hottt off the DSA's local wins a couple of days ago, here's a place to discuss current left movements and orgs, ponder strategy and all that fun stuff. not gonna police/define what "left" means too rigidly except to say there's already a democratic party thread
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 14:44 (one year ago) Permalink
― the intentional phallusy (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 9 November 2017 14:46 (one year ago) Permalink
I guess the only hard-and-fast rule is no comedy podcasts allowed
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 14:49 (one year ago) Permalink
anyway some fun things to talk about might be
- the DSA's electoral strategy plank and where it stands (or should stand) in relation to other strategies, also the challenges presented by growing 4-fold in the space of a year- Corbyn's Labour and its prospects for forming government and/or its ability to potentially productively disrupt the Brexiting "process" (such as it is)- wtf is happening with the Canadian left- wtf is happening in other places
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 14:57 (one year ago) Permalink
oh and- talk about what orgs yr involved with, if any!
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 14:58 (one year ago) Permalink
Olympia WA just elected a fierce and principled homeless advocate, running for office for the first time, to the city council. She beat the incumbent, a real estate developer. This is fantastic news for a small city with an escalating housing crisis.
― sciatica, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:03 (one year ago) Permalink
That is v cool! I was just reading about that.
On the more theoretical end, here's a centrist tackling the Corey Robin book on the history of conservative pols/thinkers
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:05 (one year ago) Permalink
in the panel kingfish posted in the chapo thread Chibber argues that fascism only succeeds when there isn't a viable leftist alternative and that the right-wing drift in the West was a temporary phenomenon that is now receding as options like corbyn/sanders become more viable. i'm not so sure how that comports w/ his theory of ww2 (where he argues precisely the opposite - that the strength of the left is what led capital to throw its lot in with fascism) - these two ideas seem to be in tension. maybe he's just pushing for a middle ground - a left powerful enough to be a viable alternative to fascism for the downtrodden, and he's not too worried about labor challenging capital anytime soon since we're a long way off from another dictatorship of the proletariat.
― Mordy, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:07 (one year ago) Permalink
On the front of "capital throwing its weight around" in the face of a strengthened left, I was heartened to see talk of Labour preparing to counteract capital flight should they ever take power
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:09 (one year ago) Permalink
- wtf is happening with the Canadian left
Would appreciate any kind of discussion on this, even pointers to good news/commentary sources.
― jmm, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:15 (one year ago) Permalink
idk how accurate this is but I don't think this is so much a left-wing "drift" as much as it is 18-35 year olds in this country realizing what happens when they don't vote
― frogbs, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:19 (one year ago) Permalink
slash realizing they have no viable economic future under the current order
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:19 (one year ago) Permalink
― how's life, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:31 (one year ago) Permalink
this moral foundations stuff that is deployed like a trump card in that damon linker article (& elsewhere) could do with some more discussion
― ogmor, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:38 (one year ago) Permalink
CR definitely took notice of the review and will probably provide a rebuttal of some kind, I feel a bit out of my depth as I haven't read The Reactionary Mind
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:41 (one year ago) Permalink
hate reading a whole book so i can pull it apart is where i draw the line
― ogmor, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:46 (one year ago) Permalink
wrt haidt i mean
there's a pun in there somewhere
― imago, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:48 (one year ago) Permalink
re: the Cdn left, my current summary would be "we're all watching to see what Jagmeet inevitably waffles on" and that our general terminal smugness is our biggest impediment. I haven't even noticed the Trudeau Paradise Papers stuff get much traction.
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:49 (one year ago) Permalink
fwiw that article above is essentially my complaint about CR's book. it smooths out an awful lot of [to my mind] legitimate concerns of conservatism in order to make a moral argument. and esp a moral argument that is easily made in practically any situation - there is no ideology where you cannot find losers of the ideology being oppressed. iow there's no exclusively liberatory ideology cf the great Leftist States of the 20th century.
― Mordy, Thursday, 9 November 2017 15:57 (one year ago) Permalink
i just realized tho why are we talking about conservatism itt?
― Mordy, Thursday, 9 November 2017 16:01 (one year ago) Permalink
but the degree of inequality does vary. the fact that something can't be completely eliminated is no argument against reducing it
― ogmor, Thursday, 9 November 2017 16:49 (one year ago) Permalink
what i meant is that one could v easily make the argument that the left is about oppression and inequality and you can see bc every time there's a communist state they end up killing millions of ppl through the rigid enforcement of dogma. the question is always who is oppressing whom. now rightly you could argue that soviet + chinese communism should not be how we measure the motivations underlining leftism but then you can do the same for conservatism. my point is just that if you're looking to defame your political opponents on oppression grounds you'll have plenty of fodder no matter your ideology.
― Mordy, Thursday, 9 November 2017 16:52 (one year ago) Permalink
ha, i think real world examples are salient, but for what they tell you about power rather than what they tell you about ideology
― ogmor, Thursday, 9 November 2017 17:05 (one year ago) Permalink
I haven't even noticed the Trudeau Paradise Papers stuff get much traction.
Do you mean the stuff about Bronfman's offshore accounts? Was JT or the LPC directly implicated?
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Thursday, 9 November 2017 17:20 (one year ago) Permalink
I imagine Canada will probably remain a country of milquetoast centrist liberalism for a while. We never drifted as far right as some of our allies and will probably not experience as intense of a left-wing backlash?
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Thursday, 9 November 2017 17:24 (one year ago) Permalink
That said, there have been some legitimately good ideas coming from the NDP, especially Ashton (and the Greens). I'm eager to see more advocacy for things like a green energy transition Crown corporation, socialized finance options, socialized pharma care coverage, someone actually standing against more pipelines. In a minority govt situation, this Liberal govt might be more push-able than the last one.
An NDP provincial government may well be likely in SK, I think?
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Thursday, 9 November 2017 17:30 (one year ago) Permalink
challops: soviet + chinese communism is actually right-wing
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 November 2017 17:32 (one year ago) Permalink
That said, there have been some legitimately good ideas coming from the NDP, especially Ashton (and the Greens).
I (along with all the Marxist goons I roll w/) voted for Ashton even though she was disappointing on QC, hoping she remains a prominent voice for the party going forward. I really got the feeling she pushed the overall tenor of the leadership race significantly left.
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 17:54 (one year ago) Permalink
Everything is an angry centrist overreaction to the last shit
― Gary Synaesthesia (darraghmac), Thursday, 9 November 2017 17:58 (one year ago) Permalink
Maybe this belongs more on the CDN politics thread, but curious to hear what other leftists/Canadians on this thread think.
I voted for Ashton and am definitely far to the left of Jagmeet, but from a tactical POV, do you think he may be - in an instrumental way - better for the medium to longer term prospects of the party insofar as he will likely be able to win over some of the more left(ish) or progressive people who voted for Trudeau in 2015 (and either moved more to the left since or have been disillusioned by the betrayal of campaign promises, etc.).
I know this way of thinking can lead to a slippery slope, but I wonder if his leadership of the party might help - to some degree - galvanize (or at least sustain some forward momentum for) the NDP in a way that an Ashton, Angus or Caron victory may have?
― Federico Boswarlos, Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:53 (one year ago) Permalink
I voted for Ashton but I don't think her platform would have been electorally successful, if I'm honest. But I am of the pessimistic view that liberal centrism is the best we can expect from a federal government in Canada and so the federal NDP can best function as a sort of parliamentary pressure group.
― -_- (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 9 November 2017 21:07 (one year ago) Permalink
Two huge problems for left politics in Canada: the national dependence on oil leads to a situation in which a large proportion of the public view the oil patch as a sacred cow which precludes widespread popularity for environmentalism which must be a pillar for any left-wing movement; another important part of any left movement in canada must be indigenous rights, decolonization, reconciliation. these ideas are given plenty of lip service in mainstream canadian discourse but anything that actually threatens entrenched interests or even, you know, calls a spade a spade - wrt the opprobrium that comes from many corners the second someone uses the words "settler colonialism" or "genocide" etc. - is anathema to a large proportion of the canadian population.
― -_- (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 9 November 2017 21:13 (one year ago) Permalink
I voted for Ashton and am definitely far to the left of Jagmeet, but from a tactical POV, do you think he may be - in an instrumental way - better for the medium to longer term prospects of the party insofar as he will likely be able to win over some of the more left(ish) or progressive people who voted for Trudeau in 2015 (and either moved more to the left since or have been disillusioned by the betrayal of campaign promises, etc.).
my concern is that his platform may not wind up distinct enough from the Libs for a significant number of voters to even consider jumping ship
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 21:14 (one year ago) Permalink
and JiV otm, Canada is much more backwards than the US on these issues in some respects
On oil, possibly. I don't agree that the US is more progressive on aboriginal issues. Afaict, these barely even register as an issue on the national level in the US.
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Thursday, 9 November 2017 21:19 (one year ago) Permalink
Simon, that's totally a fair point, though I also wonder if Singh will be able to bring some amount of first-time voters to the NDP (I doubt it will be massive, but stil...) or people who had formerly been unaffiliated with any party. He may also be appealing to culturally conservative immigrant groups who vote PC (to generalize) and win over more votes.
Jim, yes, both are also two massive problems that any progressive force will have to reckon with and, in the near future, am not sure how they will be able to reconcile.
― Federico Boswarlos, Thursday, 9 November 2017 21:31 (one year ago) Permalink
Young/new voters are definitely where I'd be focusing on trying to mobilize if I were an NDP strategist, yeah.
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 21:34 (one year ago) Permalink
I know Habermas has been progressively lurching to the centre over the course of his life, but even I'm quite surprised he wrote this glowing article on Macron.
― Federico Boswarlos, Friday, 10 November 2017 19:19 (one year ago) Permalink
Fun with (American) history:
https://soundcloud.com/deadpundits/ep-34-the-democratic-party-the-left-w-adam-hiltonDead Pundits Society - Ep. 34: The Democratic Party & the Left w/ Adam HiltonAdam Hilton, visiting lecturer in Politics at Mount Holyoke College, is on the show to talk about the history of the Democratic Party and its interaction with the left. Can the Democratic Party be used as an instrument of socialist advance? And what is the nature of the Democratic Party, anyway? Tune in to find out.Find some of Adam's writings here: -"Bernie and the Search for New Politics," https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/bernie-president-unions-mcgovern-"Searching for New Politics," https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-new-politics-democratic-party-realignment-primary
Dead Pundits Society - Ep. 34: The Democratic Party & the Left w/ Adam Hilton
Adam Hilton, visiting lecturer in Politics at Mount Holyoke College, is on the show to talk about the history of the Democratic Party and its interaction with the left. Can the Democratic Party be used as an instrument of socialist advance? And what is the nature of the Democratic Party, anyway? Tune in to find out.
Find some of Adam's writings here: -"Bernie and the Search for New Politics," https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/bernie-president-unions-mcgovern-"Searching for New Politics," https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-new-politics-democratic-party-realignment-primary
― Google Murray Blockchain (kingfish), Friday, 10 November 2017 19:20 (one year ago) Permalink
He seems to be using Macron as a stick to beat the German political establishment with. They need beating, but get a better stick.
― Daniel_Rf, Friday, 10 November 2017 19:28 (one year ago) Permalink
thanks for that kingfish, SPD is a reliably good cast even if I find the main guy mysteriously grating
― Simon H., Friday, 10 November 2017 20:11 (one year ago) Permalink
Proctor likes to stir shit for better or for worse but I enjoy his guests most of the time
― Google Murray Blockchain (kingfish), Friday, 10 November 2017 22:42 (one year ago) Permalink
One of the socialist candidates I can vote for in municipal elections later this month is named Charisma Fries. I might vote for her just for that reason. I will probably just vote for the party, though.
― Frederik B, Friday, 10 November 2017 22:59 (one year ago) Permalink
Sounds like the name of one of the bands on scott's Leftover College Radio Station Indie Rock Records thread
― Terry Micawber (Tom D.), Friday, 10 November 2017 23:16 (one year ago) Permalink
Latin America seen as part of the West? I think that's where the latest drift began. Different forms of a populist left to varying degrees in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil and so on. Its under tension - and in Brazil its collapsed to quite a dangerous situation for the environment..
― xyzzzz__, Friday, 10 November 2017 23:32 (one year ago) Permalink
On the front of "capital throwing its weight around" in the face of a strengthened left, I was heartened to see talk of Labour preparing to counteract capital flight should they ever take power― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Simon H., Thursday, 9 November 2017 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Due to Brexit capital flight could happen anyway. Business is practically telling Labour they could put up with a erm diminished influence and profits as long as Brexit is the softer option (access to the single market). That's an opening, of sorts, to bring more things to the forefront and keep those ppl on their toes.
― xyzzzz__, Friday, 10 November 2017 23:36 (one year ago) Permalink
skip to about 13:30 in the latest Trillbilly Workers' Party for a very good RL Stephens segment on DSA/American left stuff, particularly the old race/class question
― Simon H., Saturday, 11 November 2017 03:24 (one year ago) Permalink
or 18:30ish if you're feeling impatient
― Simon H., Saturday, 11 November 2017 03:29 (one year ago) Permalink
this is all pretty dope imho
Good thread of what DSA has been up to this week. https://t.co/0mv1eo63k0— Sturgeon's Law (@Sturgeons_Law) November 13, 2017
― Simon H., Monday, 13 November 2017 04:53 (one year ago) Permalink
I agree that the efficacy is impossible to fully gauge. After Warren, I think Bernie's the best 2020 candidate out there, and I think it's going to be really interesting to see what happens if it starts to look like he's going to win the nomination. I suspect there will be an apparent collapse of his support among the far left--all of a sudden people will be taking Gravel's "joke" candidacy very seriously, and saying that Bernie's a capitalist sell-out for reasons X, Y, and Z, and so they would never be willing to vote for him.
― Dan I., Friday, 12 April 2019 15:26 (two months ago) Permalink
And I think it's maladaptive to not take seriously the idea that shifts like that might not be organic.
― Dan I., Friday, 12 April 2019 15:28 (two months ago) Permalink
I don't foresee that happening at all, even if Gravel makes it to the debate stage and manages to not sound like a 90-year-old quack. (Two big Ifs.) He hasn't even managed the 65k donation threshold yet AFAIK. The biggest threat to Sanders is Warren, who's been much more consistent in offering substantive legislation, but she hasn't been picking up support yet.
― Simon H., Friday, 12 April 2019 15:31 (two months ago) Permalink
The gravel thing is just an example of an astroturfed message that the Left is more vulnerable to if they deny the possibility of being subjected to propaganda. It could just as easily be a heavy push on the "change never happens at the ballot box" message or any number of other things.
― Dan I., Friday, 12 April 2019 15:38 (two months ago) Permalink
I could imagine Bernie's support eroding if he seems poised to capture the nomination and honestly if I were a Bernie supporter (I'm not - he's near the bottom of my list of preferred candidates) I'd be concerned about him getting the nomination. He's a great protest candidate but seems like a potential disaster for the left as an actual nominee or President (whereas Warren who is at the top of my list I think could actually make good on the left-wing agenda).
― Mordy, Friday, 12 April 2019 15:40 (two months ago) Permalink
Ben Burgis went on Dave Smith’s show yesterday, and it was a rare case when you have an actual Marxist Professor debating an actual AnCap on Taxation as Theft. It goes more congenial than one would expect.
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Friday, 12 April 2019 21:04 (two months ago) Permalink
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Friday, 12 April 2019 21:05 (two months ago) Permalink
Why the attack on Highlander matters:
― Lil' Brexit (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 13 April 2019 21:31 (two months ago) Permalink
Finally having an organizing meeting for a local chapter of the Tech Workers Collective this weekend, let’s see how it goes
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Friday, 26 April 2019 03:29 (one month ago) Permalink
That’s great, Kingfish!
― Leaghaidh am brón an t-anam bochd (dowd), Friday, 26 April 2019 06:21 (one month ago) Permalink
Can you go into a bit more detail on this? I am a Bernie supporter, so what interests me most is good/persuasive takes that he shouldn't be. There's a lot packed into this post, so i think i have three questions
1) Why would his support erode if he got the nomination?2) Why would he be a disaster as nominee?3) Why would he be a disaster as president?
― anvil, Friday, 26 April 2019 06:48 (one month ago) Permalink
my thought when i wrote that post is that a lot of what ppl like about bernie don't seem to be attributes that suggest success in governing. they like that he's antagonistic and critical of the dem party but if he wins the nom he's going to need the wide support of that party to win the election. they like that he wants a political revolution but his supposed plan for governing (generate a mass mobilization of protestors that force ppl like senate republicans to pass legislation) seems very unlikely to me. once he's in office he'll have trouble enough shepherding his own party where some of the party will be openly hostile (cf corbyn labour), and it'll be even harder to get republicans in line which will be necessary even if he did have a full support of the dem party. there are options for getting around that as well (like ending the filibuster) but he seems totally unwilling to consider them. so if he did win it would be with a divided dem party, a recalcitrant republican party. much of his agenda relies on radical new legislation but if it plays out like this he'll be limited to executive orders. one could easily imagine a scenario where he's a complete disappointment and ineffective president which ultimately sets back the leftist agenda. (by contrast Warren i think has more of these transactional skills, she at least seems willing to get rid of the filibuster, she seems to have a good handle on what kind of policy is necessary and what will be effective.) i have no faith that bernie has either the disposition or intelligence for POTUS - but i think he's great for organizing people and exciting people so it's not like he's a bad person just imo unsuited for this particular job. so i could imagine if it seems like he's going to win ppl starting to notice these areas of concern. as long as he's primarily about registering a protest ppl may (huge caveat here that i could be super wrong and ppl will just get really fired up at this point but at the time i wrote that post -- and iirc without scrolling back up i was responding to someone or somepeople making a similar claim?) be willing to overlook what seem like terrible flaws but once he's going to be the nominee and/or actual president the same skills don't apply and the risk of the venture might become more apparent.
― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2019 15:41 (one month ago) Permalink
i don't like trump is like bernie comparisons bc trump is a liar, criminal and bigot and bernie is not but they both have styles of "leadership" where i think it'll be a big struggle to "get stuff done." the press will be extremely critical, i don't get the sense bernie knows how to hire good employees, that it's hard for him to listen to others, hard to run a large organization, he'll be fighting his own party, he'll be fighting the opposition, and his entire plan (a critical mass of protestors) is a fantasy. i think one of the reliefs of the trump era is how incompetent he has turned out to be about exercising his will - he's been incapable of marshaling the tools and power of the presidency to enact the kind of changes he wants and that's been a blessing. but bernie might struggle in similar ways and if you're a bernie supporter that might not be quite the same sort of blessing to see him flounder and fight a dozen different enemies while his legislative wishlist languishes.
― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2019 15:48 (one month ago) Permalink
i think there's a lot too that analysis, and it captures some aspects of why i'm leaning more warren than bernie (tho i think i'm more in line with the latter's structural critique, sorta). but you do lean really heavily on this notion that his "entire plan" is to count on popular mass movement demand. if that's true, it's true of any politician advocating for something - it's never enough to get in office with something in your "platform," there have to be organized people beyond and outside your campaign who are beating the drum for it and getting neighbors to call their congresspeople, etc. saw a good article the other day about how warren's college debt plan will require a continuous massive push from the public even if she's elected. so that's all pretty normal. but have other candidates spelled out a more specific set of legislative tactics ("I pledge to you that first I will meet with Senator Bugs Meany and agree to form an executive task force to study his proposed farms bill in exchange for....")? or is this more an impressionistic take on their personality and style?
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 26 April 2019 16:02 (one month ago) Permalink
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 26 April 2019 16:03 (one month ago) Permalink
yes just impressions. any dem will rely on some level of push from the public but that alone won't be sufficient (and the kinds of numbers that would be required for it to be sufficient -- i just don't see millions & millions of Americans marching especially *after* the Dems win and a lot of that expectation is satiated - but there will likely be loads of right-wingers protesting and fired up over the loss). they'll need to be able to negotiate with Senator Bugs Meany, and maybe having a legitimate threat of ending the filibuster will help too. it will def help within the party to not have alienated key wings (like the moderates + neoliberals) that are losing influence but aren't going to disappear. i know they fear and hate warren too but she has a level of comity and her policy proposals will immediately have an impression of validity and intelligence. the media wonks will love her and her proposals which will help. i can't help but feel like an ideal situation for bernie would be recruiting warren and actively promoting legislation as the Warren Plan, to try and capture some of that enthusiasm from major party players.
― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2019 16:14 (one month ago) Permalink
mordy super otm. you need your caucus to be in line to get legislation through congress. i can't see the nominally-independent sanders corralling waffling establishment dem senators as well as warren could.
― be the 2 chainz you want 2 see in the world (m bison), Friday, 26 April 2019 16:20 (one month ago) Permalink
nb i think warren would have a tougher route to actually winning the election and absolutely to winning the nomination which seems like a longshot at the moment. whether that's because of american misogyny or her own flaws or whatever i can't speculate but obv who you support has something to do w/ whether they could win not just how they'd do once they did but atm since it's so early in the race by the time PA votes in the primaries a lot about the field could change, i'm just talking about who i think would be the best president. if it's just about winning back the WH bernie might be the best option but in terms of long term success of the left i don't know if disappointment over the accomplishments of the most left-wing President in US history is going to be good for it. but tbph i have no idea it could very well be that even in a worst case bernie presidency scenario the left is so fired up about their successes that it galvanizes new movements, new participants, the next president is an all star leftist policy machine idk.
― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2019 16:24 (one month ago) Permalink
it could very well be that even in a worst case bernie presidency scenario the left is so fired up about their successes that it galvanizes new movements, new participants
I think this is what a lot of Bernie voters are banking on, and certainly what I would hope for - galvanizing enough traditional nonvoters and the usually-disillusioned to help build a left movement with a spine. (and no, I don't think Bernie is the only person who could do this, he just happens to be the best-positioned at this time.) tbh without that movement in place I would need to be convinced that lasting, meaningful change is even possible given the immense legislative and systemic hurdles in place.
re the nuts and bolts stuff, I would only add that Bernie actually has a history of working with sympathetic Republicans and moderate Dems on particular issues
― Simon H., Friday, 26 April 2019 16:29 (one month ago) Permalink
re: Corbyn, AFAICT he's actually been pretty successful at holding his party together given the various strains of chaos at work. Labour have been ahead in the polls for weeks.
― Simon H., Friday, 26 April 2019 16:33 (one month ago) Permalink
idk if yall are big investors but i've got a v exciting opportunity you'd be a fool not to snap up today: it's called the Meaningful Redistribution, But Moderates And Neoliberals And Media Wonks Support It Because Of Its Convincing Tone Of Voice Bridge
leads right onto the The Democratic Party Isn't Divided By Anything "Transactional Skills" Couldn't Fix Causeway (via the Obama Tunnel)
i love warren and would be happy to see her in the white house-- i'd also prob prefer bernie as her running mate to her as his-- but the "political revolution" stuff bernie is predictably maligned as a che-shirt stoner for seems better-positioned to prepare the american people for the long, relentless slog they have ahead of them than warren's Smart Ideas approach, which seems to have convinced you that standing down in relief after electing her will somehow be less of a disaster than doing it w bernie. if you "don't see millions & millions of americans marching" then you don't see a future imo, simple as that.
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 26 April 2019 16:44 (one month ago) Permalink
re: Lab's recebt poll surge is partly to do with how badly May has managed to fuck up Brexit; the extension till Autumn by the EU has been a disaster for her. Corbyn has really let her get on with it and given her enough rope. His tactic of not actually going for any option (2nd ref etc.) has worked -- because that would've meant needless infighting within Labour.
Mordy totally underplays the role that a critical mass of protestors will need to play over the next decade. Both Labour and Democrats will need a progressive leadership + that critical mass to put pressure on a centrist layer that occupies both parties. Some of that has layer is under threat by newly elected progressives if you look at Omar/AOC (and really good crop of young Labour left-wing MPs in the UK) but a sizeable gap remains if progressive, paradigm-shifting legislation is to be passed through.
Warren -- while her platform is terrific and she is outdoing Bernie atm -- sounds like she would struggle to marshall the people and would fail to get legislation through if its just left to machine politics. I can see her proposals being watered down significantly. Besides, I get the impression Bernie can actually listen and be talked out of some of his worse positions by the progressive groups and people he gathers around him. That isn't so true on the foreign policy stuff, where he appears weak.
I've no doubt that Bernie or Corbyn would fail at quite a few things but stopping the tide is a significant step. xp
― xyzzzz__, Friday, 26 April 2019 16:48 (one month ago) Permalink
The only issue I think rises to the level of potentially uncorrectable and existential enough a threat that it might require (and even impel by the nature of its severity) complete system takedown is one Bernie isn’t even that good on and we might be better off with like Inslee. I’m not pessimistic enough to believe the wealth distribution stuff can not be done through the current system bc it has been done in the past more than once and in many other similar systems to great effect.
― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2019 16:50 (one month ago) Permalink
i agree with Mordy in that, impressionistically, i buy warren getting stuff passed more than bernie. but that's not quite the same as his entire plan amounting to mass pressure on legislators, any more than anybody else who runs with ideas that aren't the current status quo. i also think that in a universe where bernie becomes president, congress and the conversation probably look differently than they do now. that's a hypothetical primary season and general election that swaps out a few more AOCs for conservative dems and flips some more seats from R to D. and the media conversation would be about an insurgent outsider that animated a previously unchanneled hunger, maybe that gets vaguely described as a hunger "for change" or "against the establishment" but everyone watching will have seen bernie yelling about the 1% and know what the mandate was for. and at least some smart politicians will figure their best bet will be to seem like they're on board and accomplishing something especially once their organized constituents are demanding them to declare where they stand on the BernieCare bill. (others will be positioning themselves as "cooler heads" wanting to make sure "we get the details right" or whatever.)
and i'm all in for the galvanizing new movements and new participants. that was the point of his 2016 run and it's already paid off. actually that campaign should be exhibit A against the idea that he can't head a successful organization or hire the right people. he made some missteps and could have done a lot of things much better (most obviously incorporating a critique of structural racism, the main way in which way warren has rocketed past him imho). but he basically accomplished everything i thought he set out to do and the Left-Wing Drift is way better off for it.
somehow it does feel as if bernie would be shooting for the New Deal, and the compromise version would be the post-New-Deal conservative coalition era from Truman to LBJ. warren feels like she's shooting for that latter era and the compromise version would be something less again. but i'm not actually versed enough in their current platforms to say whether that's true, whether it reflects rhetoric and energy more than policy (bernie is very well dialed into a sense that this is an emergency, that we've been ripped off and it's bullshit and it needs to change now), and/or whether that rhetoric-and-energy reflects sexist constraints on candidate posture (could warren be as fiery without being shut down as a ~crazy woman~) or my own internalized sexism in how i view/hear them. to be clear, at present (as of the student debt proposal and the televised town hall) i am a warren voter. i just think bernie gets a bad rap.
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 26 April 2019 16:52 (one month ago) Permalink
Mordy, don't keep us in suspense - what exactly is this critical mystery issue? (I'm assuming it's climate change and that it just fell out of the post partway through...)
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 26 April 2019 16:53 (one month ago) Permalink
i'd also prob prefer bernie as her running mate to her as his
sorry, maintaining a distinction mordy makes upthread-- i meant VP here, not running mate.
― difficult listening hour, Friday, 26 April 2019 16:53 (one month ago) Permalink
xp yes sorry thought that was obv
― Mordy, Friday, 26 April 2019 16:54 (one month ago) Permalink
this is ilx, people recognize a lot of existential threats. could have been about DMB fans for example.
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 26 April 2019 16:58 (one month ago) Permalink
look I don't like Buttigieg either but there's no need for hyperbole
― Simon H., Friday, 26 April 2019 17:00 (one month ago) Permalink
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 26 April 2019 17:11 (one month ago) Permalink
re: Corbyn, AFAICT he's actually been pretty successful at holding his party together given the various strains of chaos at work...― Simon H., Friday, 26 April 2019 16:33 (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yes and no - the party did splinter of course, though it's not been as big an issue as people maybe feared because the splitters are so politically inept not many other backbenchers have followed. there are still however massive internal fractures, the most visible manifestation of which are the recent manoeuvres by deputy leader tom watson. this has led to some disquiet in the membership with various CLPs passing motions of no confidence in TW. if a corbyn government is elected, it would face massive pressure from all sides from UK civic society... including from its own internal coalition of MPs and the detractors within the PLP. this is why there's a vocal strain of the membership who want the leadership to face down these people, democratise the party, and refresh the PLP
― ... and the crowd said DESELECT THEM (||||||||), Friday, 26 April 2019 17:36 (one month ago) Permalink
The mechanics of British parliamentary politics are so different from US duopolistic politics I can never come to grips with them, whereas foreigners living under parliamentary systems, like Fred, seem effortlessly to grasp all the intricacies of US politics firmly by the pinkie finger.
― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 26 April 2019 18:08 (one month ago) Permalink
Thanks Mordy, and others, I somehow missed this thread had new answers since I asked the question(s). Lot to take in here!
I can imagine being shifted from Bernie to Warren, but its very difficult to imagine being shifted to any of the others
― anvil, Friday, 26 April 2019 20:52 (one month ago) Permalink
― Simon H., Friday, 26 April 2019 21:05 (one month ago) Permalink
Fred seem effortlessly to grasp all the intricacies of US politics firmly by the pinkie finger.
New board description?
― Frederik B, Saturday, 27 April 2019 09:24 (one month ago) Permalink
The mechanics of British parliamentary politics are so different from US duopolistic politics I can never come to grips with them
Well its not about the intricacies of failing systems of governance, more that they fail in the first place, not how. Groups of people disagreeing, so many whose voices aren't heard, and so much failure to grapple with the issues...these are things that resonate on both sides of the pond.
Concentrating on mechanics is for nerds, basically.
― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 27 April 2019 11:17 (one month ago) Permalink
impressionistically, i buy warren getting stuff passed more than bernie.
I don’t really get this line of thinking - chances of a Dem Senate are extremely slim, and a Republican Senate will try to block everything either one proposes. It seems to me like the main question is who can rally public support and anger during the inevitable prolonged shutdowns and stonewalling of their agenda. My impression right now is that Bernie would me more successful in that arena.
― JoeStork, Saturday, 27 April 2019 19:57 (one month ago) Permalink
are they that slim though? i thought the CW was that 2020 was a better senate map for dems than 2018, and in a world where bernie wins that probably means high dem turnout. not saying it's something to bank on, but i do think it's possible that if someone beats trump in 2020 they will be able to pass legislation, and that the big challenge will be making sure all dems vote for that legislation (could imagine certain dem senators already salivating at the prospect of being their party's susan collins).
― |Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 27 April 2019 20:55 (one month ago) Permalink
shows 3 tossups (AL, CO, AZ), 5 lean dem (MI, NM, MN, VA, NH), 3 lean rep (NC, GA, and ME). dems need to keep their leans, win the 3 tossups, and one lean rep. or if they lose jones' AL seat, they'll need two lean rep seats. it'll be a challenge but i think if they can amass a turnout similar to 2018 they could grab CO, AZ, NC, and ME.
― be the 2 chainz you want 2 see in the world (m bison), Saturday, 27 April 2019 21:06 (one month ago) Permalink
GA sen becomes competitive to me only if abrams runs. likewise tx if joaquin castro runs.
― be the 2 chainz you want 2 see in the world (m bison), Saturday, 27 April 2019 21:07 (one month ago) Permalink
Means TV with a cute bit featuring some Pod Damn Venezuela podcasters...
All the U.S. media coverage of Venezuela: pic.twitter.com/LKdCARrUOg— MEANS TV (@means_tv) May 15, 2019
U.S. media coverage of Venezuela: 2/2w/ @feraljokes @melisshious @andersleehere pic.twitter.com/dBxbh3qjPu— MEANS TV (@means_tv) May 15, 2019
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 14:15 (one month ago) Permalink
The left has won the elections in Denmark, w/ Labour being the biggest party and enough left seats to form a coalition, aiui. But I'm hearing Labour won because of a tougher anti-immigration stance? Care to elaborate for us, Fred B?
― Uptown VONC (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 6 June 2019 09:51 (one week ago) Permalink
Yeah, it's a massive victory for the left of centre. The far right collapsed, DPP, the populist anti-immigration 'economic anxiety' type party suffered what seems to me to be the biggest collapse for any party in a 100 years, lost 12,4% and went from 21,1% to 8,7%. The Libertarian party collapsed as well, from 7,5% to 2,3%. It's true that 'Labour' (the Social Democrats) has moved to the right on immigration, and the leader underlined that fact a lot in her victory speech, but the result is that they've stayed steady, and every other left wing party has had a huge increase. Except for the far left, the party I vote for :( So all in all, a good evening, and the voters has pretty conclusively rejected the alliance of small government libertarianism and harsh immigration policy, which has basically dominated the country for twenty years at this point. in the end, it was unstable, the racists wanted bigger government, not smaller, just only for whites, so it can't work anymore. We'll see what happens, I don't expect the country to become a multiculturalist utopia, it's too far gone for that (a party of pretty straight up nazis/alt-right 4chan weirdoes very nearly made it into parliament) but I do think the consensus has been shattered. We'll see.
― Frederik B, Thursday, 6 June 2019 09:59 (one week ago) Permalink
Thanks for that! This is all good news, esp the DPP's disintegration. With the far right on the rise in Sweden I thought perhaps it might stay that way in Denmark too, but I'm glad I made the wrong assumption. I read a profile about Mattias Tesfaye here, his story seems to have caught the media's attention. Frederiksen will be your youngest ever PM no?
― Uptown VONC (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 6 June 2019 11:59 (one week ago) Permalink
She's probably the youngest at 41, yeah. But not by a lot. I'm not sure what happened to Tesfaye?
― Frederik B, Thursday, 6 June 2019 12:57 (one week ago) Permalink
They profiled him as a "popular" politician under both Danes-by-birth and immigrants because of his half-Ethiopian background. He's in the running for integration minister? It was a bit of a "succesful immigrant" story (even though he's from Arhus iirc).
― Uptown VONC (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 6 June 2019 13:04 (one week ago) Permalink
before we rushing to push our narratives on the Danish election results, it's important to remember the impact of local factors in Sunderland— James (@Gilofthepeople) June 5, 2019
― xyzzzz__, Thursday, 6 June 2019 13:18 (one week ago) Permalink
Oh, okay, I didn't know that, I honestly thought he was still a Socialist. Mep. Too many young socialists move to the right.
― Frederik B, Thursday, 6 June 2019 13:53 (one week ago) Permalink
America's appetite for "big government" is at a 68-year-high. But the electorate's liberal mood may prove less durable and consequential than the leftward shift in elite economic opinion, after a decade of humiliations for center/right orthodoxy. https://t.co/1Z9phzvybk— Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) June 8, 2019
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 8 June 2019 19:10 (one week ago) Permalink
The elites who matter most got massively wealthy during those "decades of humiliation" and those elites are still gung-ho for the orthodoxy that further enriches and empowers them. I predict that all those endowments the rich made to subsidize conservative economists, whether in universities or 'think tanks', will continue to serve their purpose by ensuring a steady supply of center/right orthodoxy, promulgated by well-fed economists who know enough not to bite the hand that feeds them. Eric Levitz sounds like a Sunday NYT feature writer looking for a crazy new "trend" he can be the first to discover.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 9 June 2019 03:41 (one week ago) Permalink