folk, despite living in the suburbs and driving a 60k pickup truck that's never had anything in the bed. And because it's so generational, really the over-45s vs. the under-45s, I think it's hard to make long-term predictions because we don't really know what the country's going to look like politically when that generation is gone. It's weird that we Americans try to put the center of gravity of our society out in the hinterlands and the outskirts of cities - that has never been a thing in the history of civilization as far as I know. It's always been about cities.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I never thought of that before, but you're right, that's really weird. Maybe it's because a lot of colonial americans were people who didn't succeed in the cities of europe and felt alienated by them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 10:55
|
|