4 ms·

> more progressive policies were divisive even within the party divisive within the Party, but not among the constituency.

by smhost 6y ago

klipt 6y ago
"more progressive policies" is a broad term, could mean anything from "Medicare for All" to "Abolish the Police", and some of these are much more divisive than others.
- smhost 6y ago
  "abolish the police" isn't a policy
  - klipt 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
    - smhost 6y ago
      if you read past the headline, the actual policy it proposes is to reduce the number of police and cut the budget.
      - klipt 6y ago
        If you read further the author says "I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years" "We don’t want to just close police departments" "People like me who want to abolish prisons and police"
        smhost 6y ago
        i mean again, advocating for abolition isn't a policy proposal. take for example angela davis, the most prominent prison abolitionist today. she says in this interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3q_qV5mHg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3q_qV5mHg0) that there currently isn't a model of a prison-free society, only hints here and there.
        klipt 6y ago
        Okay, call "abolish the police" a long-term goal instead of an immediate policy. It (and its shorter term policies like "abolish half the police by defunding them") are still very divisive among the electorate.
        smhost 6y ago
        you can't abolish half of a thing. abolishing half of slavery still leaves you with slavery. you're confused about some basic terms here. and if you're using a broad enough notion of divisiveness, then anything is divisive, including tan suits and dijon mustard. so divisiveness as you're using the term is not a property of the relation between the constituency and the political object (policy/slogan/etc.), but it's instead a tool that social engineers can use to create antagonism between populations. for example, abortion appears to be an extremely divisive issue because of the way the issue has been socially engineered, but if you look at the data, a large majority of americans agree on the vast majority of abortion cases. it's the edge cases and disagreements on the rationale for/against abortion that are used to create the appareance of divisiveness.
        klipt 6y ago
        > you can't abolish half of a thing. abolishing half of slavery still leaves you with slavery Then I guess the abolitionists failed because slavery still exists.
        smhost 6y ago
ineedasername 6y ago
I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say constituency. What is your definition of that term? Mine is that all people are part of the constituency: A person elected president is responsible for leading everyone; A person elected to the House or Senate is responsible for representing everyone in their district/state, not just their party. My definition of "party" are all of the people registered as Democrats. I think you're right that some aspects of more progressive policies are not divisive for the country: I think most people would agree that everyone should have healthcare. I think most people would agree that everyone should have access to education. I'm not sure I even look at those sorts of things as "progressive". The progressive part is how those things are structured and how they are paid for. As I think about it further, I think there's also a possibility that a majority of Democrats do believe in progressive policies on things like this, but when selecting a candidate they opted for one someone not as progressive because they didn't think the progressive one had as much chance of getting elected. Their calculation, perhaps a bit cynical, was that the less progressive person that gets elected can do more than the very progressive candidate that loses.
- smhost 6y ago
  democratic voters tragically did respond to the fearmongering of establishment propagandists, but the problem for them isn't in the electoral sphere. it's on the ground where people are facing mass evictions, a mental health and suicide epidemic, poor communities facing a "dark winter", and so on. the moderate wing of the democratic party choosing not to protect vulnerable communities won't make these problems go away.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Weren't the Democrats trying to craft a new aid package for the "dark winter"? I thought they were simply blocked by the Whitehouse/Senate who probably didn't see cooperation on this as beneficial to their election prospects... and a Whitehouse that couldn't seem to make up its mind on the issue. I agree establishment leadership is skeptical of more progressive policies, probably not for philosophical reasons but for a more cynical calculations that support isn't good for their political prospects.

> more progressive policies were divisive even within the party divisive within the Party, but not among the constituency.

by smhost 6y ago

> more progressive policies were divisive even within the party divisive within the Party, but not among the constituency.

klipt 6y ago

"more progressive policies" is a broad term, could mean anything from "Medicare for All" to "Abolish the Police", and some of these are much more divisive than others.

smhost 6y ago
"abolish the police" isn't a policy
- klipt 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
  - smhost 6y ago
    if you read past the headline, the actual policy it proposes is to reduce the number of police and cut the budget.
    - klipt 6y ago
      If you read further the author says "I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years" "We don’t want to just close police departments" "People like me who want to abolish prisons and police"
      - smhost 6y ago
        i mean again, advocating for abolition isn't a policy proposal. take for example angela davis, the most prominent prison abolitionist today. she says in this interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3q_qV5mHg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3q_qV5mHg0) that there currently isn't a model of a prison-free society, only hints here and there.
        klipt 6y ago
        Okay, call "abolish the police" a long-term goal instead of an immediate policy. It (and its shorter term policies like "abolish half the police by defunding them") are still very divisive among the electorate.
        smhost 6y ago
        you can't abolish half of a thing. abolishing half of slavery still leaves you with slavery. you're confused about some basic terms here. and if you're using a broad enough notion of divisiveness, then anything is divisive, including tan suits and dijon mustard. so divisiveness as you're using the term is not a property of the relation between the constituency and the political object (policy/slogan/etc.), but it's instead a tool that social engineers can use to create antagonism between populations. for example, abortion appears to be an extremely divisive issue because of the way the issue has been socially engineered, but if you look at the data, a large majority of americans agree on the vast majority of abortion cases. it's the edge cases and disagreements on the rationale for/against abortion that are used to create the appareance of divisiveness.
        klipt 6y ago
        > you can't abolish half of a thing. abolishing half of slavery still leaves you with slavery Then I guess the abolitionists failed because slavery still exists.
        smhost 6y ago

ineedasername 6y ago

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say constituency. What is your definition of that term? Mine is that all people are part of the constituency: A person elected president is responsible for leading everyone; A person elected to the House or Senate is responsible for representing everyone in their district/state, not just their party. My definition of "party" are all of the people registered as Democrats. I think you're right that some aspects of more progressive policies are not divisive for the country: I think most people would agree that everyone should have healthcare. I think most people would agree that everyone should have access to education. I'm not sure I even look at those sorts of things as "progressive". The progressive part is how those things are structured and how they are paid for. As I think about it further, I think there's also a possibility that a majority of Democrats do believe in progressive policies on things like this, but when selecting a candidate they opted for one someone not as progressive because they didn't think the progressive one had as much chance of getting elected. Their calculation, perhaps a bit cynical, was that the less progressive person that gets elected can do more than the very progressive candidate that loses.

smhost 6y ago
democratic voters tragically did respond to the fearmongering of establishment propagandists, but the problem for them isn't in the electoral sphere. it's on the ground where people are facing mass evictions, a mental health and suicide epidemic, poor communities facing a "dark winter", and so on. the moderate wing of the democratic party choosing not to protect vulnerable communities won't make these problems go away.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Weren't the Democrats trying to craft a new aid package for the "dark winter"? I thought they were simply blocked by the Whitehouse/Senate who probably didn't see cooperation on this as beneficial to their election prospects... and a Whitehouse that couldn't seem to make up its mind on the issue. I agree establishment leadership is skeptical of more progressive policies, probably not for philosophical reasons but for a more cynical calculations that support isn't good for their political prospects.