Democratic (Party) Direction

hrm, Democratic Alarmism, it has a ring to it i admit

Nixonland reminded me how much daily public violence occurred in the US in my childhood

thanks, really, this stuff is scary and def gonna get worse so perspective helps

Nixonland reminded me how much daily public violence occurred in the US in my childhood

an instance when old man "back in MY day!"-ism is actually valuable. Anyone who lived through the 30s + WWII and the late 60s-early 70s would tell you this is nothing compared to the regular incidents of open political violence of those eras. But, y'know, we're def heading in that direction since at least Charlottesville if not earlier.

i'm not THAT old

Do you recommend Nixonland?

I mean one glance at the level of historical violence between organized labor and strikebreakers in the US, or kristallnacht (30k people carted away!) in Germany, or the multiple(!) shootouts between the Panthers and various police departments, or Kent State, or any number of incidents puts the lie to that kind of rhetoric. Don't minimize what's going on today, but don't minimize what happened in the past either.

Nixonland is great.

Democratic (Party) Direction could be doing more political violence, just a thought

seems like it would be good, idk

I need to spend more time working and less time being a nihilist on ilxor but yknow

remember when a bunch of state legislatures tried to pass laws that said it was ok to mow down protestors with your car? That seems like organized political violence to me.

Outlawing abortion would be political violence by other means, also

Perlstein's three books are essential for anyone who wants to participate in this thread.

I've locked it until everyone's read them.

rmde at equating failed bills and anticipated legal rulings with people actually getting gunned down by politically organized and funded forces. I get it, you guys are scared and angry. I don't blame you but come on.

Women will very likely die if Roe v Wade is struck down.

keep diggin

So! Have we settled on a direction?!

left, I think

toppermost of the poppermost

I just want to clarify I have not read John McCain's book that was a joke

I very much enjoyed The Invisible Bridge as an audiobook, probably will do Nixonland in the same fashion.

already posted way too much today so I'll just say I take a wider view of what constitutes political violence than many do, and it includes the adoption of policies that will provably result in death and injury (generally to the marginalized population the right already hates implicitly or explicitly). I don't think that's crazy.

in that case the political violence of the 30s really was exponentially worse than today, cuz abortion was actually illegal (among other things, like lynching)

(er I meant to say "as opposed to other" not "among other" there)

also no Ralph Nader in the '30s, so people died in cars a lot. (eg, Nathanael West)

Who better to comment on AOC’s victory than....the editor of the National Review. Thanks, Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/democrats-immigration-midterms/563987/

I thought that was a lot more cogent than any of the mainstream liberal commentary I’ve seen tbh.

Yeah, it seemed good and helpful to me too.

It seemed low key enough to be a cogent identification of some of the contradictions and pitfalls in her agenda. It is well that the author did not suggest his own view of more reasonable policies, in that it would more than likely have laid him open to a rather more scathing critique of their inherent problems.

Basically he was saying we can't make the USA more attractive without attracting people who want to live here. This does not seem to me very penetrating or sharp-witted, but the implication seems to be that we must not make the USA a more attractive place for the poor to live in, or else we must be prepared to ruthlessly and remorselessly kick every poor person of foreign birth who wishes to live here in the teeth.

He seemed also largely aware that his ‘some liberals say’ could be expected to have no effect on AOC at all.

On the other hand, this clumsy magic trick:

that would have the cumulative effect of sharply increasing redistribution from the native-born nonpoor to low-income immigrant-headed households.

sharply increasing redistribution from the native-born nonpoor to low-income immigrant-headed households

Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

If he's a National Review guy, yes.

Salam's conclusions about these issues and policies would probably be different from mine, but he doesn't state most of those here and that's not what the article is about, which is fairly respectable imo. I thought it was "good and helpful" in terms of summarizing and clarifying some key issues on which AOC differs from mainstream Democrats and and also elaborating a bit on distinctions between her position on immigration and Sanders's.

yeah the piece was fine

Now that "abolish ICE" is becoming more widespread I would like to see more candidates elaborate on that and speak with more specificity so that they can't just leave the door open on simply shifting ICE's M.O. to a different dept.

Splitting authority between agencies could still have the effect of reducing the abuses of the Deportation Force by disrupting coordination and consolidated authority.

I also think it's good to get the message out that "abolish ICE" doesn't mean "open borders," it means "the system we had until 2003 was doing just fine at serving our border security needs and wan't an unaccountable kidnapping ring"

Yeah, that seems like a perfectly workable line.

speaking of which

“We should abolish @ICEgov” — @NYCMayor @BilldeBlasio, to @BrianLehrer

— Azi (@Azi) June 29, 2018

I'm telling you, self-explanatory policy slogans are great.

Let's bring "abortion on demand without apology" back while we're at it.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-the-legacy-of-the-bernie-sanders-movement

thought this little essay on the influence of the sanders movement was good. if the electoral results have been mixed, it's as much due to the establishment dems adopting their ideas as it is the movement itself struggling to mobilize people in off-years (something that was true of OFA too...)

From a guy I know, who is also Julia Salazar's asst campaign manager and seems to be a rising left politics guy:

Okay okay AOC debrief post:

1) You should respect my views on NY politics a little less from now on because never in a million years did I expect this to happen. I started out thinking "this will be cool because she's surprisingly good, she'll get 30% which will dent Crowley's aura and loosen the machine's grip, and most importantly it will build capacity for DSA." I had a post ready to go for when she lost about how it had built capacity for DSA (which it did, enormously, as electoral work so often does). It was only in the last couple of weeks that I started dreaming of 40%. When she won I was blown away.

2) So, ex post facto, why did it happen? How did it happen? I mean again, don't listen to me, but:
a) I've been saying for a long time that the "machine" terminology is a source of confusion. Historically an urban political machine doled out huge amounts of patronage directly to large numbers of people and therefore had the allegiance of large numbers of people. This was good, actually: delivering jobs to the working class in exchange for political allegiance ain't socialism per se but it's better than what the reformers were often trying to do. But in the course of history the machine lost its capacity to deliver that kind of patronage, and currently "the machine" as it exists at the county level doles out things like judgeships to a small number of people behind the scenes and that's it. For that reason its interest in turning out votes and capacity to turn out votes has declined massively, and it has developed a strong interest in suppressing turnout and driving disengagement from politics.

This makes it vulnerable. "Double turnout and win" may not be a plausible strategy in a presidential general election where 60% of people are turning out, but when you're dealing with a primary where 3% of voters (10% of Democrats) are turning out, well, there *are* those people who are close enough to being politically engaged that you can push turnout up to 15%. And if you can do that (by knocking on doors) you're in a position to dominate elections.

b) Crowley was very powerful but "powerful" meant "holds the strings of power within the party," not "magically capable of turning out votes." These things aren't unrelated--Crowley could and did control money, endorsements, etc.--but they're not identical. It was foolish to think, as I did think, that just because Crowley was the most powerful Democrat in Queens he was the most invulnerable electorally. There was a tendency to think that no one *could* challenge him when in fact it was the case that no one (no sitting politician with a career to think about) *dared* challenge him.

c) Candidate quality, man. If you've ever been in a room with Ocasio-Cortez, you know what I mean. She has the thing. You don't *need* the thing, lots of sitting politicians don't have it, but when you find it--it's something else.

d) White people representing majority-minority districts are intrinsically vulnerable. There are more of them in Queens. Make a list and come at them.

e) The Democratic base is consistently and almost universally to the left of the Democratic elected party, like well to the left. Not just DSA people but lots of Indivisible people are to the left of their reps. There's a real gap between the politicians whose instincts were forged by Reagan-Clinton and the rest of us whose instincts changed with 2008 and changed more after Trump.

f) There is no replacement for strong volunteer canvass. Three million dollars is not a replacement for volunteer canvass. If you're wondering what you can do to change the political situation right now, the answer is "volunteer canvass." If you're not sure how to get looped in DM me and I'll let you know.

3) If anyone tells you this was DSA's victory solely, they're wrong. Ocasio-Cortez--a brilliant candidate at the right moment--brought in a whole mess of volunteers from all over the place, from other organizations as well as off the street. What's true, I think, is that DSA was the biggest *organized* bloc (although certainly not the *majority*) of AOC's volunteers. I hope Alexandria or someone else is out there organizing the rest of them! The worst thing about electoral work is that sometimes there's no organization ready to build on the connections it creates; we need to make sure that doesn't happen here.

Some people in DSA need to get used to the fact that its wins will almost always be in coalition.

4) We're a lot more powerful in New York City than we were on Monday. Like a *lot*. By "we" I mean DSA, the left, and progressives--all of us. But let me be clear: we're NOT more powerful because we have an extra vote in Congress that will do what we want. She probably will--her politics are evidently good and pretty fearless--but it doesn't matter as much as the other thing.

The other thing is that a very powerful incumbent was challenged from the left and went down. Believe me when I say that there isn't an incumbent in New York who didn't watch and learn from that, and from how close Yvette Clarke's challenger came. They're quaking in their boots, because that *never* happens; incumbents never lose. This one did--the guy no one expected--and now they're all looking for ways to insulate themselves from left challenge.

On the night of, I said, "this is our Eric Cantor moment." The moment when the Democratic incumbents realize that the base is angry and no one is safe. The Republican Party has gone insane mainly because most incumbents are more vulnerable to a primary challenge than to a general challenge, and the Republican base (and its vastly wealthy donors) has demonstrated that it will come for you if you're not a psychotic white supremacist. Now Democrats know that we'll come for them if they're not some shade of red. Shit's gonna be great.

5) This totally changes the map of NYC politics; people are looking vulnerable who weren't even thought of before. Plus there's a massive power vacuum in Queens. I hope you're recruiting candidates *today* for 2020 and 2021. Start now. Start making a list.

6) Obviously electoral work builds power, builds organization and builds membership. I hope that's a conversation we can put to rest.

7) DSA in New York suddenly has a bit of cred, a bit of power. This is our first big win in New York. Let's be careful and thoughtful about how we conduct ourselves; the world--not the world of media but the world of power--suddenly has an eye on us.

a very good readup on the immigrant rights movement through the obama era

https://medium.com/@LaTania/we-fell-in-love-in-a-hopeless-place-a-grassroots-history-from-not1more-to-abolish-ice-23089cf21711

As late as 2016, many mainstream immigration organizations remained insistent that the only way forward for the immigrant rights movement was holding out for Congress to introduce and pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Meanwhile, grassroots immigrant-led groups facing the worst versions of the deportation violence of the Obama years were fighting on multiple fronts: combating racist state and local agencies who were doing everything possible to hand our people over to ICE, confronting ICE raids, detentions, and record deportations. They were fighting in local sites all over the country, but many were based in border states, where the crimmigration police state is in plain view for all to see.

When the #Not1More deportation campaign emerged in 2014, it was a direct challenge to the strategy, even then, to continue to focus on lobbying Congress and not anger the President with our demands. #Not1More was, at its heart, an abolitionist call to action.

my pals kristian & marge are in this v v good episode of this good podcast https://soundcloud.com/seasonofthebitch/episode-41-abolish-ice

Erik Loomis:

I know the Jacobin and Chapo crew is extremely suspicious of Gillibrand for the crime of winning an election in a conservative district on centrist principles. Evidently, the only acceptable politicians are those lucky enough to live an area when a platform of full communism leads to electoral guarantee. Me, I like a politician who learns, who says yes to my demands, and who is smarter and savvier than everyone else. From the beginning of the Trump administration, Gillibrand has learned that her best path to the nomination was to resist all Trump appointees, stand up to the bully, and outflank her potential rivals for the nomination on the left. She was the first potential candidate to support a federal job guarantee, which obviously warms my heart to no end, and now she is the first to call for the abolition of the fascist agency of ICE and start over on immigration from the ground up. This is outstanding. Moreover, with job guarantee, it started with Sean McElwee literally giving her a phone call and her agreeing with the position. Now, McElwee has also been the leading person on the #AbolishICE movement. He deserves an incredible amount of credit in shaping the progressive agenda; moreover, he’s the kind of leftist who understands the need for a big tent and to move beyond ideological hatreds. I can say this because I know him personally. Instead of getting caught up in personal beefs, he seeks to move the agenda forward. Anyway, #AbolishICE is a bit more controversial than the job guarantee. Because if Democrats have been reticent to take openly leftist economic positions in the last few decades, they’ve been really scared to take on the security state.

tbf, if you're not at least a little suspicious of people running for the highest office in the land, you're a dullard at best. (Not mentioned there is the fact that she endorsed Crowley like everyone else.)

She's in New York, that's the price. Just keep your powder dry.

Loomis is a bad speller, not a sucker.

my pals kristian & marge are in this v v good episode of this good podcast https://soundcloud.com/seasonofthebitch/episode-41-abolish-ice

Ha, and the other guest is co-chair of the local DSA chapter

(also I can say as a Chapo listener that I can't recall them ever even mentioning Gillibrand, though I understand what he means)

loomis is a smart dude but i think he's either overcrediting mcelwee or if not then mcelwee's impact is a clear example of the differences between a semiprominent white guy pushing a position and a movement of brown people pushing it