The Democrats must become an anti-establishment party | Robert Reich
The Democrats must become an anti-establishment party | Robert Reich
The lesson of this election is that Democrats must attack inequality – and not cede working-class voters to Trump
You're viewing a single thread.
Or maybe they should just leave the Democratic party and start a new progressive party? We have less than 4 years, but that's also the most time we'll ever have.
The problem with that strategy is that our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends towards a two-party system.
Then become one of the two parties.
There already are two. We must co-opt one with a populist candidate. The Republican Party was already hijacked by Trump. That leaves the Democratic Party.
Bernie tried twice, Democrats demonstrated their ability to stop that shit in its tracks. It will not work.
The only solution is for progressives to abandon the Party and start their own to replace it. The US has replaced parties before, it can be done again.
Trump tried once and it worked. Neoliberal ideas are entrenched in the minds of Americans. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems as it asserts, incorrectly, that our institutions are flawless. Since neoliberals only consider changing people, it is much easier for a fascist to convince a neoliberal to change the people in society. Where as it is much harder for a progressive or a socialist to convince a neoliberal to enact systemic change or redistribute wealth respectively.
In short, people with neoliberal ideas in their head need to fully internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
Abandoning the Democrats will not result in them being replaced. They will continue to exist by moving further to the right, as Democrats like Chris Murphy have already proposed.
Starting a successful third party is mathematically impossible under a FPTP system. Third party candidates can only be spoiler candidates.
Where's the Whig Party?
Why must one of those parties be the Democrats? I don’t see no fucking Whigs around, do you?
Because unlike the Wigs, the Democrats are not divided over slavery. They can just move to the right on contemporary issues as Chris Murphy details here.
The Democrats are divided over Israel. Something like 80 House members boycotted Netanyahu's speech, and the Party base is overwhelmingly anti-genocide. That's enough to get the ball rolling.
It's not enough. The House elections happen every two years. AIPAC can successfully primary progressive politicians if we don't vote for them.
Murphy spells it out. Democrats are moving to the right to get people who aren't 100% with them on social and cultural issues. There is a huge base of people in the US that support Israel. And they tend to be consistent older voters.
https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/aging/articles/why-older-citizens-are-more-likely-to-vote
Democrats moving to the right are only going to lose more and more voters, because the only reason people vote for them is because they aren't as far to the right as Republicans. It sure looks like moving to the right cost Harris the election, they're destroying their only appeal.
And those voters that they lose will be looking for a new party, because they won't let themselves be dragged to the right. So while the Democrats destroy their own party it makes perfect sense for progressives to abandon ship and reform into a new party to replace them.
This is all academic, of course. In reality we might not be able to vote ever again lol
Third party doesn’t work. You have to do what trump did, 1 man coup from the inside.
Apparently Republican voters are gonna set the mark at R regardless of who it is, so how about having someone like Bernie run in the Republican primary.
The Democrat establishment wants power and for that they have to win elections. So having an anti establishment candidate is preferable to them over a Republicans victory. If anything good came out of the last election, it is that Trump as horrible as he is can still win elections against an establishment Democrat, so the Democrats have to change.
Also changing the parties does not work. The problem is systematic and the US really needs to change its election system, to get better politics.
They sure didn't look like they wanted to win this election.
They switch candidates in the middle of the campaign, because Biden's polling was that bad.
And then Harris did everything she could to reassure everyone she was exactly like Biden, completely defeating the strategy.
It didn't work with Bernie for more reasons than the parties resistance. A lot of people on the left that dislike the party don't seem to understand that you still have to join the party and get involved with it if you want the party to move left. Party members and active involved people shape where the party goes. We absolutely can shift the Dems left, but it means holding our noses and becoming the party. The Dems have always been an open door, big tent, party. Walk into the tent and change minds...
The Dems didn't let a single Palestinian-American speak at the DNC this year. The tent is big enough for Cheney, not us.
Yeah, the Dems are made up of scared moderates, because the left has completely abandoned politics and conceded all their power. If you want the party to move left, become the party. It really isn't mystical or complicated, power goes to those that take it. The left would rather stand on the outside looking in be cause at least they can complain and blame everyone else but themselves.
What the hell are you talking about?
They rat fucked Bernie out of the race in 2020 because they would rather lose than let a socialist become the nominee, and though they managed to win in 2020 because of COVID they failed to sustain that support and lost the popular vote. This was the direct result of the DNC rejecting their left portion of their base, because they're the ones would rather critique power than take it.
And now that Trump is in he's going to make sure Democrats never win again. Are you going to join the Republicans and try to move them to the Left? 🙄
The only means of obtaining power now is mass struggle. Your vote won't count for shit ever again, if you're even allowed to vote. Get with the program.
Bernie could have easily been the nominee, if people actually showed up and voted for him more than Hillary. I'm not shocked or bothered that a party protected their own. Bernie came from the outside as an independent and tried to take the nomination. And he could have the same way trump did to the right. I was all for it and supported him as well, but either way he didn't get the votes he needed. Why? Why didn't his mass of supporters show up in large enough numbers either time? Because the far left doesn't do the work, they never have in my lifetime. While I'm pretty far left, I don't identify with most of you because your all lazy fucking cowards. Your primary position is giving up and bending over and taking it. Politics is work, if you're unwilling to do the work then for the love, stop fucking whining, your constant inaction built this. Own it, move forward, and fucking do something for once.
Trump was allowed to do what he did to the Republicans because he is not a threat to anyone in power. That's a very obviously different situation than a socialist, who is very much a threat and needed to be dealt with. They are not the same.
Democrats would rather lose than work with their left. Republicans are happy to work with their right, and that's why they win.
Besides which, elections are over. If you're so fucking smart and active and ready to do the work then you need to seriously prepare for when elections are either canceled or so hopelessly rigged that Democrats never win again. Maybe the left could have won with a more organized electoral strategy in 2016 or 2020, but that's in the past! Here and now, we're staring down the barrel of the end of elections. Instead of punching left, you're going to have to march with us or you'll hang with us.
I tried to run for a small local position with the DNC using one of their arms that is for "funding and supporting small progressives" well that first bit is a lie. First question they asked me was how much money I had and if I had rich family to fund my campaign.
I told them not really but I would rather talk policy and maybe alternatives to spending money and they told me to pretend to be religious to find a good church to get donations from cause there are some rich churches.
I told them I was a Buddhist and happy for it, and they suggested I either find some other wealthy Buddhists cause they were sure I should be able to find some or maybe I should consider not running at all and just donating to this group or volunteering for free to them.
This will take acceptance and support from the people that run the party and all the wealthy party owners that view themselves better than working class because of their connections and wealth.
I've worked for the party and even helped recruit candidates. Some of what you're writing here seems very inconsistent with how we did things at least in Minnesota and Wisconsin. No one would ever address religion or social class at all here. And funding your own campaign is usually a fools errand, because raising money helps people become invested in your campaign.
But candidates are still expected to fundraise in some way shape or form. You can't be a viable candidate in today's world without money. Until elections are publicly funded and banned from raising their own money, money will always be necessary. The ability to fundraise also proves viability, people that raise money show people are quite literally invested in your campaign, making them statistically likely to vote and more likely to volunteer for 'get out the vote' efforts.
I understand all that but instead of starting with ways to start naturally and get your name out there it was directly to money. No, conversation on anything else. Just a dollar threshold for us to hit or get out of their hair.
This was with the "run for something" group while in Florida. But there was definitely people from other states and they were all equally disturbed at the immediate grilling for us to fund ourselves and to be in a major religion.
I do get that it seems ass backwards and incompatible with how a person would actually run for a local position and it's why a lot of people have become disenfranchised by the whole system and party.
Florida
It's like the state has deep pride in their idiocy.
Oh sure. And I left but the group I worked with is national and as they brag the largest entry point for new candidates and they weren't the state.
Florida just ends up an easy excuse to ignore that it's millions of people experiencing situations closer to mine.
It's not like Florida was a swing state or anything with a huge population and economy.
I think you mean popular, not populist, but yes.
No, I mean populist. Populism is what is popular right now.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism
A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
Trump didn’t run on any economic populism this year and won. Kamala did, and lost. It’s the electorate stupid!
She scrubbed all economic populism from her campaign in the last couple months and pivoted to campaigning with neoconservatives.
She literally went all out on her economic agenda the last 2 weeks of her campaign.
Where were the price controls to control price gouging? Where were the rent controls to fight corporate landlords and their price fixing? She mentioned this stuff once back in August and then that part of her agenda got really quiet for some reason.
Trump ran on a populist platform that wasn't limited to economic populism. Harris didn't have any compelling narrative whatsoever.
It’s the electorate stupid!
It's worth while for the electorate to learn the right lessons. Otherwise there wouldn't be people in this comment section trying to get everyone to learn the wrong lessons.
Agreed, but all the other talking points from Trump weren’t populist, just do whistles
Trump's populism is christian nationalism. Specifically white christian nationalism. So it's not going to look Bernie's populism. And those do whistles are, or at least were before they became so overt, dog whistles.
We have already seen a third party take over a major party. The current problem with the GOP is because it absorbed the Tea Party.
With the right symbol to rally behind, we can do the same thing to the Democratic party. We need to build the Guillotine Party.
I am so down for it as long we get to use the symbol at least once for real.
Oh, I'm all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I'm sure these two would start a good one if allowed.
Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone's guess..
Without rank choice voting any progressive party would act as a spoiler for the Democratic Party. Debilitating ourselves in this way isn't particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.
A few weeks ago, I'd have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes.. We'll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?
We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we'll ever get to try something like this because that's how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they're doing successfully you don't want to spoil?
We’ll spoil that party?
Yes, running third party candidates in a FPTP voting system is how the spoiler effect works.
You want to protect them from being spoiled?
Because of the FPTP voting system our democracy will always trend towards a two-party system. Until we enact systemic change, we will be stuck with the Democrats and the Republicans. As long as the Democrats are further to the left of fascism we should vote for them and avoid limiting our power with third party candidates.
We the people and our interests are what avoiding the spoiler effect protects.
What is it exactly that they’re doing successfully you don’t want to spoil?
The Democrats are neoliberals. They are easier to push on social issues and the environment. The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans. But more to the point, they do not want to kill minorities and destroy the environment.
Rather than seeking a moral victory over Democrats we should look for ways to leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt. Doing otherwise makes the harm done to minorities the cost of doing business.
I mean yes, that's been the playbook for 8 years. More like 16 if you count what people actually thought Obama was going to be (and had record turn out). Try, try again?
The lives of millions of minorities and the Earth's climate are at stake now. Minorities will notice the difference in the short term, but we will all notice the difference in the long term. Assuming we still have elections and a Democratic Party going forward, yes. We delay fascism and co-opt the Democratic Party. edit: typos
Look, I don't know if you guys haven't been paying attention but places have been getting ravaged for decades because of what we've been doing. Everyone around me was flabbergasted with what happened in the NC western mountains. They videos were exactly like those I've been seeing in the Philippines and other countries that we just completely ignore when there's a natural disaster (maybe a 30 second blip in the media headline for 80% of it if they're in a really poor region).
The Western mountains were devastated because of the infrastructure in natural valleys and huge amounts of sediment deposited by centuries of mining those mountains out (you can see the natural rock formations that returned, lots of people know the land they built on wasn't there before it was developed). The hurricane wasn't man made, but everything fucking else about that catastrophe was because of our activity.
I don't know what the answer is, but I've been waiting for the democrat heroes to save the day since I started voting during Bush's administration that I was thoroughly against and thought our invasion of Iraq was a war crime. Now we continue to this day with a never ending war machine and a corporation first politics that hasn't ever changed. I'm all for us talking about some alternatives and pushing for everything and anything right now, not waiting to form something later to help "sway" the democrats policies (which it really didn't in the long run did it?)
Look, I don’t know if you guys haven’t been paying attention
I've been talking to people about climate change on this site.
(which it really didn’t in the long run did it?)
If we give up before we succeed then that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Democrats are neoliberals. They aren't going to solve our problems. But them being in power will give us the time to educate people and co-opt their party.
I give my argument about what that involves in more detail in this same comment section here: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/11577918
It's adorable that you expect anyone to buy that the Democratic Party is movable after they just spent a whole ass year refusing to budge on fucking genocide.
The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans.
This is the key part I recommend you read.
Also, this is off topic, but Harris did pledge to end the war. It was in the news. She called for a ceasefire at least three times. If you care about the Palestinians, then voting for the party that wants to end the war is more useful than allowing the party that wants Israel to finish the job to take power.
The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans.
This is the key part I recommend you read.
I read it. Democrats will keep playing the left for fools and moving to the right, no matter what happens.
Also, this is off topic, but Harris did pledge to end the war. It was in the news. She called for a ceasefire at least three times.
BIDEN called for a ceasefire. With the same complete lack of conviction. There was no daylight between her and Biden on Netanyahu's genocide.
If you care about the Palestinians, then voting for the party that wants to end the war is more useful than allowing the party that wants Israel to finish the job to take power.
I voted for Harris and the election is over. That doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that she wasn't as committed to Netanyahu's genocide as Biden was.
I read it. Democrats will keep playing the left for fools and moving to the right, no matter what happens.
No Bernie's campaign and Warren's campaign drove Biden to the left on a whole host of issues, including labor unions.
There was no daylight between her and Biden on Netanyahu’s genocide.
Don't lie.
This comment said it best and lists calls for a ceasefire from Harris.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
Harris promised to do everything in her power to end the war in Gaza.
“This year has been difficult, given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and given the civilian casualties and displacement in Lebanon, it is devastating. And as president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza, to bring home the hostages, end the suffering in Gaza, ensure Israel is secure, and ensure the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, freedom, security and self-determination,” Harris said to applause during a rally in East Lansing city of Michigan, home to 200,000 Arab Americans.
Unlike Biden, Harris was not a life long Zionist.
When Joe Biden met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet during his visit to Israel, the U.S. president assured them: “I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.”
Harris wasn't perfect. And that was simply not good enough for some people who didn't want to risk their hands getting dirty. Even if it meant the Palestinians becoming the cost of doing business.
I voted for Harris and the election is over. That doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend that she wasn’t as committed to Netanyahu’s genocide as Biden was.
Good for you. I appreciate it. No need to spread propaganda though.
Don’t lie.
I'm not. Biden pretended to want a ceasefire just like Harris did. There was NO daylight between the two. None. She presented NO policy differences on Gaza from Biden. Not one.
And I no longer trust promises without policy behind them. Democrats are great at promising shit they have no intention of doing and then gleefully announcing that their hands are tied.
Then the Democratic Party had best make sure that progressives have no reason to split off and form their own party, huh?
Why does it always fall to progressives to get behind Democrats and never the other way around?
Debilitating ourselves in this way isn’t particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.
Oh thank god Democrats don't throw vulnerable populations under the bus every chance they get.
Then the Democratic Party had best make sure that progressives have no reason to split off and form their own party, huh?
The FPTP voting system ensures that they do not have a reason.
Why does it always fall to progressives to get behind Democrats and never the other way around?
The FPTP voting system and entrenchment of neoliberalism in the minds of the American public for over 40 years from both mainstream political parties starting with Reagan. This is may be the case for western countries and democracies more broadly as well. Currently, neoliberal ideas cause a contradiction when a person encounters progressive or socialist ideas. Along the lines of:
Why would we fix our institutions if they are flawless? What's the hurry to solve our problems if we are at the end of history?
Some useful and correct resolutions of these contradictions are:
Our institutions are flawed because they were made by us, flawed humans. The time to advert climate change, fix systemic inequalities, the reduce the wealth gap is now. Incremental changes will run out the clock, as they don't address the root causes. There will be hundreds of millions if not billions of causalities unless these issues are addressed sooner rather than later.
Neoliberal ideas must be pulled from the minds of Americans like a weed. Or like one of those radishes in Super Mario Bros 2. Then people will be able to embrace ideas like systemic change to institutions and wealth redistribution from the rich to everyone else.
When asked about socialism, if a person responds with 'socialism doesn't work' or 'the Soviet Union collapsed' those are the tells that a person needs to full internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
And maybe a history lesson about how the Soviet Union was actually an authoritarian communist dictatorship and not a socialist country. The government owned the means of the production, not the people, and the government wasn't representative of the people.
Oh thank god Democrats don’t throw vulnerable populations under the bus every chance they get.
It's better than the Democrats intentionally murdering people in camps. Neoliberals in office aren't going to solve our problems, but it gives us time to do the work to solve them. Like educating people and co-opting the Democratic Party in one of their primaries. Like Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats. edit: typo
It’s better than the Democrats intentionally murdering people in camps.
The would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one Republican vote for doing so.
Neoliberals in office aren’t going to solve our problems, but it gives us time to do the work to solve them.
Neoliberals ARE our problem. We've had half a century of incrementalists demanding that we just wait a little more for them to get around to moving the needle to the left, and instead they move so far to the right that they're buddy-buddy with Netanyahu and the Cheneys. Incrementalism says "too soon" until it's too late.
The would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one Republican vote for doing so.
Again, don't lie. The Democratic Party can of course move that far, but they have yet to do so.
Neoliberals ARE our problem.
Neoliberalism is the problem. Neoliberals can be tomorrow's socialists. But we have to put in the work and educate people. My argument already refuted this point, I recommend reading it.
Again, don’t lie. The Democratic Party can of course move that far, but they have yet to do so.
Just wait. Incrementalism will get you there.
Neoliberalism is the problem. Neoliberals can be tomorrow’s socialists
You have unfounded faith in neolliberals' willingness to move any direction other than right.
If your arguments actually referenced mine in any meaningful way you would know I have addressed these points in this comment section multiple times. As it stands, a casual refutation of your arguments is now sufficient. edit: typo
The Tea Party did not spoil a GOP election. The GOP caved and adopted their platform.
The Democratic Party will do the same thing with the Guillotine Party.