Why do liberals hate poor people now?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why do liberals hate poor people now?

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Jeb! Repetition posted:

What's the point of NPR existing now that Car Talk's over?

A Prairie Home Compan....wait...dammit...

# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 19:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:40

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

FuzzySkinner posted:

i know his background kinda contradicts this, but when's the last time you've heard a Dem champion FDR and his legacy?

I got stamps the other day and the post office worker from behind the counter seemed so drat proud they featured "New Deal" programs on them. Those programs are STILL taught in school to this day as an example of how we dug our asses out of financial ruin and helped grow the middle class.

They don't do that. You know who they do like to talk about. i'll give you a little hint:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXqz0-fVcn4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBrOcoj89s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV0AjH0ahWU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQai93glsy0

(That last one? Ran in Ohio during the election btw).

FDR, for all his faults, is as close as Democrats have right now to a Ronald Reagan figure, and I've never understood why they don't do more to talk about being his inheritors in the same way that Republicans talk about being the party of Lincoln and Reagan.

I've thought for a while that Democrats could get a lot of traction nationwide with a set of policies that intentionally hearken back to FDR's Four Freedoms:

Freedom of Speech - Even if Trump disagrees with you
Freedom of Worship - But not just for Christians
Freedom from Want - The 1% shouldn't live the good life while others suffer
Freedom from Fear - But not just for white folks

It's a coherent message that has relevancy today, while having historical resonance, but I doubt it'd get play inside their messaging shops. Democrats have been utterly incompetent at messaging for as long as I've been alive, I don't know why I think they'll suddenly figure it out now.

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 00:05

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Someone once said, perhaps on these forums, that the reason that the public gets pissed at each party is different.

Republicans piss off voters by over-promising during the campaign, then when voted into power, they don't do what they say. The whole Obamacare repeal debacle is a perfect encapsulation of this.

Democrats piss off voters by attempting to deliver exactly what they promised on the campaign trail, which voters invariably interpret as going too far. The original passage of Obamacare is a pretty good example. They rammed it through Congress and voters punished them for it in 2010.

I think that reaction with Democrats goes back decades and is rooted in deeply-ingrained fears of Communism in a large portion of the populace and a deeply-ingrained fear of appearing Communist on the part of the Democrats.

It's only now that a significant portion of the voting population didn't grow up with the Soviet Boogeyman (or have moved past it) that we're seeing any kind of national appetite for the kind of legislation and policy advocated by Bernie during the primary.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2017 22:55

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Condiv posted:

where's the public option? why didn't obama protest with unions when scott walker was busting them?

I wasn't pay as much attention to the legislative sausage being made in 2008 as I am now, but my understanding on the public option was that it would have shifted the political calculus enough to stall Obamacare in the House. Might be some revisionist history being sold to me, but I heard someone once say that the biggest problem with Obamacare was that it wasn't necessarily designed to work, it was designed to pass. My point being that Obama pushed as far left of a healthcare bill as he thought he could get through, and once he got it, Republicans proceeded to spend the next 6 years using it as the centerpiece of their campaign to control Congress as a prime example of government overreach.

As for the union thing? I think Scott Walker would have welcomed Obama with open arms if he'd wanted to come and stand with the unions. Granted, that's just my view from across the border here in Minnesota, but I don't see how Obama wading into that would have done anything but help Walker and his cause. A lot of my family is public sector union, and no one, and I mean no one, wanted Obama to come to the midwest and try to help.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2017 07:55

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

rudatron posted:

The 'racists killed populism' is nothing but a convenient lie liberals tell themselves - they killed it, with their own hands.

Yeah, Democratic leadership has, for decades, ignored Midwestern populist Democrats and consistently fought Republicans on ground that makes it harder and harder to win over working-class voters. Hopefully they'll learn some lessons and...bwahahahahaha....we're all doomed....

# ¿ Apr 10, 2017 20:40

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Talmonis posted:

Same.

Related; What's with the idea that anyone who isn't a flag waving Red being a Liberal? A lot of ya'll are taking positions from Goldwater Republicans to Moderate Dems, and tarring the poo poo out of liberals with them. Democrats didn't magic Full Communism Now into existance? Clearly they must be just Republicans in disguise, out to kill the poor.

We can never make any progress until we are ideologically pure, and the only pure ideology is FULL COMMUNISM NOW. Until we have that, it's best to either not vote or vote Republican because that's a surefire way to boomerang the country straight into revolution. I know it's true, I voted Democrat once and they didn't immediately introduce a bill calling for seizing the means of production, so I cried about how they're all DINOs and when that didn't work, I went home and vowed to never participate in the political process again.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 18:26

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

I'd argue that the biggest failure of the Hillary campaign is that she really didn't have anything more than a perfunctory ideology, no matter how many detailed policy positions her staff put up on the website, or no ideology beyond "I really should be president and have more power than I have now". It's pretty similar to Romney in 2012, in its own twisted way, what with how "severely conservative" he tried to be.

As for the climate here, I wouldn't take this place as representative of anything. It's fun to argue with the communists and other assorted non-voters and third-party voters, and I'm sure they think it's fun to argue with us and point out how Hillary put on a master class in how to mismanage a campaign and be a bad candidate.

That said, I'm never gonna stop telling them to suck it up and vote, and to go get involved in local politics, because I really do think that it's the best way for them to actually make what they want happen.

And getting to be all smug about knowing what's best is a nice side-benefit of arguing politics with needs on the internet.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 20:28

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Jeb! Repetition posted:

Like I was saying in another thread, Trump is on balance more of a neoliberal than Hillary.

I follow politics and I am still having trouble understanding what people mean when they say "neoliberal", because some of the time it means "whatever the person thinks Hillary would have theoretically stood for if she'd won" and sometimes it is "warhawk populist Democrat" and sometimes it is "capitalist Democrat" and so statements like that just end up being meaningless to me.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 20:34

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

She wasn't just a bad candidate, the Hillary Clinton campaign was the worst presidential campaign in Democratic party history.

Aside from maybe McGovern in 1972, you're right.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 20:39

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

https://twitter.com/deray/status/854895290104545281

Yeah, the responses on that pretty much sum it up. However, I should have also included that some people use it like "hipster", to mean some kind of insufferable person.

Gonna still stand by it being utterly meaningless, at least until someone actually comes out and proudly calls themselves neoliberal and owns the label.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 20:49

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

No. McGovern ran a better campaign.

Well you're pretty insufferable for one.

Secondly, nobody is going to proudly own neoliberalism because it's an ideology that's garbage on its face. It only maintains traction because there's a lot of money to be made in realizing its politics. That's why neoliberals are always the people who claim that neoliberalism doesn't exist, or that it can't even be adequately defined. That it's a meaningless buzzword.

Awww, and here I thought you liked me! Well, I guess I'll just have to keep trying extra hard then.

Forums Terrorist posted:

Adam Smith Institute.

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=...zc4PJGeFZqF9uFQ

Well I'll be damned.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 21:51

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Main Paineframe posted:

was McGovern the one who said he was "one thousand percent" behind his VP who had been getting mental health treatment

and then dropped him like a good idea when the news coverage turned against him?

And who didn't find out about said mental health treatment during what can only charitably be described as a vetting process, which apparently consisted of nothing more than a question hastily scribbled on a piece of notebook paper which said "would you like to be vice president y/n?" and they picked first person to respond in the affirmative.

And it's worth pointing out that Eagleton wasn't just receiving treatment, his depression was by all accounts not under control and he'd been hospitalized several times for it, yet didn't feel that this was something that he needed to disclose.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 22:35

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Still a better choice than, uh. I actually forgot Hillary's VP again, this isn't a joke. I actually wanted to say Mike Pence.

I volunteered for her campaign and I routinely forgot his name then, and still do. The person on these forums who described him as "your mother's ex-boyfriend that she almost married" was spot-on.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 23:29

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Alienwarehouse posted:

You should read this book A Brief History of Neoliberalism: https://www.amazon.ca/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

From the introduction:

If they had replaced "Neoliberalism" with "Libertarianism", it would have ready pretty similar. That legit reads like some specific flavor of libertarianism. Is that book actually a good critical and/or dispassionate look at it, cause I'd be interested in that. If not for some specific life experiences, I could definitely have seen my young adult self buying into that poo poo whole hog. So uh...there but for the grace of God go I...

comedyblissoption posted:

aside from the belief in globalism and the virtues of market forces, neoliberalism in the US also believes in austerity, gutting social safety nets, expanding the prison population, privatization of prisons, privatization of schools, waging a terrible and oppressive drug war, waging terrible and oppressive foreign wars, overthrowing governments, not prosecuting widespread and fraudulent criminal behavior by large financial institutions, creating a tech panopticon that spies on every citizen, revolving doors being good, and legalized bribery of public officials being good

oh and the most important thing to do is to have good decorum

This is more-or-less what I think of when I hear "neoliberal", aside from the parts about austerity and social safety net cuts at least. I know Hillary is all about those personally, but I can't recall any other Democrats even saying that stuff privately and getting caught, let alone saying it publicly. That isn't to say that I'm disagreeing with you, just that I'm not aware of it, so I don't associate it with the term "neoliberal". The rest...yeah, that's basically what lovely authoritarians on the left turned to as a channel for their authoritarian streak while avoiding the right calling them commies. gently caress anyone who believes any of that poo poo is good.

Edit:

Aside from decorum, I'm far too midwestern to say that decorum is not good.

Azathoth fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Apr 30, 2017

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 01:47

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

comedyblissoption posted:

welfare reform by clinton in the 90s was a social safety net cut. clinton also tried unsuccessfully to cut medicare/social security. obama also recently tried unsuccessfully to cut medicare/social security with the Grand Bargain. obama successfully cut LIHEAP (heating assistance for poors). I forgot what other austerity obama did.

in the West Wing, the neoliberal democrat protagonists try really hard to cut social security. i think they may have succeeded in the show but i won't watch that tripe so i can't confirm.

That's fair, but I guess I don't really think of Bubba as "neoliberal" so much as part of that nearly extinct species of conservative Democrat who are now mostly centrist Republicans, but I may be splitting hairs over "willing to do it in a compromise to get something else they want" vs. "has official policy positions that would result in that happening". Maybe I'm missing some low-key signaling from Democrats on this too, I'll have to watch for it. I definitely agree with the rest of what you said though.

Jeb! Repetition posted:

When I think of authoritarian leftists I think of tankies who'd never, ever become any of those things.

It seems like neoliberals are what happens when someone is both authoritarian and leftist but has spent their political career assiduously avoiding accusations of being a COMMUNIST or a SOCIALIST by being pro-laissez faire capitalism.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 17:17

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

He literally said "the era of big government is over. "

Fair enough, but Bill feels a lot more like a living fossil than anything (kinda like Jeb! on the Republican side). I'll accept that he was neoliberal before there was a term for it.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 20:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:40

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

People don't go neoliberal because they're afraid of being called a socialist, it's what they actually believe.

I think it's both. I agree that they actually believe it, but it's also an ingrained non-socialist/communist message that gets beaten into people at a very young age, and which was used by the Republicans for decades to push Democrats to the right, so there's powerful social pressure within the Democratic Party to embrace it and not go "too far".

I think we're starting to see it change though, what with people like Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison owning the socialist label and not getting immediately ousted from their seats, a lot of the "reds under the bed" type of messaging just isn't effective. Hopefully that keeps happening.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 20:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Why do liberals hate poor people now?