Democratic (Party) Direction

That situation can never exist on the left because there will never be a social democratic Koch foundation or network of southern car dealers who’ll back think tanks.

Yep, that's true. But there is a lot of money out there available to progressive causes, collectively they raise billions a year. A progressive coalition could definitely afford to primary a Democrat in a safe D seat. And as the Republicans have shown, you only have to actually do a couple to make a lot more fall in line.

Again, so much depends on good organizing and good leadership, which aren't things you can just magically manifest.

One issue is that the money availed to progressive causes should actually go to progress causes. I’d be horrified if my donations to bailout funds and decarceration groups were funneled to a political campaign.

Sure, of course you don't rob those individual orgs. But a progressive coalition could have a political fund to support good candidates. Would basically have to, to have any impact.

I don't know that Republicans fell in line after a couple of insurgent victories - the gap between traditional Republicans and the Bircher/Moral Majority/Reagan/Trump insurgencies was always pretty narrow focused more on attitude than ideology. The two always agreed on the regulatory state, on the moral sorting mechanism of capitalism and Republican social moderation never really existed.

The Democratic divide is about money and the donor/commercial property magnate class of the party can't come to an agreement with progressives because the latter threaten the former on an existential level. Hollowing out the party is the only option and that does make it 'something separate from' progressive interests. What it would take is not just a couple of primary victories (we've had those - and still wound up with Biden/Schumer/Pelosi running the show) but actual painful losses by Democrats forcing them to appeal harder to progressive interests - the Squad doesn't get anywhere if Clinton is elected in 2016 IMO.

pretty narrow and focused more

And of course even that sidesteps the question of whether the donor/magnate class of Democrats would prefer to cede power to the Republicans or progressives if it came down to it. Maybe they take the painful losses in stride because their taxes are low and they're already sympathetic to locking poor people up for ruining the view with their homeless encampments.

I think it's a mistake to think of the "donor/magnate class" as a fixed entity. Donors and magnates have their own pet issues. Some of them are even good ones, like climate or reproductive rights. But in any case they can do what they're gonna do. No successful progressive movement can be like, "What will we do without the magnates?"

Their pet issues take a back seat to their money. It's not a question of 'what will we do without the magnates' but when you're talking about 'take control of' the Democratic Party and comparing it to the GOP, the response of the donors/magnates/landlords who own and run the party is pretty important.

The donors and magnates of the GOP stayed because the interests of the insurgents didn't actually threaten them. That's not the case with the Democrats.

Two things I have come to be fairly confident about in American politics are that (1) a third party is almost impossible to build unless you're somewhere with a non-first-past-the-post voting system (ranked choice etc), and that (2) on the other hand, the parties are much more like empty vessels than in other countries, and therefore it's much easier for insurgents to run and win on one of the two major parties' tickets. The problem is that this works much better in safe D districts - you can look at the NY state legislature now, for example, and see that a bunch of young and relatively left candidates have won seats. But so far that's not a formula for national power. You get a few AOC type congresspeople, but they have limited power and it's hard to build a critical mass of them.

Yep and yep — I didn't say any of it was easy! Even with the funding advantages, it was 15 years from Goldwater to Reagan, and another 40 from Reagan to overturning Roe, e.g.

But yes, right, you start in the safe districts and build out. That's what the right did. But the key thing I'm really talking about is a progressive coalition strong enough to hold together around a core set of issues and just fight for them relentlessly, cycle after cycle. It can't just be a bunch of groups and interests snarling around the pantlegs of the Democrats, that's where we already are. And that thing doesn't exist right now. But there's no obvious reason it couldn't.

I agree with progressives who say the Democratic Party acts like they are beholden to it. The old "Where else you gonna go" routine. The path to power is to reverse that arrow, make the party beholden to the agenda. Again, it's what the right has done.

I appreciate your positivity Tipsy.

I agree with you, tipsy, tho my
optimism that such will happen is pretty minuscule. Still, practically, your point about the party being beholden to the agenda is well-taken and important.

I think, too, that one of the major reasons for disillusionment on the left and in progressively minded people is that the party often acts like it is beholden to the agenda when it is merely paying lip service to it or engaging in theatrics that aren’t substantive policy-wise— see the kneeling in kente cloths by a bunch of cop-loving fossils, for example.

absolutely booming post tipsy

Seconding. I plan to share some of it at my next meeting. Thank you.

A progressive coalition could definitely afford to primary a Democrat in a safe D seat.

I don’t think this is all that common or easy due to how “safe D seats” tend to have a massive amount of Establishment types backing them who aren’t good at anything else other than punching left and defending their own position.

Safe D Seats tend to reside in rich cities full of upper middle class types whose self-image and pocketbook will fight against anybody more progressive coming along.

I think there might be more value in trying to get some people in as independents(or fuck, even socialists) into office in other parts of the country

Independent and third-party candidates could be good options some places, it depends on the local political dynamics and who the candidates are. That would just put more pressure on the Democrats.

(Knowledge of the local landscape everywhere is also important, and there are already groups almost everywhere that are informed and engaged. A lot of this would just be connecting existing resources and expertise.)

#PROJECTION: Rep. Danny Davis will win his primary after a challenge from progressive Kina Collins. #IL07 #ElectionDay #Elections2022 pic.twitter.com/Qa0XfwY4C4

— Democracy Desk (@DemocracyDesk) June 29, 2022

Oh thank god, the median age of a Democratic Congressman might have dropped below 76.

I think viewing the Democratic Party as a top-down organization with a single vision is completely wrong, especially post-Obama. The DNC, the DCCC, and the individual state parties do a really mediocre job of coordinating and any movement within the party is going to have to come from building larger caucuses in the house, or competence from larger state orgs, imo

There have been a myriad of articles written about how Obama’s campaign worked largely outside the DNC and he let the opportunity to rebuild it rot on the vine.

Safe D Seats tend to reside in rich cities full of upper middle class types whose self-image and pocketbook will fight against anybody more progressive coming along.

I think there might be more value in trying to get some people in as independents(or fuck, even socialists) into office in other parts of the country

― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Tuesday, June 28, 2022 7:36 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

You mean like NYC? DSA-backed candidates have had huge successes there. If anything I'd say cities are where these types of candidates have done best.

JB’s victory speech remarks on futile bipartisanship and what we owe to our grandchildren: “We owe it to them to win.” pic.twitter.com/OzKG4JD6Fy

— Socialists for Pritzker (@PritzkerForPrez) June 29, 2022

Did not expect to wake up to some progressive folks booting around the idea of a Pritzker prez run in '24. Most of them acknowledged that it would never happen, but it's a thought I wouldn't expected to ever hear.

I imagine the details of his governing aren't all that great but he's been the most proactive top level Democrat over the last few years and people yearn for that.

think there might be more value in trying to get some people in as independents(or fuck, even socialists) into office in other parts of the country

One of the most satisfying things about my socialist city council rep is her explicitly publicly chiding her Democratic colleagues for being cowed lapdogs of big business, when they vote in the interests of big business

xxp americans love a big guy

It's true Joe Manchin wrecked the entire agenda and is hostile to the party's program, but what if they could get even more Joe Manchins? pic.twitter.com/lG1CgUunzH

— Tom Scocca (@tomscocca) June 29, 2022

what happened to mcelwee? wasn't he like a vox liberal or something two years ago?

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71XLFkwXpCL._SL1500_.jpg

I tried to read that article earlier today and it made me want to die. The main profiled NJ Dem guy's politics are literally just "lower taxes + more cops"

"Biden and officials are concerned that more radical moves would be politically polarizing ahead of November's midterm elections, undermine public trust in institutions like the Supreme Court or lack strong legal footing, sources inside and outside the White House say."

— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) June 29, 2022

It’s almost as though they want the country to be taken over by fascists

Hmm

🤔 pic.twitter.com/3gNafF3niZ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 30, 2022

Ha daaaaamn

so let's get this straight one of the two major political parties in this country not only refuses to do any of the massively popular things they ran on they are also openly bankrolling opponents who do not see their power as legitimate

I’m not going to be the one who said “I told you so” because it is obviously unhelpful.

What I will say is that I truly believe that we would all be better off if every member of every branch of the federal government spontaneously combusted

I would need to see a carbon footprint on that.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 30, 2022

I dunno. The whole effect she's looking for there hinges on a paraphrase by @AlexThomp of something reported elsewhere by "@nanditab1 and @TrevorNews", which is neither quoted nor linked. My problem is I have zero idea who @nanditab1 and @TrevorNews are or what kind of sourcing they have access to about what Biden is saying to his advisors. So basically AOC's zing requires a reflexive belief that it just has to be true, because it sounds sorta like what we think Biden would think.

they are white house correspondents for reuters

“Hi, I’m Trevor News”

My problem is I have zero idea who @nanditab1 and @TrevorNews are or what kind of sourcing they have access to about what Biden is saying to his advisors and if I took 38 seconds to type in their twitter handle then I can't make this post.

I don't have a Twitter account and don't intend to have one.

But thank you for identifying them for me.

no thank _you_ aimless, for explaining what makes a good tweet

"More radical policies are politically polarising ahead of elections" -- you can just smell the paralyzing fear.

Don't want to polarize people before they go out and vote for one of the two poles in American politics.

Aimless unable to figure out twitter is a similar kind of thing. They don't even want to look, never mind do.

Aimless unable to figure out twitter

fuck off