3 ms·

You’re arguing because modern Left positions haven’t successfully passed into law, that the parties are fundamentally the same? A good half the county would st

You’re arguing because modern Left positions haven’t successfully passed into law, that the parties are fundamentally the same? A good half the county would strongly disagree with what you feel - and that they’ve blocked those from passing isn’t proof that the system is failing, it’s proof it’s working. Obama got his healthcare plan. Every president usually gets maybe one or two bigger things they want, not all. It’s a sign that it’s working. Remember, you’re in a democracy, and about half of the people don’t agree with DACA, increased immigration, single payer...

arcticbull 6y ago
I’m arguing if you set the rhetoric aside the party platforms are largely the same. The Overton window is shifted so far to the right in the US the two parties are basically “right or center-right,” and “far right.” There is no left. From a purely policy perspective they’re very similar. There are clear and obvious differences in how the party operates and which side is on team Science for instance, but the core policy issues just aren’t all that different.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Strong disagree. I don’t get this line of reasoning at all. First of all you have multiple factions within each party that strongly disagree - on the left it ranges from extreme socialists to populist liberals (in decline) to neolibs and hawks. You had Bernie almost winning the primaries this year. On the right you have tea party libertarians, you have evangelicals, you have national populists now, and you have your neocons. Now you could say neocons and neolibs did dominate for a while, and yea that has some truth. But it’s not so true today. The two party system is really interesting because within each party you really do have diversity, and then they all compromise with each other. The dems are doing that this year. They have to do that, or else they lose their electorate. The parties move around constantly. Ron Paul moved the needle. Al Gore brought forward environmentalism. The Liberals have changed wildly over the last 30 years from being more middle/low class focused to being the party of the rich, of tech, and shifting towards focusing on minorities. That they were more aligned for a bit doesn’t prove anything. Look at how Trump is remaking the right. It’s been fascinating and he’s done a sort of garbage cleaning on their platform. Look at how Bernie’s success has radically pushed the left.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    This is what I mean by the Overton window being shifted so far right. There are no "extreme socialists" in the Democratic wing. AOC is center-left, Bernie is pretty much center. "Extreme socialist" would be arguing that the state should own the means of production. Until AOC starts arguing for nationalizing Google as a means of making core internet infrastructure public, for instance, I wouldn't worry about the "extreme socialists."
    - nwienert 6y ago
      Wealth taxes, free college, universal healthcare, universal basic income. All things unthinkable for a politician to platform on 20 years ago. Ok, four major leftward shifts the party is embracing, could easily name more. Can you name some things we’ve moved right on?
      - Can_Not 6y ago
        Those are things the base are demanding, but the party itself is rejecting. Or by "four" did you mean people in congress instead of four issues? Because it's more accurate to say about four fringe democrats are pushing those policies than to say the democrat party is endorsing those policies.
        nwienert 6y ago
        You’re exaggerating so much it’s just lying. The party is adopting them slowly and surely. Tell me Bernie didn’t win a significant portion of the vote and all the early primaries twice now? Joe Biden doesn’t support universal healthcare and very high taxes including a huge raise on capital gains, he doesn’t have a running mate who calls for reparations? He hasn’t totally changed on policing? Elizabeth Warren is suddenly a minor player in the party when her and Bernie combined had a significant chunk of the debate time and raise as much money as anyone? When it’s convenient for your argument you suddenly claim they are minor, when they aren’t. And yes all those positions are a big move left for American politics. And I’m just sticking with the economic issues, socially we’ve moved much further left. The general position that we’ve moved right is laughable, I’m still waiting on examples.
- cmurf 6y ago
  They are largely the same because the alternatives fail in various ways: they fail to finance their campaigns, i.e. they fail to get aristocratic backing, and/or they fail to appeal to the tiny minority of most motivated participants, i.e. primary voters. Also, the two parties have conspired to put in all kinds of barriers, at the state and local level, to make it difficult to unseat their primacy. But to say they just aren't all that different, ignoring the effect of consistency over time, is like suggesting the pressure differential above and below an airfoil isn't that different. It is true, but it's not a complete answer either.

arcticbull 6y ago

I’m arguing if you set the rhetoric aside the party platforms are largely the same. The Overton window is shifted so far to the right in the US the two parties are basically “right or center-right,” and “far right.” There is no left. From a purely policy perspective they’re very similar. There are clear and obvious differences in how the party operates and which side is on team Science for instance, but the core policy issues just aren’t all that different.

nwienert 6y ago
Strong disagree. I don’t get this line of reasoning at all. First of all you have multiple factions within each party that strongly disagree - on the left it ranges from extreme socialists to populist liberals (in decline) to neolibs and hawks. You had Bernie almost winning the primaries this year. On the right you have tea party libertarians, you have evangelicals, you have national populists now, and you have your neocons. Now you could say neocons and neolibs did dominate for a while, and yea that has some truth. But it’s not so true today. The two party system is really interesting because within each party you really do have diversity, and then they all compromise with each other. The dems are doing that this year. They have to do that, or else they lose their electorate. The parties move around constantly. Ron Paul moved the needle. Al Gore brought forward environmentalism. The Liberals have changed wildly over the last 30 years from being more middle/low class focused to being the party of the rich, of tech, and shifting towards focusing on minorities. That they were more aligned for a bit doesn’t prove anything. Look at how Trump is remaking the right. It’s been fascinating and he’s done a sort of garbage cleaning on their platform. Look at how Bernie’s success has radically pushed the left.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  This is what I mean by the Overton window being shifted so far right. There are no "extreme socialists" in the Democratic wing. AOC is center-left, Bernie is pretty much center. "Extreme socialist" would be arguing that the state should own the means of production. Until AOC starts arguing for nationalizing Google as a means of making core internet infrastructure public, for instance, I wouldn't worry about the "extreme socialists."
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Wealth taxes, free college, universal healthcare, universal basic income. All things unthinkable for a politician to platform on 20 years ago. Ok, four major leftward shifts the party is embracing, could easily name more. Can you name some things we’ve moved right on?
    - Can_Not 6y ago
      Those are things the base are demanding, but the party itself is rejecting. Or by "four" did you mean people in congress instead of four issues? Because it's more accurate to say about four fringe democrats are pushing those policies than to say the democrat party is endorsing those policies.
      - nwienert 6y ago
        You’re exaggerating so much it’s just lying. The party is adopting them slowly and surely. Tell me Bernie didn’t win a significant portion of the vote and all the early primaries twice now? Joe Biden doesn’t support universal healthcare and very high taxes including a huge raise on capital gains, he doesn’t have a running mate who calls for reparations? He hasn’t totally changed on policing? Elizabeth Warren is suddenly a minor player in the party when her and Bernie combined had a significant chunk of the debate time and raise as much money as anyone? When it’s convenient for your argument you suddenly claim they are minor, when they aren’t. And yes all those positions are a big move left for American politics. And I’m just sticking with the economic issues, socially we’ve moved much further left. The general position that we’ve moved right is laughable, I’m still waiting on examples.
cmurf 6y ago
They are largely the same because the alternatives fail in various ways: they fail to finance their campaigns, i.e. they fail to get aristocratic backing, and/or they fail to appeal to the tiny minority of most motivated participants, i.e. primary voters. Also, the two parties have conspired to put in all kinds of barriers, at the state and local level, to make it difficult to unseat their primacy. But to say they just aren't all that different, ignoring the effect of consistency over time, is like suggesting the pressure differential above and below an airfoil isn't that different. It is true, but it's not a complete answer either.