Democratic (Party) Direction

When you're doing it to such an extent, and in such a clear pattern, only to and about women, about things that are moot and in the past and can no longer be changed, that it's starting to feel kind of harass-y?

I mean who cares about Gavin Newsom's ex-wife from 2006 honestly? Do you not think we have more important problems?

"someone else did it" - do you not understand how amplification works? You choose what you want to pay attention to.

Really, the throwaway line about Newsom? I think people who’ve defined their political reality around opposition to Trump and MAGA would be bothered in the primaries by Newsom’s proximity to the MAGA world. Is that critical of women somehow? I didn’t say I was concerned, I wouldn’t vote for Newsom in the primaries regardless.

Harris is still a politician and presumably planning to run for President in the future. Her beliefs, record and stated goals are hardly moot.

Got it, people who need student loans to get an education should not try to start businesses in undeveloped areas, because those businesses might fail due to richer people being better capitalized, and it is better just to forgive everyone's student loans at exactly the same rate.

Also, Newsom should have had a crystal ball to predict that his future ex-wife would date a Trump.

I mean maybe you're giving the same treatment to all political people, but I just have not seen it.

I think the most valid critical point about Harris' tweet about her proposed program is not about whether it was a good idea. It's easy enough to make a case that it is a perfectly good idea and would have made a good piece of legislation within its limited scope.

The criticism bears more on the nature of the office she was seeking, which is the only office (other than VP) anywhere in the USA that every voter is allowed to vote upon. It is national in scope and singularly powerful in setting the national agenda. Proposing a minor piece of legislation affecting a very minimal slice of the public is better suited to a person running for US Senator than the President of the United States.

Touting such a minimalist idea while running for the office of president indicates a less than adequate grasp of the enormous audience she needed to address and inspire as the real task she was required to perform. Presidents need to articulate a vision that touches the whole nation, or at least the candidate must convincingly fake having one. When you need to attract more than 75 million vote(r)s that proposal was incomprehensible to at least 74 million of them.

Running for president is a massively difficult enterprise. Just about everyone who attempts it fails. Her being a woman of color made it far more difficult, but her eventual failure was little different from the failure of a dozen other contestants, men and women both. So far, only 46 people have ever succeeded in over 230 years.

it is better just to forgive everyone's student loans at exactly the same rate.

Yes. (Particularly since Warren’s $50k proposal is more than Harris’s $20k max.)

Newsom should have had a crystal ball to predict that his future ex-wife would date a Trump

As I said, I don’t care. I wouldn’t vote for Newsom in the primary if he married the ghost of Emma Goldman.

Stating a fact about him - he has a stronger tie to the single uniting force in Democratdom (Trump) than any other potential candidate - doesn’t seem out of bounds? If it doesn’t bother you, cool - me either. I think if he runs against Harris in 2024 or 2028 the KHive isn’t going to be so sanguine.

"I think people who’ve defined their political reality around opposition to Trump and MAGA would be bothered in the primaries by Newsom’s proximity to the MAGA world."

― papal hotwife (milo z), Saturday, July 9, 2022

that's not true at all unless you're looking at it from the point of view of a troll. there is no proximity

"When you're doing it to such an extent, and in such a clear pattern, only to and about women, about things that are moot and in the past and can no longer be changed, that it's starting to feel kind of harass-y?"

― felicity, Saturday, July 9, 2022

yes exactly

So far, only 46 people have ever succeeded in over 230 years.

And yes it's no coincidence that 45 of them have been white men.

Yeah, we will see. Guilfoyle doesn't bother me.

There was also a time when Presidential candidates felt like they had to lie about smoking pot, and then Obama was just like, "read my book, I did cocaine at Occidental College when I could get it, lol whatevs."

Values and mores change so rapidly these days. Going by what happened in the past just seems less relevant as a predictor of future outcomes. If this is the worst thing about Newsom, well that doesn't seem so bad.

it is quite sad that Gavin Newsom doesn't seem so bad tbh. That he evokes feelings of hope. It was like when we cheered on Biden because he was "not Trump" ...

the signifier can easily be cleaved from the signified— so that female prosecutor who is Black can certainly represent the interests of Black women, but I've so rarely seen this in practice, and have often seen *the opposite* occur. In a sense, this is related to certain anarchist critiques of identity politics— that of course certain groups are more oppressed in a patriarchal, white supremacist society, and those oppressive forces must be counteracted and those who suffer should be lifted up, but that does not mean that members of oppressed groups can't act badly, *or against the interests of their oppressed brothers and sisters*.

totally agree with this ... especially in light of the fact that Clarence Thomas, not only voted to overturn Roe v Wade but also wanted to get rid of Affirmative Action as well ...

It is heavily implied in this context that extremist Republican Supreme Court nominee and harasser of Anita Hill would not be a good representative of women of color.

Did you have a problem with Biden promising to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, or do you have a problem with Newsom saying that he would appoint a black woman to fill Feinstein's seat if she vacated the Senate? Those are better examples of deliberate inclusion. It is implied the role would be heavily vetted, and not filled with a Justice Thomas.

But vetted for what? If it’s vetted to assure the person would continue the center-right status quo that is undeniably the Dem position these days, then who cares whether the person is vetted or not?

I will take that as a yes.

there's no problem with either of those as promises and they're both welcome. the candidates should still be evaluated on their merits - if biden had nominated a rather centrist black woman to the supreme court, that would have been a disappointment, especially given the circumstances, but that thankfully didn't happen

i agree with the table that one should want higher standards for dem candidates than the mediocre middle-of-the-road status quo, but that's really a separate issue to deliberate inclusion being worth pursuing and those ideas certainly don't have to be in conflict. even a fairly middle-of-the-road dem would probably be an improvement over feinstein in that scenario, but that isn't reason not to hope for better still.

ufo otm.

I think our disagreement, felicity, comes in that we don’t agree on many policy issues. I want Black women and other marginalized groups in power— but I am more interested and willing to support those people if their policy goals and actions align with my own. Identity does not align with policy, and to pretend otherwise is reductive.

Did you have a problem with Biden promising to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, or do you have a problem with Newsom saying that he would appoint a black woman to fill Feinstein's seat if she vacated the Senate? Those are better examples of deliberate inclusion.

that was not at all what I was thinking about when I agreed with table's comment? Kinda confused where you're getting that? My mention of Thomas was a "captain obvious" way of illustrating what is more contentious in the case of Harris. ... that there isn't inherent racial solidarity, the positions that Thomas took are going to most negatively impact Black people, and in the case of abortion, Black Women.

There is also a systemic structural problem that table and others (e.g. milo) bring up which is the roles they inhabit, some are basically pre-determined to act against the interests of the marginalized identities they embody. Kamala _was_ a cop. She acted on behalf of the repressive state apparatus. I feel like the contention here is "how much should that count against her?"

I end up being more pragmatic about these things (than perhaps I should? idk) and I believe that everyone, in order to effect real change, ends up having to compromise and negotiate. And maybe that's really why we are all arguing ... what are we willing to compromise

What disagreement? I asked if people had a problem with these two instances of deliberate inclusion strategy of Black women.

ufo was the only one to say unequivocally that it's not a problem. The other two people to reply listed a number of problems as their form of response, so I assume for them it is a problem. And one to such an extent they don't think it's possible to commit to an inclusion strategy in these cases as an upfront priority and then find someone qualified from the vast pool of Black women that could satisfy their particular needs and goals.

I don't think table knows enough about my body of work to assume, based on this, that we don't agree on many policies. But who knows, maybe he is a secret fan.

Does ‘it should not be a center-right Black woman’ indicate opposition to inclusion? Is it possible that skepticism has something to do with the centrist white men making these promises rather than the ‘pool of possibilities’?

Committing to replacing Dianne Feinstein with a Black woman is great. I have no reason to trust, however, that anyone seated by the Democratic Party will have good politics regardless of their identity.

(I think the strategy of deliberate inclusion is meant to inspire youth (as Obama did). So maybe a loss now could be recovered later. I do think it makes a difference to be able to identify/relate.)

(My gut feeling is that Harris is not at all close to Thomas and that her true beliefs are to the left of center, maybe not by much, if it is even possible to align issues on one axis.)

I do think it makes a difference to be able to identify/relate

i totally agree with this fwiw. When I was in college (last century ... I am an old), a lot of what I studied and read academically was focused on visibility and role models and media representation of various marginalized identities in non-stereotypical roles. But also, the curriculum included criticism of ways in which that was problematic, and how power is constructed, and how having a film or tv show with a lead actor who is black or female playing a cop (as many of these examples were)... is not a clear victory for feminism or racial justice.

and I apologize if what I'm saying is "yeah yeah we all know this. This is basic. Why are you even spelling this out?" ... but I feel like at this point, a number of people in this thread are making assumptions about other posters and where they are coming from, and what their assumptions are ... and maybe the basic baby steps are useful?

Bill Clinton strikes me as someone who got the benefit of the doubt on policy for his poltical skills. Harris has the bad public persona awarded her here and elsewhere also to overcome but that came with the national stage (and why?).

Are you talking retrospectively re Bill Clinton? ILX didn't exist when he was campaigning. Probably a significant number of American ilxors weren't even old enough to vote for him. Not meaning to sound aggressive/defensive ... just, maybe if you can clarify more where you're going with this?

Is Harris being held to a higher standard than, e.g., Clinton before, after, and during his Presidency? I don't know the answer to this question because I don't know enough about their policies and positions and how they evolved over time; my hunch is that she is being held to a higher standard than Clinton. I think many Democratics liked and continue to like Clinton.

Sometimes politicans who succeed in one country might not in another. California might be like another country.

I would say she’s absolutely been held to a higher standard than him. White dudes as a cohort have really coasted. And continue to, obv.

and ftr would happily take Kamala over Bill (even if you time traveled to prime time era Bill and brought him back) as POTUS.

no joke Bill Clinton might have been one of the worst things to ever happen to the Democratic Party

Many Democrats like Harris, too - leftist criticism of her (as a prosecutor/cop, for tacking to the center, etc.) represents a tiny piece of the American populace. She didn't get anywhere in the primaries but neither did the other 12 people splitting the centrist/Vote Blue No Matter Who vote before Super Tuesday. Dedicated Democrats, on the whole, aren't particularly critical of their politicians.

In the post-metoo era and running against a rapist, the Democrats put multiple people with sexual misconduct/assault allegations onstage at the DNC and nobody blinked. (Plus pro-life cretin John Kasich.) The Party really doesn't have standards.

most of the people I know who have issues with Harris, had plenty of issues with Bill Clinton ... and I'm only speaking here about the ones who were adults during Clinton's presidency. A lot of the activism I was around for during his presidency was around the immense media consolidation and focused on anti-globalization and protesting Capitalism in Excelsis -- the WTO protests in Seattle, for example, which you could draw a direct line from to the Occupy movement. ... however the people I know are largely lefists and, as milo said

leftist criticism of her (as a prosecutor/cop, for tacking to the center, etc.) represents a tiny piece of the American populace.

I remember when Harris did her campaign kick-off in my city, at the place local leftists refer to as Oscar Grant Plaza ... and she had the local politicians there supporting her, the mayor, our Congresswoman who has a very high popularity rating ... and my first thought when I saw that this event was happening where it was happening was ... "Why do this here? You know there are going to be a bunch of people there to protest because of her affiliation with law enforcement." ... and if you look at video of the event that shows the crowd, there they were, the protesters. I don't think shit got heated, but ...

Is Harris being held to a higher standard than, e.g., Clinton before, after, and during his Presidency?

question is really, "by who?"

by the general public, certainly harris is being held to a higher standard, but this also comes down to the biden administration's general ineffectiveness during much tougher times & harris being set up to fail by being put in charge of reducing asylum seeker numbers, in addition to her poor performance in interviews.

the left though has much much bigger criticisms of clinton and that's the perspective criticism of harris has been coming from in this thread, though the left is also a bit less marginal now than it was during clinton's era

the definition of "the left" has also changed tbh ...

no joke Bill Clinton might have been one of the worst things to ever happen to the Democratic Party

― no one wants to twerk anymore (will),

Yet the only one who could've won in 1992 (my pick in my first general election: Brown). History sucks like that.

Honestly I just can’t believe in that right person/ right time that stuff any more. Not that it’s wrong per se. But there are just so many random variables at any given moment. Like, as much as I want to retroactively say Bernie Would Have Won in 2016 (something I absolutely generally did not agree with until probably 1-2 years later), it’s purely speculative. Historical fiction in tweet form.

but I won’t argue he wasn’t a dynamite campaigner

Biden woulda won in 2016 (serious)

Yes. Sanders would not have won in 2016. Clinton would've won were it not for BUT HER EMAILS + Comey in late October.

yeah I do suspect a lot of rich democrats would have voted for trump in 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/biden-democrats-abortion-dobbs/

For Jennifer Palmieri, a White House communications director under Obama, the criticism was never fair to begin with. “Republicans gamed the system, and they got two Supreme Court justices they shouldn’t have, and those people had a 40-year plan to overturn Roe and they did it. And to continue to blame Biden for the fact that more Americans didn’t vote for Democrats is an epic example of missing the forest,” she said.

“We are in such a bigger fight than what the president of the United States can deliver, and if you’re thinking that it can be solved by a president taking any action in the course of the two weeks after the decision, then you’re not appreciating what a big fight it is and what a precarious moment it is,” Palmieri added.

Democrats should have tried gaming the system or having a 40-year plan maybe?

yeah I do suspect a lot of rich democrats would have voted for trump in 2016

not so sure you're right. some did, maybe, but the republican agenda presents enough temptations to the wealthy that those who consistently choose to vote for democrats probably have some kind of ideological commitment to society apart from becoming wealthier and Hilary was hardly the sort of fire-breathing wild-eyed radical they couldn't bear to see in office. I mean, what do you think Trump offered them that every other republican office seeker didn't?

Polling suggested Sanders could have beaten Trump. Ik not absolutely sure he would have, but I’m not sure what the basis is for claiming he wouldn’t have won other than sort of untested conventional wisdom of the same sort that said Trump couldn’t win.

Anyone less disliked than Clinton and who could pick out Michigan and Wisconsin on a map would have done at least as well in 2016.

Corey Feldman?

you’re not appreciating what a big fight it is and what a precarious moment it is

It's funny because this seems like exactly what pro-choice people have been trying to get across to Biden.

the republican agenda presents enough temptations to the wealthy

The Democrat agenda doesn't differ all that much tbh. It also depends on the source of one's wealth. There have definitely been points in time recently when certain wealthy people felt that the Republican agenda would not be good for their money ... but at this point, in terms of economic impact, the Republicans vs. Democrats are like Chase vs. Wells Fargo. Apologies for any missed opportunity to come up with a more nuanced and apt analogy.

so, I may as well ask you then, what do you think Trump offered to wealthy Democrat voters that was more attractive than the usual run of Republican candidates who they usually rejected in favor of the usual Democrat?

wait what? The states with the highest concentrations of wealthy Democrats were very solid blue ...

Yes. Sanders would not have won in 2016. Clinton would've won were it not for BUT HER EMAILS + Comey in late October.

― Malevolent Arugula (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, July 10, 2022 3:01 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

yeah I do suspect a lot of rich democrats would have voted for trump in 2016

― no one wants to twerk anymore (will), Sunday, July 10, 2022 3:05 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Will meant rich democrats would have voted for Trump over Bernie, not that rich democrats went Trump in 2016

(I am guessing "source of one's wealth" might matter. If not from income/wages, then the Republican establishment might determine whether or not some potential or former Democrats make it through retirement while maintaining the same standard of living as before without having to work unless they want to. Wealthy Deomacrats might have thought Sanders would change that. Democrats could also win over Republicans who work but do not have inherited wealth. Funding for environmental initiatives might win over wealthy Democrats. I thought Chase vs. WelLs Fargo was apt in terms of geography (and minimal difference in choice implied if intended).)