4 ms·

> Perhaps due to those experiences, you will be the only generation that votes more left as you age. I doubt it. My dad lived through the Great Depression, and

> Perhaps due to those experiences, you will be the only generation that votes more left as you age. I doubt it. My dad lived through the Great Depression, and fought desperate battles in WW2 and Korea. As a young man, he was a socialist. His experience in fighting for American freedoms changed all that. Before he passed, he told me he regretted leaving me in a country that was significantly less free than when he was young. I don't believe you'll find many communists in the greatest generation, especially among the war veterans.

bryanlarsen 4mo ago
In 1994, the Greatest Generation voted D+7, higher than any other generational cohort. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/30/a-different-look-at-generations-and-partisanship/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/30/a-different-...
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  Your link doesn't seem to cover the Greatest Generation. Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time. I don't have statistics, but combat veterans voice very negative opinions on Jane Fonda and her support for N Vietnam.
  - bryanlarsen 4mo ago
    Look at the 1994 graph. They're n/a in the 2014 for obvious reasons.
  - jshier 4mo ago
    > Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time. What an absurd statement. During the Great Depression FDR was considering a worker's bill of rights that would guarantee employment. In the '60s LBJ used the specter of a dead president to push through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (which have been considerably undone). In the '90s, Clinton undid the what remained of the Federal welfare state in this country. In the '10s, Obama was barely able to pass legislation that forced people to buy health insurance. In the '20s, Biden's major achievements were largely spending related. So in what universe has the party steadily moved leftward?
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      LBJ's "Great Society" programs still exist and are greatly expanded. The scope of federal entitlements have steadily expanded. And there are strident calls for Medicare for all. Have you not noticed the recent elections of Democrat Socialists, and the Democrat leaders are endorsing them? This was unthinkable just a few years ago. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are not socialism. I am not sure the VRA has been undone - didn't Los Angeles just enact a law to allow non-citizens to vote?
      - jshier 4mo ago
        And none of those things are a move leftward, simply a return to FDR's Democratic Party, where universal healthcare and equal rights first had a chance of passing. That a handful of democratic nominees (most of the Democratic Socialists you allude to simply won their primaries, they aren't in power yet) are on the ballot for the first time demonstrates that the party itself has, in fact, moved rightward, as they wouldn't otherwise need to be described separate from the party itself. And your equation of left and socialism is deeply flawed. Ensuring equal rights with the CRA and VRA wasn't socialism (which is largely an economic framework, not political), but it was certainly a move to left. So much so the country essentially repolarized around those positions. Oh, and you do realize the difference between federal legislation and local laws about who can vote, right?
        WalterBright 4mo ago
        > And none of those things are a move leftward Endorsing and electing Democrat Socialists is not a move leftward? Sanders, AOC, Jayapal, Mandami, Katie Wilson, Bass, etc., are already elected and in power. > Ensuring equal rights with the CRA and VRA wasn't socialism (which is largely an economic framework, not political), but it was certainly a move to left. No, it was not a move left.
        idiotsecant 4mo ago
        You just keep saying 'socialisim' over and over like it's a viable argument
  - weaksauce 4mo ago
    > Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time. the only way someone thinks this is if they have fox news blaring all day every day. the dems keep moving rightward step by step to appeal to "moderates" while the right wing keep moving the overton window even further right.
    - DaSHacka 4mo ago
      Mamdani and Spanberger are more right-wing than those who came before them?
      - weaksauce 4mo ago
        I was speaking in general terms of the trend that spanned a long time and not to the rapid lefward swing in a few recent elections of a few candidates... the general trend of the party went rightward even if there are outliers. those elections were a reaction to how disastrous the republicans have been these past two years.
  - idiotsecant 4mo ago
    Lol Democrats have moved left over time ok. Yeah, maybe since antebellum but the democratic party has been on a rightward march for a long time.
    - DaSHacka 4mo ago
      Would you say the same of the Democratic Socialists that have been elected as of late?
      - idiotsecant 4mo ago
        The democratic socialist races that have recently concluded do not represent any kind of powerbase in the party. They are in the news cycle now but as soon as they aren't the party will begin the process of co-opting, corrupting, or ultimately crushing these upstart elements. The party is kid gloves when it comes to fighting fascists but when it comes to suppressing internal dissent you see the gloves come off. Every time.
- EPWN3D 4mo ago
  Democrats in 1994 were a very different proposition when compared to today. They had the union vote locked up, and the greatest generation benefited greatly from unions.
scoofy 4mo ago
“Left” doesn’t mean socialism. In the long run, it comes out of the enlightenment period, quite literally. Traditionally, the left is associated with small “L” liberalism, and the right is associated with small “C” conservatism. Generally speaking, it has been a historic debate between whether the “natural” way things are is good and prudent (e.g., monarchs, religion, castes, roles, and norms), or if the way things are should be challenged to try something that seems better (e.g., liberté, égalité, fraternité). When one of these ideas is successfully, it is often adopted by the right, when one fails, it is often abandoned by the left. Whether or not socialism is part of the left depends on whether folks on the left think it’s an idea worth trying. In America, right now, the vast majority are still quite hesitant to include it in their platform.
- WalterBright 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - scoofy 4mo ago
    Again, "the left" is not a homogeneous entity. When talking about "the left" we should look at the left's coalition. We don't really have significant party platforms anymore, but I can assure you "rent control" would not get passed by the Democratic Party coalition in the House of Representatives right now, much less the Senate. Associating a political coalition with their most extreme or noisy members is counterproductive. When looking for what a coalition stands for, it's better to look at the coalition member who are most productive with legislation in places they have control.
    - WalterBright 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - scoofy 4mo ago
        I don’t know about Washington State, but Oregon’s rent control is capped at 7% increases after inflation per year, which isn’t exactly stopping market forces. Now, I agree with you that rent controls are bad, generally, but a system simply reasonably dampens real price increases, rather than eliminating them altogether is effectively a different kind of law. I don’t support it, but I think it’s reasonable. That from one of the most progressive states in the nation. It’s not socialism.

bryanlarsen 4mo ago

In 1994, the Greatest Generation voted D+7, higher than any other generational cohort. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/30/a-different-look-at-generations-and-partisanship/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/30/a-different-...

WalterBright 4mo ago
Your link doesn't seem to cover the Greatest Generation. Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time. I don't have statistics, but combat veterans voice very negative opinions on Jane Fonda and her support for N Vietnam.
- bryanlarsen 4mo ago
  Look at the 1994 graph. They're n/a in the 2014 for obvious reasons.
- jshier 4mo ago
  > Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time. What an absurd statement. During the Great Depression FDR was considering a worker's bill of rights that would guarantee employment. In the '60s LBJ used the specter of a dead president to push through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (which have been considerably undone). In the '90s, Clinton undid the what remained of the Federal welfare state in this country. In the '10s, Obama was barely able to pass legislation that forced people to buy health insurance. In the '20s, Biden's major achievements were largely spending related. So in what universe has the party steadily moved leftward?
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    LBJ's "Great Society" programs still exist and are greatly expanded. The scope of federal entitlements have steadily expanded. And there are strident calls for Medicare for all. Have you not noticed the recent elections of Democrat Socialists, and the Democrat leaders are endorsing them? This was unthinkable just a few years ago. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are not socialism. I am not sure the VRA has been undone - didn't Los Angeles just enact a law to allow non-citizens to vote?
    - jshier 4mo ago
      And none of those things are a move leftward, simply a return to FDR's Democratic Party, where universal healthcare and equal rights first had a chance of passing. That a handful of democratic nominees (most of the Democratic Socialists you allude to simply won their primaries, they aren't in power yet) are on the ballot for the first time demonstrates that the party itself has, in fact, moved rightward, as they wouldn't otherwise need to be described separate from the party itself. And your equation of left and socialism is deeply flawed. Ensuring equal rights with the CRA and VRA wasn't socialism (which is largely an economic framework, not political), but it was certainly a move to left. So much so the country essentially repolarized around those positions. Oh, and you do realize the difference between federal legislation and local laws about who can vote, right?
      - WalterBright 4mo ago
        > And none of those things are a move leftward Endorsing and electing Democrat Socialists is not a move leftward? Sanders, AOC, Jayapal, Mandami, Katie Wilson, Bass, etc., are already elected and in power. > Ensuring equal rights with the CRA and VRA wasn't socialism (which is largely an economic framework, not political), but it was certainly a move to left. No, it was not a move left.
        idiotsecant 4mo ago
        You just keep saying 'socialisim' over and over like it's a viable argument
- weaksauce 4mo ago
  > Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time. the only way someone thinks this is if they have fox news blaring all day every day. the dems keep moving rightward step by step to appeal to "moderates" while the right wing keep moving the overton window even further right.
  - DaSHacka 4mo ago
    Mamdani and Spanberger are more right-wing than those who came before them?
    - weaksauce 4mo ago
      I was speaking in general terms of the trend that spanned a long time and not to the rapid lefward swing in a few recent elections of a few candidates... the general trend of the party went rightward even if there are outliers. those elections were a reaction to how disastrous the republicans have been these past two years.
- idiotsecant 4mo ago
  Lol Democrats have moved left over time ok. Yeah, maybe since antebellum but the democratic party has been on a rightward march for a long time.
  - DaSHacka 4mo ago
    Would you say the same of the Democratic Socialists that have been elected as of late?
    - idiotsecant 4mo ago
      The democratic socialist races that have recently concluded do not represent any kind of powerbase in the party. They are in the news cycle now but as soon as they aren't the party will begin the process of co-opting, corrupting, or ultimately crushing these upstart elements. The party is kid gloves when it comes to fighting fascists but when it comes to suppressing internal dissent you see the gloves come off. Every time.
EPWN3D 4mo ago
Democrats in 1994 were a very different proposition when compared to today. They had the union vote locked up, and the greatest generation benefited greatly from unions.

scoofy 4mo ago

“Left” doesn’t mean socialism. In the long run, it comes out of the enlightenment period, quite literally. Traditionally, the left is associated with small “L” liberalism, and the right is associated with small “C” conservatism. Generally speaking, it has been a historic debate between whether the “natural” way things are is good and prudent (e.g., monarchs, religion, castes, roles, and norms), or if the way things are should be challenged to try something that seems better (e.g., liberté, égalité, fraternité). When one of these ideas is successfully, it is often adopted by the right, when one fails, it is often abandoned by the left. Whether or not socialism is part of the left depends on whether folks on the left think it’s an idea worth trying. In America, right now, the vast majority are still quite hesitant to include it in their platform.

WalterBright 4mo ago
[flagged]
- scoofy 4mo ago
  Again, "the left" is not a homogeneous entity. When talking about "the left" we should look at the left's coalition. We don't really have significant party platforms anymore, but I can assure you "rent control" would not get passed by the Democratic Party coalition in the House of Representatives right now, much less the Senate. Associating a political coalition with their most extreme or noisy members is counterproductive. When looking for what a coalition stands for, it's better to look at the coalition member who are most productive with legislation in places they have control.
  - WalterBright 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - scoofy 4mo ago
      I don’t know about Washington State, but Oregon’s rent control is capped at 7% increases after inflation per year, which isn’t exactly stopping market forces. Now, I agree with you that rent controls are bad, generally, but a system simply reasonably dampens real price increases, rather than eliminating them altogether is effectively a different kind of law. I don’t support it, but I think it’s reasonable. That from one of the most progressive states in the nation. It’s not socialism.