• 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!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

You’re rejecting a simple analogy because the fundamental structure of the GOP is different than the fundamental structure of the Democrats.

If the DSA asserted influence in the Dem Party, the interests would begin to converge. We are seeing that right now. Obama is publicly expressing support for M4A despite resisting it for 8 years.

But you’re stuck on the fact the Tea Party was an astroturf movement. Well yeah. That works in the GOP because it’s a big money party. The left is different. Same principles apply in terms of gaining influence.
 
For an experiment, go to a DSA meeting, say “we should entrench ourselves in the Democratic Party,” and see the response. Our movement may very well fail. But it will fail tomorrow if we are indistinguishable from the Dem. party.
 
PhDeac said:
You’re rejecting a simple analogy because the fundamental structure of the GOP is different than the fundamental structure of the Democrats.

If the DSA asserted influence in the Dem Party, the interests would begin to converge. We are seeing that right now. Obama is publicly expressing support for M4A despite resisting it for 8 years.

But you’re stuck on the fact the Tea Party was an astroturf movement. Well yeah. That works in the GOP because it’s a big money party. The left is different. Same principles apply in terms of gaining influence.
Click to expand...

Im arguing that the interests won’t converge. So the party will co-opt Medicare for all when it politically benefits them, but then reject any push toward a pro-worker, anti-capitalist agenda. Because the Dem party is just a big money party.
 
You make assertions and ask for answers. When they are given, you ignore them.
 
RJKarl said:
You make assertions and ask for answers. When they are given, you ignore them.
Click to expand...

Im not ignoring your answer. My son is dancing at the Greek Festival and i don’t have time to respond right now.
 
MHBDemon said:
Im arguing that the interests won’t converge. So the party will co-opt Medicare for all when it politically benefits them, but then reject any push toward a pro-worker, anti-capitalist agenda. Because the Dem party is just a big money party.
Click to expand...

I think that’s a ridiculous dismissal of a lot of people and the fact that both parties in the richest country in the world are going to “big money” parties regardless. The question is if money is a tool or the objective.

Democrats largely use money as a tool to promote social change. Republicans are all about keeping as much money as possible in the hands of the rich. To conflate the two is ridiculous.
 
Any analogies and comparisons to the Tea Party are just dense. The tea party wasn't ever a grassroots movement, it was a Repubulican PR strategy to fortify opposition to the Obama administration. The primary goals of the Tea Party - low taxes, deregulation, and budget cuts, are all core tenets of the Republican party at large. The moderate Republicans who ever oppose those are the outliers.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Any analogies and comparisons to the Tea Party are just dense. The tea party wasn't ever a grassroots movement, it was a Repubulican PR strategy to fortify opposition to the Obama administration. The primary goals of the Tea Party - low taxes, deregulation, and budget cuts, are all core tenets of the Republican party at large. The moderate Republicans who ever oppose those are the outliers.
Click to expand...

Geez. This is dense. You are so committed to a victim narrative that you don’t realize much of your progressive platform is popular among Democrats.
 
You keep saying our arguments are dense or we are being obtuse, and in my opinion, not providing a counter argument. If our platform is so appealing, what is stopping you from joining?
 
PhDeac said:
Democrats largely use money as a tool to promote social change. Republicans are all about keeping as much money as possible in the hands of the rich. To conflate the two is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This is belied by history.
 
MHBDemon said:
You keep saying our arguments are dense or we are being obtuse, and in my opinion, not providing a counter argument. If our platform is so appealing, what is stopping you from joining?
Click to expand...

The fact you don’t realize I’m on board makes my point.
 
PhDeac said:
The fact you don’t realize I’m on board makes my point.
Click to expand...

What point? If you are on board, I'm simply asking you to understand that a large number of people in this country, voters and non-voters alike, don't trust the Democratic Party to represent their interests. That is because, time and time again, the party sells out the interests of the many, for the interests of the rich. I would think we could accept that as objective history at this point. I just can't understand how you want an anti-capitalist movement to coexist and cooperate with a pro-capitalist party.

I want you to understand that I'm not demanding agreement from anyone. I'm simply asking people to acknowledge that muddying the distinction between DSA and the Dem party, and watering down our agenda, presents a very real risk to our success.
 
MHBDemon said:
What point? If you are on board, I'm simply asking you to understand that a large number of people in this country, voters and non-voters alike, don't trust the Democratic Party to represent their interests. That is because, time and time again, the party sells out the interests of the many, for the interests of the rich. I would think we could accept that as objective history at this point. I just can't understand how you want an anti-capitalist movement to coexist and cooperate with a pro-capitalist party.

I want you to understand that I'm not demanding agreement from anyone. I'm simply asking people to acknowledge that muddying the distinction between DSA and the Dem party, and watering down our agenda, presents a very real risk to our success.
Click to expand...

I want you to understand that the party is people and people can be replaced.
 
PhDeac said:
Geez. This is dense. You are so committed to a victim narrative that you don’t realize much of your progressive platform is popular among Democrats.
Click to expand...
I'm pefectly aware of how popular the Dem Socialism platform is among constituents, but it's not very popular among Democrat politicians, super delegates, DNC employees, and the corporate lobbyists who fund mainstream campaigns. It's not popular with Emily's List or Planned Parenthood.
 
PhDeac said:
I want you to understand that the party is people and people can be replaced.
Click to expand...

The question is whether a party of capital can be co-opted to destroy capital's choke-hold on life and/or to what extent it can be part of that struggle. I don't have a particular beef with people who use that party's ballot line but I also don't have a good response to people who answer the question with a negative.
 
RJKarl said:
At this point in history, a vote for a third/fourth party from the the left is absolutely a vote for the Republicans. It may not be that way in 20-30 years, but today that is the reality.

By voting against Dems in the Senate and presidential elections, you will be de facto voting to replace RBG and Breyer with people to the right of Gorsuch. This will turn back nearly everything that has been gained over the past fifty years for the next fifty years. What we need will be dead for the rest of your life by throwing away your votes over the next 2-3 years.

RE: Not agreeing with DSA platform - that's a perfect example of what I've said- that if we don't agree 100% in your mind we don't agree at all. Let's look at some of the DSA's points:

Labor:

For over a quarter of a century on Wake boards, I have posted support for strong and expanded unions. I've argued with dozens of people that just having unions in every state strengthens earnings of even non-union workers. I've stated hundreds of times that union wages and benefits are critical for even non-union workers.

I've worked for living wage laws when you were in elementary school and for raising the minimum wage for decades. On these boards, I've shown RWers that it's a lie to say raising the minimum wage costs jobs when studies show that employment increases when that happens.

I've stated numerous times that CEOS are grossly overpaid and senior management is actually counter-productive to profitability. It should be given to the workers as this would increase their buying power and lives.

All of this and more aren't enough for you.

Money in politics:

Again, for my entire adult life, I've supported exclusively public financing of elections with no use of personal funds. I've said we should have much shorter election cycles. I was the loudest voice on these boards against Citizens United. Money isn't free speech. It never has been and never will be.

But this isn't enough for you.

Internationalism:

Again, I've been the board's stalwart in saying every day, borders become less meaningful. We should be helping third and fourth world countries for moral, political and economic reasons.

Those are just a few of the ways that I "don't agree with any of the DSA platform". Your blind ego and butthurt keeps you from seeing the very obvious.

As a fun aside, the uber-Trumpy Bobknightfan used to believe that no CEO should be paid over $1,000,000/year.
Click to expand...

Please, for the love of god, stop saying "this isn't enough for you" and insisting that any disagreement means I'm demanding 100% agreement. I am explicitly not demanding 100% agreement. I voted for HRC and I voted in the dem primary in KS.

People are allowed to express disagreement without all the personal attacks. I'm trying to ask you nicely to treat me with a little more respect. I know I haven't always given you that respect, but your incessant claims that I am just like Trump are offensive.

Your "a vote for third party helps republicans" line may be true in some elections and not in others. In the KS governor race, I think Orman votes most likely hurt republicans. I am not disagreeing with you on the specific point, because it is difficult to measure and prove.

I am, i think, making a separate argument. That is that no party is owed someone's vote. They have to earn it. If McCaskill loses to Hawley, it won't be mine or the Green Party's fault. It will be McCaskill's fault. She is running just a terrible centrist campaign in a state that just overwhelming dominated big money interest with the rejection of MO's right to work law. She has a very rocky relationship with black voters in KC, and recently black leaders in KC refused to write a letter in support of her. She is one of the richest people in Congress. No one I know here feels like she gives a fuck about their material conditions. A "blue no matter what" position will never hold anyone accountable.

The Green Party will likely seek our local chapter's endorsement in the MO senate race. I don't know what will happen, but our chapter will democratically vote whether to endorse.

You keep saying that this vote or that vote will reverse everything accomplished. Before Trump even came along, we were seeing the reversal of past gains. I don't disagree that it may set us back. I'm arguing that liberalism is wholly incapable of fighting for, winning, and sustaining the kind of change I want to see in the world. That has never been more apparent than in the failures of the Obama administration.

Regarding the rest of your post, summarizing your long held beliefs: How do you think the Democratic party has done fighting for those same values?

If you care about labor, taking money out of politics, and internationalism, join a movement that shares those values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top