4 ms·

Precisely. There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of

by tyre 6y ago

Precisely. There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of change. For example: What should be the first acts and priorities be of a democratic administration? Healthcare? Nope. Climate change? Nope. A federal holiday for election days? Yes. Passing legislation mandating mail-in ballots? Yes. That’s how you think about politics. About power. Lock in any advantage and expand it. Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically.

mhh__ 6y ago
Being embarrassed about wanting to be in power is a perpetual problem for leftism (It's understandable - it involves saying yes to the institutions you probably want to reform). Consider Corbyn in the UK - Awful polling from day 1, doesn't help much with Brexit, loses 2 elections (One meh, one disaster) but the lessons learned is that they won the "argument" and it's all good?
- nerdponx 6y ago
  To be fair, most American "left" politicians are hardly left, with the exception of Sanders and the handful of DSA-affiliated Congressmen. Although popular support for more-left policies seems to be forcing them (reluctantly) farther leftward.
- nsajko 6y ago
  To be fair, it is hypothetically possible that Corbyn did the best he could have done, considering he was being terribly smeared, even vilified, by all the big media organizations in UK AFAIK.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Field a candidate with a riposte then. The Corbyn fans love to talk abut media smears but they neglect to mention that he never polled above 0% net approval in his entire term as leader. Starmer, his replacement, is a man of intellect, principle, and service to the public - he is already doing better than Corbyn ever did - i.e. the media who didn't like Corbyn were writing amicable praise of Sir Keir (the mail love a nickname) even when he was making a mockery of their man (Boris)
    - flamble 6y ago
      The reason for that is that Starmer is a corporate stooge who doesn't present any threat to the merciless extraction of value from the working class. Of course they have no objection to the kind of competition which would have no adverse effect on their interests if it prevailed; their praise is evidence of Starner's complete lack of merit. The media besmirched Corbyn BECAUSE he was a decent man with the interests of the public at heart, which is unacceptable to the owners of the media apparatus.
      - toyg 6y ago
        > Starmer is a corporate stooge Now, now. Starmer might not be a militant marxist, but he spent a good chunk of his life fighting for workers' rights in court. He also served faithfully in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn - are you saying that Corbyn chose a "corporate stooge" as his shadow minister, and on the hottest issue of the day at that (brexit)? One of Corbyn's lackings was that he was unable to make friends in his own party, to the point that half of his own rank & file literally sabotaged him at the last election. By calling good people all sorts of unwarranted names we're only going to see a repeat, and $deity knows this country deserves better than yet another Tory government.
        flamble 6y ago
        The section of the rank and file that sabotaged him did so because they are possessed by a vile ideology that virulently opposes any concession by the powerful to the mass of the people. Being unable to befriend any of that metastatic species redounds greatly to Mr Corbyn's credit. They are not "good people". Now Starmer may not be ideologically committed to the ruthless exploitation of the public like they are, but at the very least he harbours delusions about the possibility of compromising with a right wing, both within his party and in the media, that is implacably and rabidly opposed to any project of positive reform. They will never relent in their shameless calumny and perfidy until Labour's program has been completely neutered.
wyldfire 6y ago
Voting and gerrymandering are the metagame. We should pay people to vote, that would help turnout (up to about as much as it would ever get).
- worker767424 6y ago
  Controversial view: no, we shouldn't. Have you see how stupid people are? How easily they're manipulated? How little they understand about how government works? Any you want politicians pandering to these people? If it weren't to the stigma of "literacy" tests and how the were historically used, I'd be fully in favor of "licensing" voters.
  - papeda 6y ago
    Paying people to vote is pretty out there. I think we should at least put election day on a weekend. Spread it over both days, even. This feels to me like a relatively easy small step that would really help make voting easier in a way that doesn't open itself up to voter fraud arguments (as far as I know).
    - wyldfire 6y ago
      > Spread it over both days, even. Early voting (in several states already?) does a good job of this IMO.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    The literacy test that I took wasn't even controversial. Back in middle school my civics teacher actually had us take one of these literacy tests. While very few people in the class passed the test (I think just myself and one other person), anyone actually familiar with the text of the US Constitution should be able to pass it. Sadly almost no one in our class was familiar with the US Constitution. I'm totally okay with a test where the only document you need to study from is the US Constitution.
- ransom1538 6y ago
  "We should pay people to vote" Reminds of me of 3rd grade when kids would make a christmas tree out of their scantron tests. That is what we need -- randomness added to voting.
toastal 6y ago
Having more people able to vote in winner-takes-all elections in gerrymandered districts won't help as much as you'd like.
- tyre 6y ago
  I am under no delusions about what I mentioned as panaceas. But in terms of direct action that democrats could pass in the first week (the bills exist already), those are my picks. Gerrymandering would take a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would help more, but that’s a moot point if the people we’re talking about can’t do it.
  - toastal 6y ago
    Sure. I was pointing out that there's up-and-down fundamental issues with the American voting system that would take a massive reform to fix as mere tweaks alone won't suffice. I think we'd agree on this.
- AlanSE 6y ago
  The whole electoral college is non-intentional gerrymandering. The candidate with fewer votes has been winning since 2000, and winning with a wider and wider vote margin. A major political goal should be getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact done.
  - sanj 6y ago
    Obama won both elections in electoral votes and actual votes.
    - AlanSE 6y ago
      Yes, and was very centrist. I don't think the changing media landscape can be disentangled from this, which is a trend happening for unrelated reasons. If the only thing happening was urban concentration, then the mathematical predicted response of politicians would be that the liberal part becomes political-center and the conservative part skews further right.
User23 6y ago
Democrats’ policy of importing tens of millions of future reliable Democrat voters is some solid strategic thinking.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Until Trump does something zany and unexpected like abolishing ICE next month, and suddenly they all flip red. Edit: That said, I could think of much worse outcomes.
- evan_ 6y ago
  If republicans don’t like that non-white people more frequently vote for democrats they could try courting their votes with their policies and actions rather than trying to kill/deport as many as possible
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    On the flipside, if Democrats didn't think they had a solid voter base in immigrants, they wouldn't give a shit about immigrants.
  - User23 6y ago
    That Democrats identified the Republican inability or unwillingness to either woo or eliminate the new voters only further argues in favor of their strategic acumen.
tasty_freeze 6y ago
Gerrymandering is at the top of my list. Solve that problem and it is easier to attack the other problems.
- tyre 6y ago
  That would take a constitutional amendment. The top three amendments (in my opinion) that the US needs most: - ending gerrymandering - taking money out of politics (federally financed elections) - forcing votes on nominees within a certain time period, otherwise they are assumed confirmed
nerdponx 6y ago
Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically. You think they don't understand this stuff? Democrats have been deliberately "failing" to get shit done for 20 years. They keep holding out progressive and populist policies, tantalizingly close to enacting meaningful change -- but nope, somehow it always seems to be a matter of political strategy, badly run campaigns, and bad messaging that derails things. Surely the Republicans haven't somehow had the better political strategists for decades. They aren't always better funded and they aren't always better organized. And certainly they don't have access to some kind of magic politics potion that the Democrats lack. The only plausible scenario that I can see is that the Democratic party leadership has no interest in actually getting policy enacted, as long as they keep their cozy niche in power. Another 4 years of Trump will help them do very well in the 2022 midterms, and it will help keep their friends at the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC in business. It would also explain why they hated Sanders and the DSA candidates so much. Liberals (not to mention leftists) who actually wanted to take power at the national level and actually do something? That would fuck up the whole game. Basically you'd have to show me some actual evidence that Democratic party leadership actually wants to do anything other than campaign on a progressive platform and consistently almost-win. The whole thing seems worked to me.
- bscphil 6y ago
  I don't think you need anything that conspiratorial, it's not that centrist Democrats really don't want to get anything done, it's just that they really are basically okay with the current neoliberal consensus.
  - shanhaiguan 6y ago
    What's the distinction?
    - bscphil 6y ago
      Well, one is the claim that Democrats don't get anything done because they have a secret commitment to keep things the way they are so that voters have a reason to come back to the polls for them, and I'm saying maybe the reason is simply that Democrats are mostly fine with the way things are. Maybe your point is that this is a distinction without a difference, which I guess I'd mostly have to agree with.

by tyre 6y ago

mhh__ 6y ago

Being embarrassed about wanting to be in power is a perpetual problem for leftism (It's understandable - it involves saying yes to the institutions you probably want to reform). Consider Corbyn in the UK - Awful polling from day 1, doesn't help much with Brexit, loses 2 elections (One meh, one disaster) but the lessons learned is that they won the "argument" and it's all good?

nerdponx 6y ago
To be fair, most American "left" politicians are hardly left, with the exception of Sanders and the handful of DSA-affiliated Congressmen. Although popular support for more-left policies seems to be forcing them (reluctantly) farther leftward.
nsajko 6y ago
To be fair, it is hypothetically possible that Corbyn did the best he could have done, considering he was being terribly smeared, even vilified, by all the big media organizations in UK AFAIK.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Field a candidate with a riposte then. The Corbyn fans love to talk abut media smears but they neglect to mention that he never polled above 0% net approval in his entire term as leader. Starmer, his replacement, is a man of intellect, principle, and service to the public - he is already doing better than Corbyn ever did - i.e. the media who didn't like Corbyn were writing amicable praise of Sir Keir (the mail love a nickname) even when he was making a mockery of their man (Boris)
  - flamble 6y ago
    The reason for that is that Starmer is a corporate stooge who doesn't present any threat to the merciless extraction of value from the working class. Of course they have no objection to the kind of competition which would have no adverse effect on their interests if it prevailed; their praise is evidence of Starner's complete lack of merit. The media besmirched Corbyn BECAUSE he was a decent man with the interests of the public at heart, which is unacceptable to the owners of the media apparatus.
    - toyg 6y ago
      > Starmer is a corporate stooge Now, now. Starmer might not be a militant marxist, but he spent a good chunk of his life fighting for workers' rights in court. He also served faithfully in the shadow cabinet under Corbyn - are you saying that Corbyn chose a "corporate stooge" as his shadow minister, and on the hottest issue of the day at that (brexit)? One of Corbyn's lackings was that he was unable to make friends in his own party, to the point that half of his own rank & file literally sabotaged him at the last election. By calling good people all sorts of unwarranted names we're only going to see a repeat, and $deity knows this country deserves better than yet another Tory government.
      - flamble 6y ago
        The section of the rank and file that sabotaged him did so because they are possessed by a vile ideology that virulently opposes any concession by the powerful to the mass of the people. Being unable to befriend any of that metastatic species redounds greatly to Mr Corbyn's credit. They are not "good people". Now Starmer may not be ideologically committed to the ruthless exploitation of the public like they are, but at the very least he harbours delusions about the possibility of compromising with a right wing, both within his party and in the media, that is implacably and rabidly opposed to any project of positive reform. They will never relent in their shameless calumny and perfidy until Labour's program has been completely neutered.

wyldfire 6y ago

Voting and gerrymandering are the metagame. We should pay people to vote, that would help turnout (up to about as much as it would ever get).

worker767424 6y ago
Controversial view: no, we shouldn't. Have you see how stupid people are? How easily they're manipulated? How little they understand about how government works? Any you want politicians pandering to these people? If it weren't to the stigma of "literacy" tests and how the were historically used, I'd be fully in favor of "licensing" voters.
- papeda 6y ago
  Paying people to vote is pretty out there. I think we should at least put election day on a weekend. Spread it over both days, even. This feels to me like a relatively easy small step that would really help make voting easier in a way that doesn't open itself up to voter fraud arguments (as far as I know).
  - wyldfire 6y ago
    > Spread it over both days, even. Early voting (in several states already?) does a good job of this IMO.
- malandrew 6y ago
  The literacy test that I took wasn't even controversial. Back in middle school my civics teacher actually had us take one of these literacy tests. While very few people in the class passed the test (I think just myself and one other person), anyone actually familiar with the text of the US Constitution should be able to pass it. Sadly almost no one in our class was familiar with the US Constitution. I'm totally okay with a test where the only document you need to study from is the US Constitution.
ransom1538 6y ago
"We should pay people to vote" Reminds of me of 3rd grade when kids would make a christmas tree out of their scantron tests. That is what we need -- randomness added to voting.

toastal 6y ago

Having more people able to vote in winner-takes-all elections in gerrymandered districts won't help as much as you'd like.

tyre 6y ago
I am under no delusions about what I mentioned as panaceas. But in terms of direct action that democrats could pass in the first week (the bills exist already), those are my picks. Gerrymandering would take a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would help more, but that’s a moot point if the people we’re talking about can’t do it.
- toastal 6y ago
  Sure. I was pointing out that there's up-and-down fundamental issues with the American voting system that would take a massive reform to fix as mere tweaks alone won't suffice. I think we'd agree on this.
AlanSE 6y ago
The whole electoral college is non-intentional gerrymandering. The candidate with fewer votes has been winning since 2000, and winning with a wider and wider vote margin. A major political goal should be getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact done.
- sanj 6y ago
  Obama won both elections in electoral votes and actual votes.
  - AlanSE 6y ago
    Yes, and was very centrist. I don't think the changing media landscape can be disentangled from this, which is a trend happening for unrelated reasons. If the only thing happening was urban concentration, then the mathematical predicted response of politicians would be that the liberal part becomes political-center and the conservative part skews further right.

User23 6y ago

Democrats’ policy of importing tens of millions of future reliable Democrat voters is some solid strategic thinking.

nerdponx 6y ago
Until Trump does something zany and unexpected like abolishing ICE next month, and suddenly they all flip red. Edit: That said, I could think of much worse outcomes.
evan_ 6y ago
If republicans don’t like that non-white people more frequently vote for democrats they could try courting their votes with their policies and actions rather than trying to kill/deport as many as possible
- nerdponx 6y ago
  On the flipside, if Democrats didn't think they had a solid voter base in immigrants, they wouldn't give a shit about immigrants.
- User23 6y ago
  That Democrats identified the Republican inability or unwillingness to either woo or eliminate the new voters only further argues in favor of their strategic acumen.

tasty_freeze 6y ago

Gerrymandering is at the top of my list. Solve that problem and it is easier to attack the other problems.

tyre 6y ago
That would take a constitutional amendment. The top three amendments (in my opinion) that the US needs most: - ending gerrymandering - taking money out of politics (federally financed elections) - forcing votes on nominees within a certain time period, otherwise they are assumed confirmed

nerdponx 6y ago

Democrats have popular support for their policies but cannot for the life of them think strategically. You think they don't understand this stuff? Democrats have been deliberately "failing" to get shit done for 20 years. They keep holding out progressive and populist policies, tantalizingly close to enacting meaningful change -- but nope, somehow it always seems to be a matter of political strategy, badly run campaigns, and bad messaging that derails things. Surely the Republicans haven't somehow had the better political strategists for decades. They aren't always better funded and they aren't always better organized. And certainly they don't have access to some kind of magic politics potion that the Democrats lack. The only plausible scenario that I can see is that the Democratic party leadership has no interest in actually getting policy enacted, as long as they keep their cozy niche in power. Another 4 years of Trump will help them do very well in the 2022 midterms, and it will help keep their friends at the NYT, CNN, and MSNBC in business. It would also explain why they hated Sanders and the DSA candidates so much. Liberals (not to mention leftists) who actually wanted to take power at the national level and actually do something? That would fuck up the whole game. Basically you'd have to show me some actual evidence that Democratic party leadership actually wants to do anything other than campaign on a progressive platform and consistently almost-win. The whole thing seems worked to me.

bscphil 6y ago
I don't think you need anything that conspiratorial, it's not that centrist Democrats really don't want to get anything done, it's just that they really are basically okay with the current neoliberal consensus.
- shanhaiguan 6y ago
  What's the distinction?
  - bscphil 6y ago
    Well, one is the claim that Democrats don't get anything done because they have a secret commitment to keep things the way they are so that voters have a reason to come back to the polls for them, and I'm saying maybe the reason is simply that Democrats are mostly fine with the way things are. Maybe your point is that this is a distinction without a difference, which I guess I'd mostly have to agree with.