Democratic (Party) Direction

I'm as wary of political dynasties as anyone but if Michelle Obama backs single payer, ending the expansion of the carceral state and/or taxing the fuck out of the rich, sign me up.

Of course, I looked at a much more recent (informal) poll and Warren is currently walloping the two reported Republicans who are going to run by more than 30 points, so I'm less fatalistic now.

Even if Michelle Obama didn't do all that, I'd vote for her just to watch the rights' faces melt like they opened the Ark of the Covenant.

I like Warren a lot but, in this environment of desperately seeking The Perfect Candidate, I feel like she would get eviscerated for her conservative past as soon as she became the front-runner.

Thanks to a friend of mine I see a lot of tweets from Twitter leftists (or "leftists" for the potentially salty) who are already gearing up to do exactly that.

again, if it were 2019, those same leftists would be volunteering for her campaign.

those same leftists

it's cool they're all the same

yes, all leftists are the same. that is clearly what I meant and said.

Pretty sure you can find some Twitter users to back up pretty much anything you want to say. Berniebros for Trump and Hillarystans who think Bernie's a Russian agent and gay progressives for Putin and etc.

A followup piece from Cooper: http://theweek.com/articles/716472/lets-talk-about-who-leftists-distrust--why

Still not a single mention of who WOULD be a good candidate.

leftist-approved candidates: an actual homeless person, an actual terrorist, a thinkpiece author, an anti-trump collage artist, a kindly old owl...

sounds like a Bloom County comic

But leftists like myself believe that in addition to instead of traditional civil rights policy, nothing short of a total overhaul of American capitalism will suffice to actually eradicate oppression from our society.

It may be unfair but this is how I interpret this guy.

I've seen Nina Turner's name come up as a left approved candidate.

Again, this notion that leftists who criticize and prod candidates because they demand perfection and will neither accept nor support anything less...where does that come from? That's not even true of the *Marxists* I organize with.

generally speaking, putting words into peoples mouths based on your perception of a group of people you see them as belonging to is unfair, yeah

I've seen Nina Turner's name come up as a left approved candidate.

Yes, but I've seen no indication she has those kind of ambitions.

generally speaking, putting words into peoples mouths based on your perception of a group of people you see them as belonging to is unfair, yeah

Also generally speaking, any white person who pushes out a "why can't we get better black people than this?" article is not going to get the benefit of the doubt from me, particularly one that is as thinly-researched and inference-heavy as the one he put out.

Pretty sure that's doubling down on putting words in his mouth.

Still not a single mention of who WOULD be a good candidate.

It's the middle of 2017 - he's responding to the people who are clearly gearing up for a campaign, why is it on him to pick someone now and back them?

i miss back when you used to argue for gun ownership and drew the ire of ilx instead of this new generic ilx leftist poster

It may be unfair but this is how I interpret this guy.

Out of curiosity DJP is this how you would interpret anyone making that argument, or do you just distrust this guy

(I'm really not asking to bait anyone, I'm always curious about how traditionally far-left arguments land)

iirc "generally speaking" is not applicable for most interactions minorities have with white men in the USA so I'm basically with DJP here on him being allowed to have his own interpretation based on context

he's got the right to do whatever he wants!

i miss back when you used to argue for gun ownership and drew the ire of ilx instead of this new generic ilx leftist poster

Well, I mean, my stance on guns is basically just generic leftism - economic justice, ending the drug war and curtailing mass incarceration policies are going to do more for violence in America than pie in the sky ideas about gun control and are where I'd choose to focus political energies.

My interpretation based on the context of The Week being a commercial enterprise is that political purity tests are like personality quizzes or listicles for a certain type of reader, plus, if you can tee up a lot of extra eyeballs by framing the whole thing so it becomes an instant viral hate-read, everybody "wins"

I find the way various dimensions of justice (social, racial, economic, etc) get teased out and separated from each other or ranked is very tiresome. people like Tim Faust have done a great job illustrating how the fight for single payer has vast positive implications for many different sectors, and I'd love to see more writing and argumentation along those lines, not least of all because it's based on providing a hopeful path forward and not just complaining about libs

The reason why I specifically keep bringing up the racial aspect of this and hammering on intersectionality (because my priorities align left and, while I don't hate capitalism, I would not be sad if we swung towards a more socialist system) is because the assumption that these economic changes will automatically help people of color is not actually borne out by the history of social programs in this country, which have historically been designed to implicitly or explicitly exclude people of color or have been ferociously gutted once the common perception is that more people of color benefit from them than white people. I will not take any economic message seriously that does not explicitly address this and keeps it as a core tenet for success rather than a hoped-for side-effect, which is exactly what neoliberalism has already done to these communities.

otm. I don't know how we can read about the New Deal, for example, and not realize that people of color were not among its primary beneficiaries. And the Progressive movement was worse.

You can't credibly argue that things are different now, either; not after this past election.

great post xp

thank you DJP

for what it's worth, it's precisely these same frustrations that is driving leftist POCs I know (both IRL and online) to fight for change that is as inclusive and thorough as possible.

oh hey here's Ellison big-upping Matt Bruening's progressive thinktank, nice

We need more progressive think tanks. Excited to see the People’s Policy Project up & running. Check it out:https://t.co/i8dBrv8BDT

— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) August 7, 2017

While I concede that I am putting words in this dude's mouth, they are words that have been spoken time and time again in this country, hot off the heels of an election where the electoral math decided that an ignorant venal racist should be President and that his platform was tolerable enough that the party who put him forward only lost 2 seats in the Senate and 6 seats in the House. Direct statements addressing the concerns I'm raising are no guarantee of success; nothing is. It does show that the concern being raised is actually being taken into account, though, and gives something tangible against which to measure success. Blithely assuming "if we take care of poor people, we will automatically help people of color" is at best dangerously naive (and also contains some gross assumptions that the only people of color worth helping are poor and/or that middle-class people of color exist in an egalitarian space where they across the board don't need any help, something that the Google manifesto and its reception should have people thinking twice about).

And yes, before anyone asks me, I do take primary criticisms of figures like Booker, Harris, and Patrick from people of color more seriously. I do not take it seriously when white people hop onto those criticisms and say "See? Black people don't like them, either!"

I just learned of the Google thing thx to yr post and uh wow, "Don't Be Evil" indeed.

so Matt Bruenig changed the name of his blog, called it a think tank and is hoping we'll forget that time he was such a dick on twitter he had to run a donation campaign to stay solvent?

My impression is that he and some like-minded DC folks plan to write policy papers in support of things like single payer. I they have any success at all I don't really care who's a dick about it.

Idk.

I really hope Warren is the candidate in 2020. She doesnt come across as a triangulator and I think she would run eviscerate Trump in any debate, and do so in a manner that voters would respond to. Her style is more Bernie-esque than Obamanian -- that is, bellicose rather than high-minded -- but I think that's what the people want now, in this era of crushed hopes.

I would like to believe that but all Trump would have to do is call her "Pocahontas" a couple of times and his base would be satisfied that he had won.

I say this because I know people who claim to be anti-racist who have zero problem with that epithet or the line of attack it represents, and I live in a state that LIKES her.

ugh

hopefully he doesn't live long enough (note to feds: because he is super unhealthy) to do that again

Hillary eviscerated Trump in the debates, fat lotta good it did her.

Trump has a bigotry card to play for his base with every single Democrat - his base are not the people to worry about.

exactly. what percentage of Trump voters who will 100% show up again in 2020 are going to change their vote to the Democrat? 1%? less?

it's certainly possible Trump will be so far under water in 2020 that more or less any Democrat could beat him. Trump-as-candidate peaked with the election. granted, there's something to be said for being an incumbent but I still think if the election is tomorrow and a theoretical candidate with the exact same bio as Hillary who isn't actually Hillary (in other words, doesn't have that stink of losing on them) would win. but I acknowledge it's an awfully big risk to take.

Who knows anymore

i have consulted the magic ball of dystopian future, and this is what it says:

trump will start a major war in 2019.
the majority of america will support the war, even though it is a very bad idea.
democrats in 2020 will be forced to either run on opposing the war (and losing the election) or supporting the war but using different tactics
regardless of the 2020 election's outcome, we'll be involved in the war, this time with bipartisan support

what do you mean "this time"

in this hellscape of the future, there is a brief glimmer of hope before the election because some house democrats representing cities are still listening to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents. but afterward, nearly all of the democrats are united against the enemy. one nice thing about this future is that it has a really cool techno soundtrack and there's an anime version of it that is the fucking bomb

but don't worry, this won't come to pass because trump and "the generals" are definitely not going to lead us into a giant ill-advised war