• 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!

Democrats : 3 Rungs Lower Than Whale Shit

Nope. That’s not what I was saying at all. I don’t think you actually read what I was saying this whole time.

Stop. I read every post. Maybe you should be more clear in your arguments. I explicitly said "trying to bring white moderates into the fold sounds all fine and good until you recognize how it forces the party to the ideological center" and you kept arguing with me. You couldn't clarify at that point? So you went from "bringing moderates into the fold" to "not writing them off." I don't believe I've ever said that people are unredeemable or that DSA is intentionally writing off moderates. Seems like you forced a strawman on me and then kept arguing for no reason.

Congrats I guess.
 
This really does seem like a straw man. Ph, did you have any thoughts on my post above?
 
Stop. I read every post. Maybe you should be more clear in your arguments. I explicitly said "trying to bring white moderates into the fold sounds all fine and good until you recognize how it forces the party to the ideological center" and you kept arguing with me. You couldn't clarify at that point? So you went from "bringing moderates into the fold" to "not writing them off." I don't believe I've ever said that people are unredeemable or that DSA is intentionally writing off moderates. Seems like you forced a strawman on me and then kept arguing for no reason.

Congrats I guess.

I did clarify. I clarified every time and you still kept misinterpreting what I said.

I didn’t switch to not writing them off. I’ve been saying that the whole time. That’s just the wording that must have worked. Look back over the posts.
 
Isn't an additional problem that many members of DSA are unwilling to dilute or "incrementalize" its message? This seems central to a big tent approach to politics. At this moment, DSA's foray into mainstream party politics seems more likely to agitate the majority into expanding its platforms than attempting to unseat the Democratic party. With an eye towards historical explanation, there is absolutely no rational or logical reason that we do not have single payer in this country. That said, once you factor in how indebted politicians are to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, the incrementalist approach makes sense. I think that a true progressive is not as interested in what is possible in the "pragmatic sense" (in quotation marks because it's just a gloss for conservative incrementalist excuses) and what is possible from a politics that operates from the premise that citizens living in a national territory deserve basic human rights (not in quotation marks because as we become more technically advanced as a society, what constitutes basic human rights should absolutely expand).

tl;dr - I'm not sure that it has much to do with confidence in messages or ideologies.

I think there’s something to it. I think progressives share some of the faults of liberals overall. They can’t message for shit.

Take single-payer or any form of it. Opponents tap into fear of change and fear of uncertainty. Advocates use some vague concept of hope with the assumption that if the system changes people will automatically like it. Advocates should tap into fear of the status quo, the uncertainty people face every day. Show them how their lives would be better under single payer.
 
Ok PH, I'm sorry that you think I misinterpreted what you said. I'm not even really sure what the original point of your argument was, since as I said, I didn't say I was writing off moderates.

Regardless of what you think of my ideology, I try to put it in my own words and not do the ogboards (sailor) shtick of posting links (breitbart) as arguments. Sometimes things get lost in translation. I appreciate the conversation. You are one of few that discusses in good faith.
 
Take single-payer or any form of it. Opponents tap into fear of change and fear of uncertainty. Advocates use some vague concept of hope with the assumption that if the system changes people will automatically like it. Advocates should tap into fear of the status quo, the uncertainty people face every day. Show them how their lives would be better under single payer.

Follow the DSA Medicare For All twitter account. We are making the argument that healthcare is a human right. That people will be able to get healthcare without the worry of going bankrupt. I'm literally at the hospital right now for my 5 yo's dental work (our med4all includes dental). He needed anesthesia because of his asthma. I still don't really know what my out of pocket will be for a <60 minute procedure.

Contrast that with this woman who only had $180 in mandatory costs for the ENTIRE length of her pregnancy, including a Zika scare, gestational diabetes, and c-section.

 
Advocates should tap into fear of the status quo, the uncertainty people face every day. Show them how their lives would be better under single payer.

Suburbanites and wealthy moderates lives probably would only be negligibly better on average under socialist doctrine. That is the basic reason why the petit bourgeoise will never be in the movement. Its not a mystery why people who are comfortable and happy under capitalism are incrementalists, just as even the liberal white cis hetero Christian plurality in this country have been incrementalists in every civil rights movement.
 
I think there’s something to it. I think progressives share some of the faults of liberals overall. They can’t message for shit.

Take single-payer or any form of it. Opponents tap into fear of change and fear of uncertainty. Advocates use some vague concept of hope with the assumption that if the system changes people will automatically like it. Advocates should tap into fear of the status quo, the uncertainty people face every day. Show them how their lives would be better under single payer.

How would you make this case?

Beyond branding, most Americans appear to support single payer. They believe this because experiences with health care are probably shitty despite income bracket and party preference. Despite this, the ACA threw a ton of bones to Dem founders in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. There is no reason why it had to be this way. Republicans would still oppose the ACA.
 
How would you make this case?

Beyond branding, most Americans appear to support single payer. They believe this because experiences with health care are probably shitty despite income bracket and party preference. Despite this, the ACA threw a ton of bones to Dem founders in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. There is no reason why it had to be this way. Republicans would still oppose the ACA.

Your wording is correct. That's what makes right now a huge moment for progressive and/or socialist politics. People are ready for an alternative. The question is are they ready for a specific alternative and will that support weather the storm of BS Republicans will throw at it.

"Healthcare is a right" just isn't enough. It's an empty platitude. It's poor messaging. Plus it mirrors the same arguments gun nuts make. You don't want to unconsciously treat healthcare the same as gun ownership.

MDMH, stop being ridiculous. You're writing off people based social class stereotypes even while making a reasonable argument why they could get behind socialism. Their lives won't change much. So why wouldn't they be in the movement if you can convince them they can help tens to hundreds of millions of their fellow Americans.
 
“Healthcare is a human right” is like the gun control debate? WTF. I don’t even know how to approach that one. It’s not dissimilar to your argument that we should message it against the current status quo where people die from rationing insulin. Free insulin is a human right. Do you prefer “socialism or barbarism?”
 
Your central argument is "healthcare is a human right."

The gun nuts' central argument is "gun ownership is a right."

If being "a right" is sufficient enough for some form of universal health care then "a right" is even more sufficient for unrestricted gun ownership because it's codified in the Constitution. You've got to go beyond that.

Also if your argument is for a specific delivery of healthcare, that goes beyond just "healthcare is a right."
 
MHB who regularly just creates positions in his own head that other people have, accuses others of not discussing in good faith. That's rich.
 
MHB who regularly just creates positions in his own head that other people have, accuses others of not discussing in good faith. That's rich.

You are welcome to join the discussion anytime, dick. What position did I create?
 
Umm...is it OK to be "for" decent universal health care, livable minimum wage, effective social safety nets, reasonable equality of opportunity, GOOD education available to all, etc. and not be a "socialist".

Hope so.
 
Umm...is it OK to be "for" decent universal health care, livable minimum wage, effective social safety nets, reasonable equality of opportunity, GOOD education available to all, etc. and not be a "socialist".

Hope so.

MAGA — come over from the dark side ConnerL
 
You are welcome to join the discussion anytime, dick. What position did I create?

“Healthcare is a human right” is like the gun control debate? WTF. I don’t even know how to approach that one. It’s not dissimilar to your argument that we should message it against the current status quo where people die from rationing insulin. Free insulin is a human right. Do you prefer “socialism or barbarism?”

This post bears no resemblance to what I posted.
 
Your central argument is "healthcare is a human right."

The gun nuts' central argument is "gun ownership is a right."

If being "a right" is sufficient enough for some form of universal health care then "a right" is even more sufficient for unrestricted gun ownership because it's codified in the Constitution. You've got to go beyond that.

Also if your argument is for a specific delivery of healthcare, that goes beyond just "healthcare is a right."

This doesn't make any sense. Just because you don't think gun ownership is a right, doesn't mean the fundamental argument for free healthcare is the same. And besides, I don't have a strong anti-gun control stance, but there are plenty of leftists that believe gun ownership is a right.

There is also a difference between a human right in the context of 2018 and the general hellscape of American healthcare, and a "right" codified by a document written only by white male property owners 200+ years ago.

I think the healthcare as a human right messaging is effective, because it doesn't frame it around purely a "it will save money" argument. It might save money, it might not. We should do it regardless because people shouldn't die if they can't afford to go to the doctor.
 
Umm...is it OK to be "for" decent universal health care, livable minimum wage, effective social safety nets, reasonable equality of opportunity, GOOD education available to all, etc. and not be a "socialist".

Hope so.

Yes.
 
You're writing off people based social class stereotypes even while making a reasonable argument why they could get behind socialism. Their lives won't change much. So why wouldn't they be in the movement if you can convince them they can help tens to hundreds of millions of their fellow Americans.

I dont know what to tell you man, I disagree with you based on all of human political history. The political beliefs of your neighbors and most of the posters here are something to be overcome, an obstacle. Sure there are exceptions - there were white people willing to die for black civil rights, but generally I will never count on the upper middle class to become economically progressive. You keep using the word "stereotype", when the evidence is the establishment, the status quo. England has had the NHS for 70 years.
 
Back
Top