4 ms·

"far right" or "slightly left of far right" is a shitty choice, especially when "left vs right" is different comparing the US to the rest of the world even the

• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• nozzlegear 6mo ago
  > "far right" or "slightly left of far right" is a shitty choice, especially when "left vs right" is different comparing the US to the rest of the world > even the smallest-c conservative in the US is probably more right-wing than the furthest of the right in Europe (although they're trying really hard to prove that false) This is just more of the same "Bernie would've been right of center in Europe" tripe that Reddit has been repeating since 2015 – it's a tired argument that doesn't take into account things like immigration policies, gender identity, racial justice, stances on abortion, and so on. > when is the dnc going to come out against genocide? oh, they're not? well then i don't care This is a non-sequitur. I'm not interested in debating Israel, Gaza and genocide on the internet, or watching you use them as a blanket justification for disengagement.
  • Tanoc 6mo ago
    >This is just more of the same "Bernie would've been right of center in Europe" tripe that Reddit has been repeating since 2015 – it's a tired argument that doesn't take into account things like immigration policies, gender identity, racial justice, stances on abortion, and so on. When you look at the actual negotiations and implementation of policies that have happened, the Democrats now have a much smaller gap between themselves and the Republicans on the world stage. There are a handful of distinct issues that they are polar opposites on, but in terms of actual governance the leadership of the two parties don't stray too far from the same direction compared to Western Europe and South America. While in relative terms they were very divergent from eachother in the 1920s and the 1960s, they've once again moved closer together and we have not yet hit another divergence point. There is a stagnation and regression that appear very similar because public sentiment has rapidly changed and progressed since 2012. It's very visible in the way many of the same Democrats are around now as in 2008 (and some from even 1996) and still act like they're from that era where we were at "the end of history", while the Republicans have many newer members that have jumped in since 2016 that act like they're from the earlier era of the 1950s and 1960s when concepts like civil rights and second wave feminism were still widely contentious. Regular Americans just sort of view the period from 1968 to 2001 as a relatively uniform era politically because there weren't events that up-ended entire hemispheres in a U.S.-centric way the way World War II, The Cuban Missile Crisis, and 9/11 had. Yet between 2001 and 2012 there were several up-ending events such as the 9/11, the '08 financial crisis, and the rapid adoption of the smartphone and thus instant global communication starting in 2010. Since the normal public have that view what has happened since 2012 makes the stances the Democrats have retained from before that monumental shift appear not only outdated, but harmfully backwards, especially as more people who were not alive during that "end of history" era come to be of voting age. That means the two major parties can seem to be the same face wearing two masks right now because neither have kept up with left wing public sentiment.
    • nozzlegear 6mo ago
      You'll have to articulate what you believe those stances actually are. I think there are huge differences between the two parties: expanding immigration, availability of healthcare, widening the social safety nets, racial justice and DEI, fighting climate change, protecting the environment, protecting and restoring reproductive rights for women, trans rights, lgbtq+ rights – the list goes on. These are all things that republicans simply can't touch without getting canceled and primaried. You're claiming that their governance has stagnated, but this is only evidence of hyperpartisan gridlock increasing since 2008, not evidence that they've become so similar the Dems have nothing left to do when they're in office. Our country's entire culture war is built on these differences, it's not a small gap or friendly disagreement between gentlemen. > "the end of history" Fukuyama wasn't wrong, he was just early.
      • Tanoc 6mo ago
        The overlap comes in the form of militarization of the police (Republicans give police ridiculous equipment or powers that the Democrats refuse to limit or rescind because they don't want to appear "soft on crime"), the proliferation of punishment instead of prevention (Republicans push policy to criminalize various things which the Democrats then quietly use for the same reason as above), the expansion of the surveillance state (just look at these stupid device age verification laws) privatization of things that need to be public services because they have to run at a loss (many senior members of the Democrats are at odds with younger members over their support for the Republican initiated ideas of partial or full privatization of Amtrak and information services like NOAA), trying to wield the judicial branch against the executive (Republicans raise things to the Supreme Court to make precedent while Democrats try and keep things in the circuit courts and prevent appeals) and others. While their ideas of social reform, bodily autonomy, and worker protections have progressed, in terms of finances, judicial enforcement, and foreign policy the Democrats haven't meaningfully changed their stances since 2008. Much of this is the same as back then when both parties showed support for the ridiculous punishments for digital piracy, the PATRIOT Act, and the plans to replace the Post Office with something like DHL. The main idea of this stagnation leading to complicity comes from the fact that most often when the Republicans break something or introduce new ways to harm a given group the Democrats never really do anything visibly to reverse that. That idea had been bubbling under the surface since Chuck Schumer became Senate Majority Leader in 2015, but gained a lot of traction after Biden's term because although most of the first Trump era's policies had been implemented by executive order or by appointed department heads most of those executive orders were not nullified. Of the 33% nullified about half of those were inconsequential such as EO14016 revoking EO13801 which was about apprenticeships, and those appointed department heads such as Mike DeJoy were not relieved of their posts despite demonstrable harm. There's a reason we have the joke that the only thing Biden did was make Juneteenth an official holiday and gave people two grand to buy gaming PCs. There are a lot of things that Democrats have actually done beneath the surface such as strengthening marriage protections for LGBTQ+ people, the carbon tax credit, bodily autonomy, giving aid and leniency to migrants and refugees, and pushing for student loan forgiveness. But all of that was so visibly stripped away in a spectacle, and that makes it hard for people to believe the Democrats are actually doing anything because if they were wouldn't all of those be more robust and defensible? The primary example people point to is Roe V. Wade, where the Democrats had forty nine years to create several layers of legislation to protect what Roe V. Wade had initiated, and yet did nothing. With all of this it creates the perception that the Democrats never really do anything and are thus stagnant.
• will4274 6mo ago
  > when you look at the whole of human political history When you look at the whole of human political history, the vast majority of politican systems have been authoritarian. Anybody who supports a system of government where average people get to vote (as both the Republicans and Democrats do) is part of the super ultra far left. Do you not see how silly this is?