Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

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

No objection here. That's the goal.

what’s the sensible grown up incrementalist progressive approach here https://www.sciencealert.com/hundreds-of-millions-at-risk-of-devastating-climate-apartheid-un-expert-warns

It's gauche to to ask that until after a few election cycles have passed, iirc.

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

Enacting legislation that improves peoples' lives can often convince them that the policy is sound. This works much better if you message the benefits, both before and after the legislating.

Left, I know I'm in the minority on this board on this issue, but climate catastrophe is going to happen and there's nothing that any of us can do about it. It is going to be long, slow, and painful for many, though, so what can be done is shifting toward sensible and humane approaches to border policies everywhere. That, too, is a long shot, but much more realistic than asking corporations and banks not to kill poor people through actively harming the environment.

I should say, there are other policies that arrive from the first conclusion, too, but border and refugee policy come to my mind first.

Cuing a certain someone to expound on his “shoot them when they try to cross” policy proposals

But only in the legs?

I don’t think our resident ecofascist is that humane

Left, I know I'm in the minority on this board on this issue, but climate catastrophe is going to happen and there's nothing that any of us can do about it. It is going to be long, slow, and painful for many, though, so what can be done is shifting toward sensible and humane approaches to border policies everywhere. That, too, is a long shot, but much more realistic than asking corporations and banks not to kill poor people through actively harming the environment.

Both securing more humane immigration policy for the environmentally affected and working to regulate corporations and banks and govts can be acted upon at the same time. I do not believe choosing one over the other is a necessity.

Regulating corporations and banks? You do realize that this is never going to happen, right?

Your sunshiney approach is a waste of time.

Hey, it still felt almost possible until Warren was nigh-eliminated from Treasury two days ago. Hope is a nice thing to have occasionally.

I have hope for people on the ground helping each other, because that's all I've ever seen work.

yes

Yellen will be good and is approved by Warren.

Regulating corporations and banks? You do realize that this is never going to happen, right?

It happened in the past and it happens elsewhere. No reasons why americans, or anyone, couldn't. The people of France were not magical fairies creatures when they regulated the health care industry into a large public infrastructure.

Yes I have a sunshiney approach to things, I don't see it how it is more or less effective when dealing with political issues or day to day activism.

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.

― Van Horn Street, Sunday, November 29, 2020 4:07 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

there have definitely been more progressive administrations than a joe biden administration (and the worst part is, they may not have even been particularly progressive for their time)

there have definitely been more progressive administrations than a joe biden administration (and the worst part is, they may not have even been particularly progressive for their time)

You mean the one that hasn't begun yet? Or some other one?

This is decent news.

This is where an old-school transactional politician can be a plus. Obama seemed to genuinely care about deficit reductions, resulting in some bad deals that damaged Democrats politically, and of course they deficit was immediately blown up as soon as Republicans took over anyway — the whole concept of “Grand Bargains” on the deficit when you’re dealing with a party that doesn’t care about deficits at all was always entirely nonsensical. Biden seems to understand that what’s good for the economy is also good for him, which is a major improvement.

Oh, the Biden Admin has begun

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/biden-to-name-rouse-tanden-to-economic-team-1160668425

jesus fucking christ I went back and forth on editing out "the most likely joe biden administration" because it sounded awkward and hedging and yet I fucking knew that I would be criticized if I left it out and I guess I should have gone forth one more time

yes, it is theoretically possible that joe biden will be kidnapped by aliens in february 2021 and replaced with an extreme accelerationist, we must allow for this possibility in every mention

we live in this time, with these particular dynamics, so i don't find it particularly helpful to compare (and despair) with the 70s, or the 30s, or the 1890s

In any case I’m only talking about this generation of progressive, how well the progressives did in the pre-Reagan past might just be further proof that it can happen again.

Is there something nefarious about Tanden I should know about?

This is where an old-school transactional politician can be a plus. Obama seemed to genuinely care about deficit reductions, resulting in some bad deals that damaged Democrats politically, and of course they deficit was immediately blown up as soon as Republicans took over anyway — the whole concept of “Grand Bargains” on the deficit when you’re dealing with a party that doesn’t care about deficits at all was always entirely nonsensical. Biden seems to understand that what’s good for the economy is also good for him, which is a major improvement.

Joe Biden was trying to 'reform entitlements' and crowing about welfare queens driving Cadillacs (he might have switched it to a Lincoln) when Obama was still in law school.

If he was planning austerity again, he is appointing the wrong people at the moment.

I'm okay with causing palpitations at WSJ.

Tanden had a Trumpesque desire to take Libyan oil revenue as war booty, CAP hid reports critical of donor Mike Bloomberg,

yes, it is theoretically possible that joe biden will be kidnapped by aliens in february 2021 and replaced with an extreme accelerationist, we must allow for this possibility in every mention

Hyperbole is hardly necessary. (And I guess I need to hedge my post by stating that the fact that I am responding to you, katherine, and not to milo or table or any of the other usual leftier-than-thou suspects is not because I regard your opinions — or you — as dumber or worse, but merely because I've already gone round and round with them enough times for my taste.) As has been stated on all the various US politics threads time and again, Joe Biden is to a large degree a man without qualities — he shifts with the prevailing tides of his party. At present, the Democratic Party is more open to left-facing solutions and more energized as a voting base than it has been in several decades, and emergencies are demanding a large-scale and non-incrementalist response. Biden himself has given multiple interviews in which he has recognized the need for FDR-ish large-scale action on a number of issues. If he recognizes that need, and the party writ large (meaning, people other than Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Manchin and Dianne Feinstein, who we all have dartboards of posted on our bedroom walls already, thanks, no further reminders of their perfidy and sellout-ness are necessary at this time, we're all stocked up) is equally aware that Shit Is Real Bad Out There, then why the persistent performative doomcrying about how Diamond Joe is 100% guaranteed to sell us all out to Jamie Dimon or whoever?

Biden can be moved to action. People want to move Biden to action. I see no reason to pre-emptively deny that there will be movement to action.

Tanden had a Trumpesque desire to take Libyan oil revenue as war booty, CAP hid reports critical of donor Mike Bloomberg,

― onlyfans.com/hunterb (milo z), S

And she also had a hand, iirc, in writing the ACA, so, you know, that's the way this shit works.

Sorry, not a fan of openly encouraging war crimes.

She'd encourage war crimes at OMB?

You asked "is there something nefarious about Tanden I should know about?"

I didn't realize nefarious ends when you've arbitrarily decided that their job is insulated from those things.

"Well, Jimmy wants to close the borders completely but how's that gonna matter as Secretary of the Navy?"