4 ms·

This isn’t an accident. It’s an intentional pattern that creates a ratchet effect. Dems are quite happy to keep many things in place that they could easily reve

This isn’t an accident. It’s an intentional pattern that creates a ratchet effect. Dems are quite happy to keep many things in place that they could easily reverse. Policies continuing to exist don’t get much press, so they don’t have to give the game away in getting what they want. On a year to year basis it’s difficult to see. But look over decades: this is a party that not only failed to advance anything building on the New Deal, but failed at every step to arrest its complete demolition. If you really believe that the reason the dems can’t accomplish anything is because of Manchin, Sinema, The Parliamentarian, or $WEEKLY_SCAPEGOAT_NAME, I’m sorry to say you’re a mark. It’s like that Key & Peele “hold me back” skit.

nerdponx 5y ago
It's hard to not feel like the US Democratic party is like Firefox: it exists to give voters the illusion of choice.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  I mean it's great PR for the west, no doubt about it. I think the South Park episode "I'm a Little Bit Country" is very relevant here - the US is a country founded on the basis of "saying one thing and doing another".
mywittyname 5y ago
> Dems are quite happy to keep many things in place that they could easily reverse. As are the Pubs. Ex. they left the ACA in place.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  It feels like we have two parties both of whose platforms are, "things just the way they are, but with us elected."
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    They also like to make SCOTUS do the hard part of their job.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - Kye 5y ago
    The main difference is the DNC is mildly in favor of progressive reform, but not at the cost of their piece of the capitalist pie. They will happily take credit for anything grassroots organizers bring to the point that even the corporate donors will pretend to care. Remember that, for example, the DNC's support for marriage equality started with Biden's gaffe as VP. It was already so popular that it didn't matter whether they supported it or not, so the gaffe became platform when polls didn't shift against them. I'll take that over the GOP wanting me, at best, crushed under a boot and subservient, but I'll still vote for just about any candidate the DSA puts up locally if they ever do. I recognize the barrier function of voting for whatever barely animate ghoul the DNC triangulates on in the primary, so I'll do that until someone figures out how to get > 50% at that level with someone I'll vote for rather than a lineholder.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      I hate to say it, but that's the "with us elected" half of "everything the same but...". The DNC's marriage track record as far as I know was the same as the RNC, the only difference is who was celebrating when the supreme court made the decision.
    - rayiner 5y ago
      > Remember that, for example, the DNC's support for marriage equality started with Biden's gaffe as VP. That's a good example of why people who think the Democratic Party is a vehicle for progressivism are wrong. In 2008, Black people--without whom Democrats would not be a viable national party--said homosexuality was morally unacceptable by more than 2:1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-repu.... They were as conservative on that issue as Republicans. (Even as of 2019, 45% of Black Democrats think legalizing same-sex marriage was a bad thing, compared to just 11% of white Democrats. That puts them closer to Republicans (57%) than to the white members of their party. Hispanic Democrats are also twice as likely as white Democrats to say it was a bad thing, while Hispanics overall are three times as likely. See: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/5-gender-family-and-marriage-same-sex-marriage-and-religion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/5-gender-fam...) The Democratic Party is a coalition of white social liberals, who are either moderate or progressive economically, along with people of color who vary significantly in political ideology. A significant chunk of the voters who put the party over the top in places like Georgia and Arizona are the old Reagan coalition: upwardly mobile suburbanites of all races.
DarylZero 5y ago
> If you really believe that the reason the dems can’t accomplish anything is because of Manchin, Sinema, The Parliamentarian, or $WEEKLY_SCAPEGOAT_NAME, I’m sorry to say you’re a mark Those are all Democrats. If those Democrats aren't the reason, who is? > It’s like that Key & Peele “hold me back” skit. You think some of the Dem Senators would vote differently if it weren't for the opposition? Maybe so. When everyone knows a vote will go one way, you can never tell whether people are "sincere" voters. Still, it can't be that 49 out of 50 Senate Dems are all against the mild social democratic reforms being rejected by the 50th.
- throwoutway 5y ago
  Seems like only two have backbones and the rest enjoy being corralled by the Majority Whip? Perhaps we need more individual integrity and less party politics
  - selfportrait 5y ago
    When I think of Manchin and Sinema, I definitely think “backbone”.
rayiner 5y ago
Progressives are beginning to sound like those "if you build it they will come" conservatives who think the Republican Party would win if they just refocus on "fundamentals," like mandating Christianity. The "ratchet effect" arises from the fact that the United States is a moderate country. If you look at the House popular vote over the last 20 years, Republicans have won it as often as Democrats. The House popular vote is a good metric to look at because it isn't affected by gerrymandering, and Republicans have an incentive to contest every single House seat (unlike with the Presidential popular vote, where Republicans have zero incentive to schlep all over rural California, New York, Illinois, etc., scrounging up votes). Even within the Democratic Party itself, Biden decisively won the nomination. It's wasn't because of "electability." It's because the party is entirely dependent on minorities to be a viable national party, and American racial politics means that minorities often vote Democrat even if they are moderate to conservative. My parents are the "brown people" who turned Virginia blue. They liked Biden and disliked Warren. Not because of "electability" but because they're economically moderate and socially conservative, but as immigrants from a Muslim country they don't like Trump's rhetoric. That's the Democratic coalition, and progressives need to come to terms with that.
- tptacek 5y ago
  The Republicans absolutely don't have an incentive to contest every single House seat (neither do the Democrats), and they don't. For instance, 2 cycles ago, an avowed neo-Nazi --- who literally stood on Chicago street corners in a Nazi uniform with a bullhorn --- took the GOP nomination for Lipinski's seat. That was possible because, at the time, running as a Republican against Lipinski was suicidal. The GOP did not contest that seat. Each cycle, both parties make red-to-blue and blue-to-red lists of districts to flip, and allocate money disproportionately to them. Even setting aside top-down party decisions, which clearly happen, seats aren't contested seriously for knock-on reasons: the best candidates won't run for hopeless seats, because the loss taints them and opens them up to carpetbagging charges when they try to contest other districts. I don't think I disagree with your whole analysis, but the argument that "Republicans have an incentive to contest every single House seat" clearly doesn't hold.
  - 5y ago
zozbot234 5y ago
The New Deal was a bad deal, in fact a dismal failure. Much of it was at some point rolled back by the Supreme Court, and the economy picked up hugely as a result. What brought the U.S. out of the 1930s Great Depression was devaluation of the dollar, but that could have been accomplished without the detrimental effect of everything else that was part of the New Deal.
- nradov 5y ago
  The New Deal was a bad deal economically, but some historians think it prevented a violent socialist uprising. Of course we'll never know if that's really true.

nerdponx 5y ago

It's hard to not feel like the US Democratic party is like Firefox: it exists to give voters the illusion of choice.

uejfiweun 5y ago
I mean it's great PR for the west, no doubt about it. I think the South Park episode "I'm a Little Bit Country" is very relevant here - the US is a country founded on the basis of "saying one thing and doing another".

mywittyname 5y ago

> Dems are quite happy to keep many things in place that they could easily reverse. As are the Pubs. Ex. they left the ACA in place.

whatshisface 5y ago
It feels like we have two parties both of whose platforms are, "things just the way they are, but with us elected."
- mywittyname 5y ago
  They also like to make SCOTUS do the hard part of their job.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Kye 5y ago
  The main difference is the DNC is mildly in favor of progressive reform, but not at the cost of their piece of the capitalist pie. They will happily take credit for anything grassroots organizers bring to the point that even the corporate donors will pretend to care. Remember that, for example, the DNC's support for marriage equality started with Biden's gaffe as VP. It was already so popular that it didn't matter whether they supported it or not, so the gaffe became platform when polls didn't shift against them. I'll take that over the GOP wanting me, at best, crushed under a boot and subservient, but I'll still vote for just about any candidate the DSA puts up locally if they ever do. I recognize the barrier function of voting for whatever barely animate ghoul the DNC triangulates on in the primary, so I'll do that until someone figures out how to get > 50% at that level with someone I'll vote for rather than a lineholder.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    I hate to say it, but that's the "with us elected" half of "everything the same but...". The DNC's marriage track record as far as I know was the same as the RNC, the only difference is who was celebrating when the supreme court made the decision.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > Remember that, for example, the DNC's support for marriage equality started with Biden's gaffe as VP. That's a good example of why people who think the Democratic Party is a vehicle for progressivism are wrong. In 2008, Black people--without whom Democrats would not be a viable national party--said homosexuality was morally unacceptable by more than 2:1: https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-repu.... They were as conservative on that issue as Republicans. (Even as of 2019, 45% of Black Democrats think legalizing same-sex marriage was a bad thing, compared to just 11% of white Democrats. That puts them closer to Republicans (57%) than to the white members of their party. Hispanic Democrats are also twice as likely as white Democrats to say it was a bad thing, while Hispanics overall are three times as likely. See: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/5-gender-family-and-marriage-same-sex-marriage-and-religion/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/5-gender-fam...) The Democratic Party is a coalition of white social liberals, who are either moderate or progressive economically, along with people of color who vary significantly in political ideology. A significant chunk of the voters who put the party over the top in places like Georgia and Arizona are the old Reagan coalition: upwardly mobile suburbanites of all races.

DarylZero 5y ago

> If you really believe that the reason the dems can’t accomplish anything is because of Manchin, Sinema, The Parliamentarian, or $WEEKLY_SCAPEGOAT_NAME, I’m sorry to say you’re a mark Those are all Democrats. If those Democrats aren't the reason, who is? > It’s like that Key & Peele “hold me back” skit. You think some of the Dem Senators would vote differently if it weren't for the opposition? Maybe so. When everyone knows a vote will go one way, you can never tell whether people are "sincere" voters. Still, it can't be that 49 out of 50 Senate Dems are all against the mild social democratic reforms being rejected by the 50th.

throwoutway 5y ago
Seems like only two have backbones and the rest enjoy being corralled by the Majority Whip? Perhaps we need more individual integrity and less party politics
- selfportrait 5y ago
  When I think of Manchin and Sinema, I definitely think “backbone”.

rayiner 5y ago

Progressives are beginning to sound like those "if you build it they will come" conservatives who think the Republican Party would win if they just refocus on "fundamentals," like mandating Christianity. The "ratchet effect" arises from the fact that the United States is a moderate country. If you look at the House popular vote over the last 20 years, Republicans have won it as often as Democrats. The House popular vote is a good metric to look at because it isn't affected by gerrymandering, and Republicans have an incentive to contest every single House seat (unlike with the Presidential popular vote, where Republicans have zero incentive to schlep all over rural California, New York, Illinois, etc., scrounging up votes). Even within the Democratic Party itself, Biden decisively won the nomination. It's wasn't because of "electability." It's because the party is entirely dependent on minorities to be a viable national party, and American racial politics means that minorities often vote Democrat even if they are moderate to conservative. My parents are the "brown people" who turned Virginia blue. They liked Biden and disliked Warren. Not because of "electability" but because they're economically moderate and socially conservative, but as immigrants from a Muslim country they don't like Trump's rhetoric. That's the Democratic coalition, and progressives need to come to terms with that.

tptacek 5y ago
The Republicans absolutely don't have an incentive to contest every single House seat (neither do the Democrats), and they don't. For instance, 2 cycles ago, an avowed neo-Nazi --- who literally stood on Chicago street corners in a Nazi uniform with a bullhorn --- took the GOP nomination for Lipinski's seat. That was possible because, at the time, running as a Republican against Lipinski was suicidal. The GOP did not contest that seat. Each cycle, both parties make red-to-blue and blue-to-red lists of districts to flip, and allocate money disproportionately to them. Even setting aside top-down party decisions, which clearly happen, seats aren't contested seriously for knock-on reasons: the best candidates won't run for hopeless seats, because the loss taints them and opens them up to carpetbagging charges when they try to contest other districts. I don't think I disagree with your whole analysis, but the argument that "Republicans have an incentive to contest every single House seat" clearly doesn't hold.
- 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

The New Deal was a bad deal, in fact a dismal failure. Much of it was at some point rolled back by the Supreme Court, and the economy picked up hugely as a result. What brought the U.S. out of the 1930s Great Depression was devaluation of the dollar, but that could have been accomplished without the detrimental effect of everything else that was part of the New Deal.

nradov 5y ago
The New Deal was a bad deal economically, but some historians think it prevented a violent socialist uprising. Of course we'll never know if that's really true.