- il_cornuto
- Oct 10, 2004
-
|
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?
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.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 19:30
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2024 04:23
|
|
- il_cornuto
- Oct 10, 2004
-
|
Party infighting will definitely weaken the party short-term but if they emerge from it with strong leftist leadership and the liberals sidelined or driven out, won't that have been worth it?
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.
Right, my point wasn't that the change shouldn't happen, but that the left need to be prepared for a fight. In the UK at least there's still a very real chance that the liberals will end up winning back control.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 19:30
