• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Democratic Party Left Me Behind

Maybe. I don’t buy this horseshoe bullshit in the first place.

What about THIS horseshoe???

C33qS3XUMAEqRgX.jpg
 
Getting things done generally requires some sort of shared belief in the things being sought. If the belief is not widespread, you have to find ways to grow it. This requires some kind of leadership (organization, strategy, implementation, etc.). Broadly, you can either lead by persuasion or coercion. The latter most sadly expressed via violence and or oppression.

And yes, I strongly favor the former.


I haven’t been part of the arguments about the Democrats and with what degree of progressiveness they should move forward. Whatever they do, my biggest hope is they’ll do it with high degrees honesty and integrity. And some sort of coherence that emphasizes the desire to help make our government more effective at accomplishing the many good and necessary things we need it to do.

Republicans have proven to me that they are not capable of these things. So I’m hoping the Dems can ascend and do some good. Ultimately, however, I think we have to try as a nation to better educate ourselves, to help people better understand and value good and true things.
 
The goalposts keep moving around. Apparently everybody in this country leans economically left from that survey, even most Pubs, but even moderate Dems are center right.

Seems like alot of rationalization by progressives about how their positions are overwhelming supported even though they can't actually make this show up at the voting booth.
 
RJ, you are just speaking in platitudes. You can’t provide any proof that “this is the only way to get it done.”

Just look at the success of the Labour Party.

Donald Trump is president. No traditional political rules, real or imagined, exist anymore. So socialists should call themselves socialists and try to recruit people to be socialists by doing cool and radical shit. They should care about growth independently from the Democratic Party.

Show me how it has actually worked in the US. Other countries are totally irrelevant.

Growing socialists and separating from Dems guarantees Republicans control Congress, the WH and more importantly the courts. You can whine all you want, but this is the reality. Even if you take as little as 10% from the Dems, you will turn this country radically to the right.

But you want it your way or you'll take your ball and go home.

Hell, radical leftists who voted for Nader gave us W, the Iraq War, Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts and, most likely, Kavanaugh. But they were pure...
 
The goalposts keep moving around. Apparently everybody in this country leans economically left from that survey, even most Pubs, but even moderate Dems are center right.

Seems like alot of rationalization by progressives about how their positions are overwhelming supported even though they can't actually make this show up at the voting booth.

How have the goal posts moved? I think people were just trying to make a distinction between a political spectrum that currently exists in mainstream 2 party system, vs. a political spectrum that exists outside of the US. In one spectrum, Elizabeth Warren and [insert whoever is similar on the right] are on opposite ends. However, Warren still openly admits she is a capitalist. So on a different spectrum, her and the conservative party are closer than they are on the other political spectrum.

As to your second statement, I think the DSA movement is an acknowledgement that the democratic party has not successfully energized it's base to support progressive policies that people overwhelming support. You can hold an opinion that the best way to fight Trump and fascism is through the Democratic Party, but i don't think you can dismiss others' opinion that we should be skeptical of change through the party, and or seek out other ways to mobilize for change outside of electoral politics.
 
sure, but fracturing the left in the US would be devastating to its cause(s)

Maybe, but I don't view that fracturing as any more damaging than the fracturing that occurs when the left is complicit in mass incarceration, cutting the social safety net, supporting the military industrial complex, etc.

It will only become more and more natural for younger generations to question the effectiveness of incrementalism.
 
How have the goal posts moved? I think people were just trying to make a distinction between a political spectrum that currently exists in mainstream 2 party system, vs. a political spectrum that exists outside of the US. In one spectrum, Elizabeth Warren and [insert whoever is similar on the right] are on opposite ends. However, Warren still openly admits she is a capitalist. So on a different spectrum, her and the conservative party are closer than they are on the other political spectrum.

As to your second statement, I think the DSA movement is an acknowledgement that the democratic party has not successfully energized it's base to support progressive policies that people overwhelming support. You can hold an opinion that the best way to fight Trump and fascism is through the Democratic Party, but i don't think you can dismiss others' opinion that we should be skeptical of change through the party, and or seek out other ways to mobilize for change outside of electoral politics.

But we have a two party system. Taking away from one, directly benefits the other.

Also, having a stated principle that you want to get rid of capitalism as primary goal will doom you in any western country. Capitalism in the US definitely needs fixing, but eliminating it (barring a total global meltdown or terrorist attack on the economic system) is not going to happen. A realistic position would be to modify it to support families and workers.
 
Show me how it has actually worked in the US.

We should never try anything new.

Other countries are totally irrelevant.

Are they? Political movements exist in isolation within their own borders?

Growing socialists and separating from Dems guarantees Republicans control Congress, the WH and more importantly the courts. You can whine all you want, but this is the reality. Even if you take as little as 10% from the Dems, you will turn this country radically to the right.

"you can whine all you want." fuck off. Republicans already have control of congress, WH and courts.

But you want it your way or you'll take your ball and go home.

cliche.

Hell, radical leftists who voted for Nader gave us W, the Iraq War, Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts and, most likely, Kavanaugh. But they were pure...

We can argue this until we are blue in the face. To my knowledge, you have no empirical evidence to support this.
 
you'd prefer a more direct approach to change, like syria or our own civil war

ah yes, the strawman that me, a pacifist who wants to improve the lives of all poor and working class people, wants to turn into Syria. You are also conveniently laying the blame of violence and civil war on the poor rather than on the capitalist class.
 
Seems to me, as I have stated to MDMH before, is that if progressives want power in the democratic party, they just need to show up with more voters. That includes votes in local and state party elections, as well as votes in local, state, and national elections.

The Tea Party is not a perfect apples to apples comparison (for a variety of reasons), but it is instructive. They have purged moderates from the republican party at almost every level. I'll grant you that they were aided, at least in part, by big-money corporate interests. But if they didn't have power, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have been the 'pub nominee.
 
i don't understand how a non-incremental shift to DSA policies occurs when you dismantle the current left coalition in america's Two Party hegemony. im not trolling
 
MLK said that the US was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. So is it me that wants violence and war?

I will restate what I said yesterday. This whole discussion of violence needs to include an accurate assessment of the violence that already exists in the world, and who it is inflicted on. That is not a call to violence against the state or others, but simply an acknowledgement that capitalism and imperialism already inflicts extreme violence on the world.
 
inflicting drone strikes on yemen is a lot different than taking up arms against conservative americans living next door for the right to not send drones to yemen
 
...Also, having a stated principle that you want to get rid of capitalism as primary goal will doom you in any western country. Capitalism in the US definitely needs fixing, but eliminating it (barring a total global meltdown or terrorist attack on the economic system) is not going to happen. A realistic position would be to modify it to support families and workers.


I'll agree with this.

Creating a "capitalist" boogeyman is no better (or accurate or helpful) than a "government" or "socialist" one.

What (I think) we need is a much better (government) regulated capitalism. That aims for and achieves good/decent safety nets, ensures universal access to reasonable medical care, adequate wages, etc.

We're never going to solve all our problems or eliminate inequality (a highly misguided goal). But we can do a hell of a lot better at ensuring fairness, justice, accountability, dignity, opportunity, etc.
 
jhmd, if you want to call me a "fool," stop being a chickenshit and come join the debate. I certainly won't, but I'm sure others would welcome your return.
 
inflicting drone strikes on yemen is a lot different than taking up arms against conservative americans living next door for the right to not send drones to yemen

Then it is a good thing I am not advocating taking up arms against conservative americans. Is there any middle ground here between "disagreeing with the Democratic Party" and "wanting civil war?"

Also, I am not only talking about that kind of violence.
 
Then it is a good thing I am not advocating taking up arms against conservative americans. Is there any middle ground here between "disagreeing with the Democratic Party" and "wanting civil war?"

Also, I am not only talking about that kind of violence.

i don't understand how a non-incremental shift to DSA policies occurs when you dismantle the current left coalition in america's Two Party hegemony. im not trolling
 
Back
Top