5 ms·

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Interesting points. I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other

by jahnu 5y ago

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Interesting points. I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other dems to vote for a third middle way part should one exist. I can see the other side easily.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
erichocean 5y ago
> I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other dems to vote for a third middle way part should one exist. I don't think there are any, but a lot of "independents" are fundamentally moderate and Democrats typically have a lower party-id than Republicans, so they need more independents to break their way to win a national election, hence "distancing" from far-Left/woke positions at election time. Biden, for instance, made "equity" his priority literally Day 1 in office, and that's a "woke" position. It has only hurt him with voters on the Right, who don't like the Left's cultural platform anyway and can be ignored. Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.). Republicans mostly just occasionally vote Libertarian, but there's also the occasional Tea Party if the Left gets anything that even looks like a win on economics.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > It has only hurt him with voters on the Right Unless you are referring to the Democratic neoliberal center-right, which has been and remains Biden’s main base of support (and I don’t think you are), Biden didn’t have any support on the Right to start with. > Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.). That’s why the strongest minor party in the US is…the right-libertarian (with candidates frequently ex- and/or future-Republican candidates) Libertarian Party. The DSA isn’t a third party, and the Green Party is smaller (in both membership and, at 0, elected state-level or higher representation, than the Libertarian Party (also the Independence Party of New York, and the Independent Party of Oregon, and on at least one and possibly both than the Vermont Progressive Party; it is also recognized in fewer states than the Libertarian Party. The Right is more active in politics in general in the US, more active in major party politics in the US, and more active outside of major party politics in the US.
willcipriano 5y ago
The most recent example I think is when prompted to nominate a supreme court justice, the Democratic president openly said that he would do so with a particular skin tone and gender in mind. That is to say even if he found a better candidate, if they didn't have the type of skin or genitals he preferred, he would not nominate them on that basis. What was the one before that? Free crack pipes for racial equity, I think.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  But the crack pipe thing was completely made up. And that criticism of the supreme court thing depends on the belief that ability can be narrowed down to a single quantity and he isn't picking out of a bunch of basically equally qualified candidates. I'd disagree with that.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    > But the crack pipe thing was completely made up. Can you let the New York Times know? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-reduction-crack-pipes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-re...
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > there is no evidence that the Biden administration intended to pay for distribution of pipes > the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit,” Seems like they know. And that doesn't even get into the ridiculous "for racial equity" part of that sentence.
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        What else would "safe smoking kits" for "under resourced populations" mean? They provide a definition for under resourced: "Under-resourced populations can be defined by the following factors: • By race • By ethnicity • By gender (including transgender populations) • By sexual orientation (including lesbian, gay and bisexual populations)"[0] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/fy22-harm-reduction-nofo.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa...
demthrow6429 5y ago
Perhaps evidenced by my use of a throwaway, let me give a personal example For most of my life, I identified and voted largely democrat. Over the last 5-10 years I've found myself far more independent aligned due in part to the issues mentioned of the parent poster. Some of the points of conflict include affirmative action. I am fully supportive of helping underprivileged groups, dedicated funding and corrective policy changes to remove things keeping them down, but do not think explicit affirmative action is the right way to go about that, and in fact feel it weakens ones position and seems clearly hypocritical from one ostensibly seeking equality. I also take a broad issue with the sheer amount of effort the democrats have focused on issues of identity as opposed to class. Not that one should ignore the former, but I find the latter to be a far more central, immediate, and critical issue that needs addressing, and that the way the democrats are implementing their approach to the former, like their position on affirmative action, is instead driving a wedge and fighting against their best intentions.

by jahnu 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

erichocean 5y ago

> I'm still confused about what cultural policies the "woke" left implemented that would encourage other dems to vote for a third middle way part should one exist. I don't think there are any, but a lot of "independents" are fundamentally moderate and Democrats typically have a lower party-id than Republicans, so they need more independents to break their way to win a national election, hence "distancing" from far-Left/woke positions at election time. Biden, for instance, made "equity" his priority literally Day 1 in office, and that's a "woke" position. It has only hurt him with voters on the Right, who don't like the Left's cultural platform anyway and can be ignored. Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.). Republicans mostly just occasionally vote Libertarian, but there's also the occasional Tea Party if the Left gets anything that even looks like a win on economics.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> It has only hurt him with voters on the Right Unless you are referring to the Democratic neoliberal center-right, which has been and remains Biden’s main base of support (and I don’t think you are), Biden didn’t have any support on the Right to start with. > Both the Right and Left frequently talks about 3rd parties because literally half of what they want is never implemented. The Left is far more active in politics, so they tend to actually do something about it (DSA, Green Party, etc.). That’s why the strongest minor party in the US is…the right-libertarian (with candidates frequently ex- and/or future-Republican candidates) Libertarian Party. The DSA isn’t a third party, and the Green Party is smaller (in both membership and, at 0, elected state-level or higher representation, than the Libertarian Party (also the Independence Party of New York, and the Independent Party of Oregon, and on at least one and possibly both than the Vermont Progressive Party; it is also recognized in fewer states than the Libertarian Party. The Right is more active in politics in general in the US, more active in major party politics in the US, and more active outside of major party politics in the US.

willcipriano 5y ago

The most recent example I think is when prompted to nominate a supreme court justice, the Democratic president openly said that he would do so with a particular skin tone and gender in mind. That is to say even if he found a better candidate, if they didn't have the type of skin or genitals he preferred, he would not nominate them on that basis. What was the one before that? Free crack pipes for racial equity, I think.

Dylan16807 5y ago
But the crack pipe thing was completely made up. And that criticism of the supreme court thing depends on the belief that ability can be narrowed down to a single quantity and he isn't picking out of a bunch of basically equally qualified candidates. I'd disagree with that.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  > But the crack pipe thing was completely made up. Can you let the New York Times know? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-reduction-crack-pipes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/us/politics/biden-harm-re...
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > there is no evidence that the Biden administration intended to pay for distribution of pipes > the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, said glass pipes were “never a part of the kit,” Seems like they know. And that doesn't even get into the ridiculous "for racial equity" part of that sentence.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      What else would "safe smoking kits" for "under resourced populations" mean? They provide a definition for under resourced: "Under-resourced populations can be defined by the following factors: • By race • By ethnicity • By gender (including transgender populations) • By sexual orientation (including lesbian, gay and bisexual populations)"[0] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/fy22-harm-reduction-nofo.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20220207225346/https:/www.samhsa...

demthrow6429 5y ago

Perhaps evidenced by my use of a throwaway, let me give a personal example For most of my life, I identified and voted largely democrat. Over the last 5-10 years I've found myself far more independent aligned due in part to the issues mentioned of the parent poster. Some of the points of conflict include affirmative action. I am fully supportive of helping underprivileged groups, dedicated funding and corrective policy changes to remove things keeping them down, but do not think explicit affirmative action is the right way to go about that, and in fact feel it weakens ones position and seems clearly hypocritical from one ostensibly seeking equality. I also take a broad issue with the sheer amount of effort the democrats have focused on issues of identity as opposed to class. Not that one should ignore the former, but I find the latter to be a far more central, immediate, and critical issue that needs addressing, and that the way the democrats are implementing their approach to the former, like their position on affirmative action, is instead driving a wedge and fighting against their best intentions.