Democratic (Party) Direction

Aimless otm. what is the counterpart to the Hoover Institution or the Federalist Society on our part?

What is "abolish the police", if not an idea that is attempting to become a policy? And how is it going to become policy if no one who is elected to a position that votes on budgets backs that idea? And if they don't back it, how do you change that, if not by convincing them it is a good idea, or by replacing them at the next election with someone willing to back it, or by convincingly demonstrating you have the power to vote them of office, so they capitulate to save their job?

what is the counterpart to the Hoover Institution or the Federalist Society on our part?

The American Constitution Society is aiming to be the liberal Federalist Society. Check them out, they're doing good stuff!

And if they don't back it, how do you change that, if not by convincing them it is a good idea, or by replacing them at the next election with someone willing to back it, or by convincingly demonstrating you have the power to vote them of office, so they capitulate to save their job?

you have the fossil fuel industry decide that abolition of police will hasten their aims of destroying the planet in search of short-term financial gain, duh. no cops = nobody to prosecute massive oil spills and regulatory violations.

that inane (dare I say smug?) answer demonstrates everything that's wrong with the knee-jerk opposition to the Democratic Party, who take the first step of identifying what the problem is and the desired policy solutions, but never commit to any kind of plan to get from here to there. my apparently wrong-headed answer is and will continue to be raise up good candidates who agree to pursue the desired solution and organize to build enough public support that they get elected.

I eagerly await the craftier, smarter, better plans that you all have. Until then, my smug, old-fashioned plans are exactly the same as what Stacey Abrams is trying valiantly to do in Georgia.

Oh, and sleeve... fuck off.

why would I (or anyone) come up with a craftier, smarter, better plan to get to your nominated policy outcome, to which I have no commitment myself, when you already said my simple & efficient good-faith plan was inane

genuinely interested in what Stacey Abrams' plan to abolish the police is though? I like her outlook and messaging

but never commit to any kind of plan to get from here to there

The smug and pointless part is your continued insistence that no one but you thinks about this, giving you license to treat us to a daily dose of the worst Schoolhouse Rocks-level civics lesson.

This is ilxor.com, a place where people have posted pictures of their penis and develop eternal distaste for others based on disagreements about Britpop.

hmm I missed the dick picks they weren't in the Neil Young thread

a place where people have posted pictures of their penis and develop eternal distaste for others based on disagreements about Britpop

Just begging for New Board Description.

momus.jpg

Dick pic pop art before it was a thing. The ultimate avant-gardist.

at least one person posted their micturition, but the penis was covered

The smug and pointless part is your continued insistence that no one but you thinks about this, giving you license to ......

(milo z)

Ta da!!!!!!

From my understanding, if you apply Aimless' understanding of politics to the current situation in the Democratic Party, it makes the argument that the progressive side is doing very well and that it should continue it's course. I don't understand the vehement opposition to his points.

I understand. too boring and obvious. too much hard work for only incremental gains. feels like too much like failure for people needing faster change.

Yeah lots of people are swayed by the romanticism of revolution.

at least it would allow them to kill their enemies, which has a certain appeal until you see it in action

I don’t know if anyone has noticed but it’s literally the end of the world. incrementalism is monstrous and omnicidal

Some people disagree with that and you have to contend with them.

it’s literally the end of the world. incrementalism is monstrous and omnicidal

without a plan of action, that perspective is just despair and defeatism.

if you apply Aimless' understanding of politics to the current situation in the Democratic Party, it makes the argument that the progressive side is doing very well and that it should continue it's course.

If the "progressive side" "doing very well" is Biden/Schumer/Pelosi then one would hate to see what doing very poorly looks like.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has negligible influence over the Biden Administration ("seat at the table" lololol) and policy, the legislative and executive party remains well to the right of what the party's voters believe in and desire. (cf. eephus, Warren, "moderate" above).

School marming that ya gotta vote 'em out isn't objectionable so much as "no shit." It's also irrelevant to talking about what the gerontocracy gets wrong and does wrong.

one would hate to see what doing very poorly looks like

where have you been for the past four years?

the legislative and executive party remains well to the right of what the party's voters believe in and desire

it occurs to me that, terrifying though this is, the legislative and executive apparatus of the GOP is probably about equally to the left of what the party's voters believe in and desire

It's also irrelevant to talking about what the gerontocracy gets wrong and does wrong.

This is your idea of what isn't "no shit"? The major satisfaction in that is that one gets to be the person who is right, over and over again. Identifying the problem is just the first step to a solution. You get stuck at that step.

If the "progressive side" "doing very well" is Biden/Schumer/Pelosi then one would hate to see what doing very poorly looks like.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has negligible influence over the Biden Administration ("seat at the table" lololol) and policy, the legislative and executive party remains well to the right of what the party's voters believe in and desire. (cf. eephus, Warren, "moderate" above).

School marming that ya gotta vote 'em out isn't objectionable so much as "no shit." It's also irrelevant to talking about what the gerontocracy gets wrong and does wrong.

Considering that ten years ago, the general population believed Obama to be the beacon of progressivism, I would say that the past few years have been wildly successful for progressives.

for actual progressives, I must clarify.

the GOP apparatus is economically to the right of its voters and socially to the left (by a hair - most of 'em seem to believe the own the libs shit as much as any dumbass in a MAGA hat)

Anyway, as the resident Warren stan, I would say that the Obama administration actually did, with her help, bring into being the CFPB, something which is very much Liz's Jam and which is Actually Good (you can tell because the Trump administration did everything they could to annihilate it) and I'm not convinced the Biden administration is going to be more hostile to her policy priorities than Obama's was. I take Biden's implicit promise to deliver something along the lines of "Obama III" to be sincere, in both the good ways and the bad.

The major satisfaction in that is that one gets to be the person who is right, over and over again. Identifying the problem is just the first step to a solution. You get stuck at that step.

Tapping the sign that reads "This is ilxor.com, a place where people have posted pictures of their penis and develop eternal distaste for others based on disagreements about Britpop."

* as "a" resident Warren stan, sorry, I know there's a lot of us on here

Hi!

Considering that ten years ago, the general population believed Obama to be the beacon of progressivism, I would say that the past few years have been wildly successful for progressives.

The general population still believes that. (See pretty much any 2020 political thread here, for the love of god.)

Two things can be true: the progressive wing has won a few seats, taken slightly more control of the 'public conversation' and perhaps shifted the vaunted Overton Window (though this would have as much to do with general immiseration - normal people across the political spectrum seem to recognize that wages for the bottom quarter of society are unsustainable, cross-reference Florida results between a minimum wage increase and political races); the progressive wing has also been soundly defeated at the highest levels of power and policy making, where the centrists and consultants/donors continue to rule for the foreseeable future.

Not saying that the progressives are in power, just that they've never been so close, and that it is cause for encouragement. The roadmap is there.

There's a central idea among progressives, one I'm deeply unsure of, is that on average the democratic party is to the right of their constituents. If it is the case, I would trust people to actually cement progressive power over the next few election cycles.

- one would hate to see what doing very poorly looks like

where have you been for the past four years?

Young progressives have entered and/or made great gains within the Democratic Party during the last four years. The concern is them being aggressively stymied and shut out this week, next month, and for the next two years.

AOC, presently the USA’s most famous progressive elected official, recently disclosed that she was sufficiently discouraged by life in congress to consider not running for re-election and moving to the woods. The blame for this lies squarely on the gerontocracy.

They’ll never not face opposition it’s called politics.

It’s when it’s from your “own” “party” that it’s discouraging tho is the thing.

Not saying that the progressives are in power, just that they've never been so close, and that it is cause for encouragement. The roadmap is there.

Until the mid '70s, it was a mainstream Democratic position to talk about abolishing the CIA, single-payer healthcare, broad social democratic welfare policies, increasing regulation in major areas of industry, etc.

Even after the neolib turn, in 1988 Jesse Jackson runs as well as Sanders 2020 and just as 'far left.'

The idea that the 'progressive side' as constituted is much of a change from pretty much any time other than 1994-2008 is wrong.

If it is the case, I would trust people to actually cement progressive power over the next few election cycles.

If you ignore the countervailing forces of money and structural opposition (cf. media coverage from MSNBC of Bernie in January and February), perhaps. At best it's a hope - and probably too late.

It also doesn't change that the current powers that be are wrong and shortsighted - and are desperately trying to keep hold of power to continue being wrong and shortsighted.

At one point I'm wondering if the only thing that could some of you happy is that 90% of the nation votes Sanders and that a progressive executive is given complete carte blanche at all times.

Sure why not, the era of legislation is over

I don’t really expect to be “made happy” by the federal government tho, let alone the democratic (party)

If you ignore the countervailing forces of money and structural opposition (cf. media coverage from MSNBC of Bernie in January and February), perhaps. At best it's a hope - and probably too late.

Ok well what's the point then?

To posting? None, as usual.

Why would a 'progressive' desire anything but progressives dominating the political sphere?

Desiring for everyone to agree with you is sorta nuts but whatever.

If you’re in power they don’t have to agree

The blame for this lies squarely on the gerontocracy.

OK. I blame them, too. Timidity and adherence to the status quo tend to increase in direct proportion to one's length of tenure in Congress. So does one's power to shape policy. Atm the most committed radicals in Congress are the radical right who want to break every part of government except the military and immigration enforcement.

Now we've blamed them.