17 ms·

The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. This will all be a huge blow

The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. This will all be a huge blow back very soon but it also means the angry people will look to revenge. And revenge means a D Potus coming in and doing things like firing every Republican they can, attempting to redirect funds. A lot of flip floppers often quote “both sides” talking points but both-sides-arguments only really apply in the context of what has happened historically and lack of willingness to set new precedents (I need all the flaws to also win mentality). Those arguments aren’t helpful in the actual solution to the problem. Even though the arguer isn’t exactly incorrect. IMO, the only revenge that will work is by making laws forcing both sides to legislate. Idk what that looks like but not legislating has led to interpreting the law as acceptable behavior for the team to win, not interpreting the law as applied against the acting individual. However something like a legislation quota sounds messy and easily abused in a country of lobbyists. The only other solution is getting non-term limited people to agree to term limits.

righthand 2y ago
A political comment is about to be the fuel that shoots me over 1k karma. Apply your down-votes here to help keep me grounded.
wongarsu 2y ago
The best solution would be a reform of the voting system. It has become clear over the last decades that a two-party system slowly radicalizes both sides. It is also very problematic in the face of single-issue voters. But the two-party system exists just because first-past-the-post voting makes it a strategically bad choice to vote for anyone but the two dominant parties, and makes party-internal reform hard by making it a nonstarter to split a party, no matter how severe the disagreement. Now first-past-the-post made some sense in the 1700s, but with the vastly improved communication of the 1900s and 2000s it's just a bad voting system. Basically anything else is better.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  Someone has to do those reforms in the first place.
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    Right. During stable times, neither party would take such a risk. Big reforms occur during unusual periods where a system experiences shocks and its limits are tested. If there was ever a time for voting reform it would be the 2028 term, assuming that Democrats actually manage to capitalize on the historic moment rather than capitulate and shift right while campaigning on some limp slogan like "back to normal."
- leptons 2y ago
  "All that is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing", and 1/3 of the people of voting age did not vote in 2024 - they did nothing, they just didn't care. You can reform voting all you want but if a significant portion of people still aren't voting then it's not going to do much for the country.
- Paul-Craft 2y ago
  The direction of political discourse hasn't been toward "radicalization" per se. Democrats have only moved slightly to the left of where they were in the early 1970s, but the majority of that movement has taken place since 2011. Republicans, OTOH, have been moving rightward at a steady and near-constant pace since 1971, though they did start shifting faster around 2001. This has lead to Congress becoming significantly more conservative over time. Keep in mind, the Democrats would be considered just slightly left of center in most European countries. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polar... TL;DR: there's no "radicalization" taking place in the Democratic party. It's the Republicans that are driving it.
  - adamc 2y ago
    I agree with this. I was once an independent. The dysfunction of the Republican party ended that.
watwut 2y ago
That is optimistic scenario. Pessimistic one is that this will be irreversible because remaining agencies and wealth will be used against opposition.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  My thoughts as well. However, the pendullum will swing harder this time
pclmulqdq 2y ago
> The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. Perhaps the Democratic base should stop "reaching across the aisle" the way they are because it clearly isn't working. On any given issue, Republicans generally understand the Democratic position on things and reject it. Democrats rarely understand the Republican position. That makes it sound like "reaching across the aisle" is a bit more of "preaching across the aisle" than truly attempting collaboration. > And revenge means a D Potus coming in and doing things like firing every Republican they can, attempting to redirect funds. This already generally happens, and more power to the Democrats who want to swing the pendulum hard on the Republicans after this one. The fact remains that for the last several administrations, if you were high up in one of these organizations, you would have to expect to get fired or demoted when the other party gets into power. If you want to see the history of this, the EPA has some of the most visible examples. The situation that's new is the wholesale gutting of entire agencies at the direction of a third party (Elon Musk). > IMO, the only revenge that will work is by making laws forcing both sides to legislate. Idk what that looks like but not legislating has led to interpreting the law as acceptable behavior for the team to win, not interpreting the law as applied against the acting individual. However something like a legislation quota sounds messy and easily abused in a country of lobbyists. I completely agree with you here. The administrative bloat of the executive branch is largely because the legislature has abdicated the power to write the rules on all but the broadest basis to the executive branch. The executive branch is run by only one elected person who has the power to change quite a bit about its operations.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > Democrats rarely understand the Republican position. This is an extremely shallow and incorrect take.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    This has been studied several times. The most famous study was Johnathan Haidt's.
- righthand 2y ago
slowmovintarget 2y ago
> The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. You mean, like the Democrats have been doing since the Obama administration? The ACA was not a bipartisan bill, it was a jam-down, and that attitude only continued. Pendulum-swing indeed. The solution is the same one Lincoln pointed out. The people aren't fooled anymore, so if you really want to do something, you can't just shuffle the problem around for campaign donations and not actually fix it. You have to make an honest attempt to support the good of the people. At the moment, President Trump is seen as the one doing it, because the Democrats have so clearly been acting against the interests of the majority of their constituents in favor of ideological luxuries. We're done with that for a while.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > The ACA was not a bipartisan bill, it was a jam-down No, it wasn't. It was watered down substantially.
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    Yes, it was: https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/26/a-look-back-at-how-the-president-was-able-to-sign-obamacare-into-law-four-years-ago/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/26...
    - righthand 2y ago
      You’re both right, it was done without Republicans but it was watered down for moderates on both sides. It was passed because it was a smart play against those opposing groups.
- righthand 2y ago
  You missed my paragraph about both sides arguments. It was “jammed-in” because Democrats got tired of Republicans opposing everything. A bipartisan effort was risky that it would be altered to be undesirable. Even so it was altered to be pretty moderate overall. Either way it was jammed because of revenge tactics I’m discussing.

righthand 2y ago

A political comment is about to be the fuel that shoots me over 1k karma. Apply your down-votes here to help keep me grounded.

wongarsu 2y ago

The best solution would be a reform of the voting system. It has become clear over the last decades that a two-party system slowly radicalizes both sides. It is also very problematic in the face of single-issue voters. But the two-party system exists just because first-past-the-post voting makes it a strategically bad choice to vote for anyone but the two dominant parties, and makes party-internal reform hard by making it a nonstarter to split a party, no matter how severe the disagreement. Now first-past-the-post made some sense in the 1700s, but with the vastly improved communication of the 1900s and 2000s it's just a bad voting system. Basically anything else is better.

onemoresoop 2y ago
Someone has to do those reforms in the first place.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  Right. During stable times, neither party would take such a risk. Big reforms occur during unusual periods where a system experiences shocks and its limits are tested. If there was ever a time for voting reform it would be the 2028 term, assuming that Democrats actually manage to capitalize on the historic moment rather than capitulate and shift right while campaigning on some limp slogan like "back to normal."
leptons 2y ago
"All that is necessary for evil to win is for good people to do nothing", and 1/3 of the people of voting age did not vote in 2024 - they did nothing, they just didn't care. You can reform voting all you want but if a significant portion of people still aren't voting then it's not going to do much for the country.
Paul-Craft 2y ago
The direction of political discourse hasn't been toward "radicalization" per se. Democrats have only moved slightly to the left of where they were in the early 1970s, but the majority of that movement has taken place since 2011. Republicans, OTOH, have been moving rightward at a steady and near-constant pace since 1971, though they did start shifting faster around 2001. This has lead to Congress becoming significantly more conservative over time. Keep in mind, the Democrats would be considered just slightly left of center in most European countries. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polar... TL;DR: there's no "radicalization" taking place in the Democratic party. It's the Republicans that are driving it.
- adamc 2y ago
  I agree with this. I was once an independent. The dysfunction of the Republican party ended that.

watwut 2y ago

That is optimistic scenario. Pessimistic one is that this will be irreversible because remaining agencies and wealth will be used against opposition.

onemoresoop 2y ago
My thoughts as well. However, the pendullum will swing harder this time

pclmulqdq 2y ago

> The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. Perhaps the Democratic base should stop "reaching across the aisle" the way they are because it clearly isn't working. On any given issue, Republicans generally understand the Democratic position on things and reject it. Democrats rarely understand the Republican position. That makes it sound like "reaching across the aisle" is a bit more of "preaching across the aisle" than truly attempting collaboration. > And revenge means a D Potus coming in and doing things like firing every Republican they can, attempting to redirect funds. This already generally happens, and more power to the Democrats who want to swing the pendulum hard on the Republicans after this one. The fact remains that for the last several administrations, if you were high up in one of these organizations, you would have to expect to get fired or demoted when the other party gets into power. If you want to see the history of this, the EPA has some of the most visible examples. The situation that's new is the wholesale gutting of entire agencies at the direction of a third party (Elon Musk). > IMO, the only revenge that will work is by making laws forcing both sides to legislate. Idk what that looks like but not legislating has led to interpreting the law as acceptable behavior for the team to win, not interpreting the law as applied against the acting individual. However something like a legislation quota sounds messy and easily abused in a country of lobbyists. I completely agree with you here. The administrative bloat of the executive branch is largely because the legislature has abdicated the power to write the rules on all but the broadest basis to the executive branch. The executive branch is run by only one elected person who has the power to change quite a bit about its operations.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
> Democrats rarely understand the Republican position. This is an extremely shallow and incorrect take.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  This has been studied several times. The most famous study was Johnathan Haidt's.
righthand 2y ago

slowmovintarget 2y ago

> The Democratic base is tired of reaching across the aisle only to have their hands slapped and be met with disapproval and silence. You mean, like the Democrats have been doing since the Obama administration? The ACA was not a bipartisan bill, it was a jam-down, and that attitude only continued. Pendulum-swing indeed. The solution is the same one Lincoln pointed out. The people aren't fooled anymore, so if you really want to do something, you can't just shuffle the problem around for campaign donations and not actually fix it. You have to make an honest attempt to support the good of the people. At the moment, President Trump is seen as the one doing it, because the Democrats have so clearly been acting against the interests of the majority of their constituents in favor of ideological luxuries. We're done with that for a while.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
> The ACA was not a bipartisan bill, it was a jam-down No, it wasn't. It was watered down substantially.
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  Yes, it was: https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/26/a-look-back-at-how-the-president-was-able-to-sign-obamacare-into-law-four-years-ago/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/26...
  - righthand 2y ago
    You’re both right, it was done without Republicans but it was watered down for moderates on both sides. It was passed because it was a smart play against those opposing groups.
righthand 2y ago
You missed my paragraph about both sides arguments. It was “jammed-in” because Democrats got tired of Republicans opposing everything. A bipartisan effort was risky that it would be altered to be undesirable. Even so it was altered to be pretty moderate overall. Either way it was jammed because of revenge tactics I’m discussing.