Democratic (Party) Direction

Not really!

Harsh but accurate.

Open goal tbf

sayin

Who is a Libby, is she famous?

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Wednesday, October 24, 2018 10:51 AM (four days ago)

her grandfather is a legendary medical columnist. him > her tho I like libby too

But many Democratic candidates in the country’s most hard-fought congressional districts barely talk about the president. They feel that he is loathed enough on the left that they don’t need to throw red meat to raise money or attract volunteers. They’re worried that, if they spend their time attacking Trump, voters won’t know what they stand for. And they’re trying to woo moderates who want a check on the president without more gridlock or divisiveness.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/10/29/daily-202-democrats-tiptoe-around-trump-in-house-races-that-will-decide-majority/5bd66eb51b326b38c0be123c/?utm_term=.a9a060367d3d&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

And they’re trying to woo moderates

like trying to coax a frightened cat out of a tree by talking baby talk at it.

The writer of the article (who does the Washington Post's Daily 202 column every day) is obsessed with moderates and with centrist dems

lmao love you boo

The thing I don’t get about the President’s executive order on citizenship is that it seems to me this will mobilize voters against the GOP more than mobilize supporters of the GOP.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) October 30, 2018

The Hill is very, very good at what it does. (The lie is that Democrats didn’t actually say that.) https://t.co/cSxN7bISeH

— All Hallow’s Eve Not All Hallow’s Steve (@agraybee) October 30, 2018

i've spent the last day trying to figure out what this tweet thinks "the Democrats" "said" when the excerpt doesn't attribute anything to that subject or that verb, unless they're zeroing in really hard on "sure, we'll lower student interest rates"

The lie seems to be that this is the article The Hill published: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/411766-dems-damp-down-hopes-for-climate-change-agenda And there's nothing about the DNC. The story is that Dems don't think they can get sweeping Climate Change legislation passed with Trump as president, and therefore plans to do more piecemeal legislation. Climate Change was a big part of the 2016 platform: https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

i know i'm supposed to remain positive about stuff because there are many degrees of awful, and giving up means reaching new levels of rock bottom, over and over, until finally realizing that we can't give up, but

we are fucked

i figured that geoengineering bullshit would be the natural "strategy" for humanity to gravitate toward, and this is how we end up with that as the only choice

nothing's gonna pass with Trump as president but I think there's bipartisan hope for this type of approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens%27_Climate_Lobby

i've been following CCL and the fee and dividend idea for a really long time. it makes total sense to me and it would be a good foundation. but i can't help think that believing that there are republicans who would really end up supporting it is like charlie brown and the football. there were also republicans who pretended to support cap and trade (which makes sense because it's a conservative idea). when it came down to it, they decided to focus their attention on al gore flying in private planes while angry old people with bad breath wore revolutionary war costumes in the street.

of course, climate change is much more than the united states. Bolsonaro v. the Amazon could more than erase any progress made by the rest of the world, and there will be absolutely no reasoning with him.

but i can't help think that believing that there are republicans who would really end up supporting it is like charlie brown and the footbal

there is already a bipartisan caucus supporting the bill. for any new members to join, they have to bring a member of the other party.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/

90 fucking members

(for those who don't know, the overly simple version of fee and dividend is: 1) put a price on carbon in the form of a tax, which will be passed onto consumers. 2) consumers and industries will gravitate toward products and consumption patterns that use less carbon, but since 3) this would have a regressive effect on the non-rich, because a greater percentage of their income would be lost to the carbon tax, 4) return an equal amount of the proceeds from the carbon tax to each person in the united states (this is the dividend). so maybe the average person in the united states pays $4000 a year in carbon taxes (i made that up), but at the end of the year, they get a check for $4500. meanwhile, al gore pays $194,220 in carbon taxes a year, and also gets a check for $4500 at the end of the year. this creates an incentive for everyone to live less carbon-intensively, because if you live an environmentally friendly life you could actually come out ahead. it also has the benefit of not fucking over poor people. there are also other versions of fee and dividend where part of the dividend goes toward clean energy, tech, etc.)

sorry, i just assume there are many lurkers on ILX and not everyone knows what it is. anyway, all of that sounds fantastic to me! however, here's the overly simple version of how the congressional debate might go, once there seems to be a handful of republican senators who might vote for it: 1) fee and dividend! it's a way to address climate change without fucking over poor people! 2) GOP: wait...but we like fucking over poor people. and also...aren't we Taxed Enough Already? Party! 3) but no, see you get the money back at the end of the year, so it's not regres- 4) you mean a government handout? for the climate change hoax? you're giving poor people money? for what?! do they have to prove they're working? that's lazy! government handout 5) no, becaus- 6) SOCIALISTS! the same amount of money goes to everyone, regardless of how many small businesses they own?! 7)GOP: how about this compromise that the american enterprise institute did a study on: the dividend doesn't go to people anymore, it goes to clean coal, and also border walls to protect against climate migrants. we do believe the climate is changing, but people aren't causing it, BUT people are trying to move because of it so we should build a wall. isn't that reasonable? 8) beer summit

the "bipartisan"/revenue-neutral carbon tax fee initiative failed in WA two years ago because progressives do not get excited about revenue neutral measures. I suspect this cycle's initiative, which instead of offsetting other taxes actually spends money on things stakeholder groups lobbied for, will succeed. bipartisanship is stupid

lol karl

for any new members to join, they have to bring a member of the other party.

That seems stupid and doomed to fail. They should make it more like a frat party entry ratio -- one republican for every two democrats or something like that.

new from Mike Konczal, on a tripartite agenda for the post-16 Dems:

- Freedom from Poverty (expand and strengthen core programs, focus on creating and expanding free and universal programs, reverse the carceral stance the government has taken in recent decades, program expansions should be public),
- Freedom from Corporate Power (defend global taxation & expand levies on capital gains income, financial transactions, performance pay, and the top marginal tax rate; a 21st century anti-trust act; reviving the notion of public utility)
- Freedom for Workers (make full and secure employment an explicit goal and governing strategy; programs that broaden the availability and security of work; argue for a broader social safety net — including such programs as a child allowance)

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/democrats-must-become-the-party-of-freedom

thoughts on that, hoos? i would like to dive into that now, but will have to wait a couple days...

IMO the very top priorities for dems should be:

1) Reforms to improve voting -- repeal voter ID laws, fix gerrymandering, oversight over boards of elections so polling places don't get removed, fix registration/end purges, etc.
2) Find a way to repair the damage done by GOP tax cuts (a plan to raise taxes again with the least political fallout possible)
3) Weaken the Supreme Court -- this is harder, but maybe limiting their jurisdiction in certain key areas like labor
4) Repeal or modify the federal arbitration act
5) Strengthen unions

These are all meta/structural changes that I believe are necessary in order to enable democrats to make broader changes in the future and to maintain power, and they must be done soon

yeah jamelle bouie was saying that the civil rights axis seems to be missing here and that feels right to me, though i see space to include at least some requisite elements of that under these rubrics as written -- e.g. expanded and strengthened voting rights as a corollary of freedom from corporate power. this approach obviously opens the wormcan of maligned 'colorblind social programs,' though I sat in on a presentation from Demos who've done some really useful research here that suggests a framing like this threads the needle:

No matter where we come from or what our color, most of us work hard for our families.

But today, certain politicians and their greedy lobbyists hurt everyone by handing kickbacks to the rich, defunding our schools, and threatening our seniors with cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Then they turn around and point the finger for our hard times at poor families, Black people, and new immigrants.

We need to join together with people from all walks of life to fight for our future, just like we won better wages, safer workplaces, and civil rights in our past.

By joining together, we can elect new leaders who work for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

Some of this seems to be about messaging as much as / maybe even more than actual policy. Which is fine, we need good messaging. In my ideal world there would be more overt class politics in that messaging. "Freedom" is nice but vague and used equally asmuch by the right.

I think "colorblind social programs" are unfairly maligned tbh, and also not sure what the difference is between that and "universal" programs which is a term I think is much better (why even say "colorblind" unless you are maligning them?). The history that often gets brought up to malign such programs is actually about programs that were expressly NOT applied in a colorblind way.

They could at least have made a 'Freedom from Discrimination' subsection.

haha yes i was using colorblind as the term of art for those who'd malign

I think making messaging expressly anti-racist is a good idea. I just don't think anti-racism provides any modicum of justification for not promoting universal programs or making class a significant part of politics.

well, class is racialized in the US. to leave race out of the discussion, imo, can betray a missing piece of understanding about the nature of class in america, e.g. that it's bound up with anti-blackness. and people hear that, i think, hear that hole, when racism is rhetorically glossed over.

x-post: But who on earth thinks that?

Hillary Clinton

Lol

http://inthesetimes.com/images/made/images/Hillary_Clinton_Banks_Racism_Sexism_Wall_Street_Presidential_campaign_2016_850_593.jpg

Sigh. That does not say what man alive said.

yes it does

this rules

I think anti-racist messaging needs to be done extremely carefully. It can be done in an inspiring, inclusive way (cf the Civil Rights movement) and it can be done in an alienating, antagonistic way (most contemporary identity appeals). It would probably be a good idea to return to colorblindness as an aspirational goal (though not as a whitewash of actual racism). We want to get to a place in our society where people are judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. Sadly this might mean easing off the "white men" are evil discourses.

Sanders' campaign lost to a large extent because he couldn't connect with black voters, he talked too much about class and not enough about race. Clinton was not saying that you should never talk about class, she was saying she wasn't a 'single issue candidate', which is true* and the results of the following primaries seemed to back up her allegations. If your claim is that Sanders 16 was the right balance of class and identity, then get ready to lose again in 2020.

*she was a 'no issue candidate', ba-dum-tjij

I just don't think anti-racism provides any modicum of justification for not promoting universal programs or making class a significant part of politics.

It's not that anti-racism justifies avoiding universal programs, it's that a focus on universal programs without explicitly accounting for racial disparities that they'd play a part in rectifying has the practical effect of sweeping those disparities rhetorically under the rug, and in my observation when the messenger is white that sweeping arouses suspicion and distrust.

And maybe it goes without saying, but arguments for ostensibly 'universal' programs that actually only benefit the locally privileged are a hallmark of the fascist right

fwiw I think "freedom" being owned by the right is a good reason TO reclaim it. "freedom from" language is very powerful and meaningful/relevant to people's lives. freedom from want, freedom from fear. that is a reasonable banner under which to capture all kinds of stuff that is already in any progressive platform, and including stuff that may not drive ppl to the polls but is essential to correcting our rapid slide towards doom.

Sanders' campaign lost to a large extent because he couldn't connect with black voters, he talked too much about class and not enough about race.

wrong

Clinton was not saying that you should never talk about class,

wrong

next

And maybe it goes without saying, but arguments for ostensibly 'universal' programs that actually only benefit the locally privileged are a hallmark of the fascist right

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, November 2, 2018 10:43 AM (twenty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is that really true? I'm actually not familiar with that argument -- what are you referring to?

I would be curious if Clinton ever even used the word "class" in her speeches. Usually when people claim she was "economically progressive" they point to stuff like job retraining.

In 1936, for example, the economic program of the French Social Party included shorter working hours and vacations with pay for “loyal” workers but not for “disloyal” ones, and benefits were to be assigned by employers, not the government. The Nazi “Strength Through Joy” program, which provided subsidies for vacations and other leisure activities for workers, operated on similar principles.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Conservative-economic-programs

Mussolini “instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed.” A. James Gregor, the author of Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship, described fascist Italy’s spending on social welfare programs as comparing “favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive.” When New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian fascism in 1939, the reply was: “It is like your New Deal!”

The Nazis felt the same way. In Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s “Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany, 1933-1939”, the author referred to how the Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, “stressed ‘Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,’ praising the president’s style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler’s own dictatorial Führerprinzip”.

You can even see Joseph Goebbels hailing the New Deal in this Youtube clip.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/27/the-political-economy-of-fascism/

I guess I always thought that stuff was a result of their attempts to coopt left policy, but I need to read up on it more. Also I don't think the libertarian/anti-statist right was anywhere near as much of a force back then.

might be on a continuum with things like how at-a-glance "universal" programs in the US have in many cases disproportionately benefited whites - plenty on this out there, but i'm thinking of e.g. FHA-backed mortgages after WWII where most high school history textbooks are not going to mention redlining, restrictive covenants, nonavailability of mortgages to renovate existing property etc., which made the program de facto white. or at the same time how social housing steadily lost support as it lost implicit or explicit "don't worry this will mainly be for carefully-screened aka white and normative families" rhetoric and policy.

i think we talked abt this stuff a bunch when bernie was running cause there were a lot of pieces pointing out fairly that this kind of problem is why a race-blind class analysis doesn't work in the US and (one of the many reasons) why previous welfare efforts failed to really change income and wealth disparities between white and nonwhite. see also "the case for reparations" etc. etc.

I actually think Fred B is otm there man alive - certainly I wouldn't read that quote as saying "let's not talk about class" - she'd be pretty bad at taking her own advice if that was the case:

The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all of the kindergarten teachers in America combined. That’s not acceptable.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 26, 2016