I have an essay out for Persuasion on how a lack of rigor prevents students from accessing one of the most important elements of education, learning what they’re not good at.
I think we need a combination of managed immigration and a cessation of interventialist policies in Central and South America that cause would-be immigrants to flee their own countries.
The professional managerial class in this country, of which the Dem leadership is a part*, cannot fail. It can only be failed. People with utterly dismal track records remain respected national figures. Meanwhile people who live in the real world, by their fruits we know them. If your plumber one day lavishly floods your house, you're going to claim insurance and you're probably not going to hire him again. If you plunge the nation into ruinous wars, or recessions, you face absolutely no consequences whatsoever.
*this is not to excuse the Republicans, but at least Jeb had the decency to disappear after 2016. Disappear into a big Scrooge McDuck golden mansion, but disappear nonetheless.
You mentioned it earlier, but for me the biggest obstacle to a better politics, where failures are punished, is mainly the media (part of the PMC, for sure). Until that gets sorted out, which I think it will, we are going to be plagued with losers especially with the Dems. The GOP gets refreshed more regularly because they are treated harshly by the press, but unfortunately they get refreshed with someone like Trump because it isn't honest criticism.
I think most people in the USA believe the current neoliberal/neocon track will get most/all of us killed.
But the PMC seems to be an exception.
But the *useful* thing about "woke" is that it's sufficently-polarizing issue as to make the bases of both parties and swing voters "cheap dates". And thus the country spins about its neoliberal/neocon axis.
I disagree completely. The vast majority of people either don't think about this stuff or don't think about it in terms of any long-term trend, including annihilation.
In the US, at least the left can cling to "Bernie would have won". Over here in the UK we made our Bernie – a white-haired Pure Socialist who's never been wrong in 40 years of politics, according to his supporters – leader of the opposition and he contested two elections in four years. Jeremy Corbyn didn't win the first, and Jeremy Corbyn resoundingly lost the second. But, like Trumpists, his supporters believe it was only betrayal, only the media, only the benighted misled public who caused him to fail and still hold his torch. Jeremy Would Have Won.
I was a Bernie supporter in 2016, and a volunteer for the campaign in 2020. I agree though that he shouldn't run again, and I'm a little tired of hearing of or from him. Yes, the left needs a new champion.
I think arguably Barack Obama benefitted from his status as a racial minority in all sorts of unexpected ways. There is at least anecdotal evidence that desperate white working class voters chose him because they felt that his race made him an outsider and the candidate more likely to challenge the status quo.
Labelling it as such at least frames it accurately. But it doesn’t render it false either. To assume the assertion is insignificant or even false you have to account for the fact that he won against a couple of GOP establishment insiders and four years later a much less charismatic candidate with an inflated reputation lost on a technicality to the ultimate rogue outsider.
I feel like people forget what was happening in the fall of 2008 under a Republican president. The world economy was on the brink of collapse. Any Democrat would have won.
There is probably a significant number of voters who defected to Trump after voting for Obama and there is speculation that the significant common factor between the two is their perceived status as outsiders.
I think the biggest common factor between the two is their shared open opposition to illegal immigration from Mexico.
Barack Obama: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
I agree he benefited from his race, but for a different reason. It meant that he got an automatic pass with most progressives so he didn’t have to go too far left during the primary. Now de-criminalizing illegal immigration, an insanely unpopular view with the country at large is a purity test. Obama never had to face that kind of pressure.
I would agree with that to a point. Obama was an extremely adroit politican who carefully concealed his true nature (he was a dyed-in-the-wool Washington Consensus supporter) until he was in office. He was able to play Barbara Ehrenreich for a fool!
But Obama's polling lead was eroding up until mid-September when the 2008 Financial Collapse hit and the GOP was holding the bag. I think that - more than anything else - sealed the deal for him.
I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think there's much compelling evidence to suggest that Democrat candidates suffer as a result of being women or non-white. The US's sitting Vice President is a woman of mixed Indian and Jamaican descent. The US had an African-American President for two terms. Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren came third in the 2020 primaries. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Of members of Congress, 151 are women and 137 are non-white.
I think for sure they can pay a penalty for race and sex in a general election, but some of the excesses of their progressive politics are the bigger barrier.
Hmm. I think the excesses are definitely a problem (I mean, I have lost faith in the Squad/AOC and feel quite saddened by it honestly. But there’s a certain sometimes subtle sometimes not undertone to the AOC hatred though that I have a problem with…) but I’m not sure it outweighs a deeply held discomfort many Americans feel towards women and people of colour in positions of political power. I think the discomfort is often voiced in well reasoned thoughts about these excesses but I often wonder if that’s really the true fixation - I just think there’s more complexity that we deny because it’s easy, convenient and a way to reason with our own biases and issues.
I don’t deny it. I think sexism has always worked against Hillary. But AOC’s recent GQ interview in which she revealed that part of why she didn’t report her rapist was because she’s a prison abolitionist isn’t going to win any hearts and minds among feminists, never mind the wider population.
Not op, but I was coming to make this point anyway. I think they absolutely do pay such a penalty. But I think the argument as you put it in the piece seems to lead straightforwardly to something like “to come to power, the left will need to be led or figureheaded by a white man.”
I DON’T think that’s what you probably mean, but I also think it’s a good faith extension of the argument as you’ve made it in this piece. I’m also genuinely curious where you find the break in that logical chain*, or if it comes down to “the left just has to not be an asshole about it.”
*which tbf I should explicitly lay out: if by dint of their non-white-man qualities the squad are unelectable, and this is a general condition of relevant politics, it follows that the left would want a white man champion (if it wants to win => ~unelectable).
I think it’s logically possible to think that those headwinds along with the specific and potentially amplified headwinds associated with a leftist candidate would be overwhelming in a way that they weren’t for Obama. Articulated that way I’m not sure I agree (but it’s also a slightly different argument now), in particular because I think Obama got a fair amount of juice in ‘08 by being perceived as more left wing than he was.
But of course he also had 3/4 of a billion in fundraising against a candidate who stuck with the public funding of about half that; there’s widely an idea that the sense of moment there was exhausted by it and the Obama presidency such that it can’t be replicated, and so on and so on.
FWIW I think there’s a just-believable-enough not to laugh off path for AOC to the presidency IF she can win the primary AND keep the party from splitting off into a major centrist faction (Bloomberg spoiler campaign); but I also think that’s not worth doing because having a leftist president without a congress would be borderline useless, and certainly a poor use of her talent. But that’s now fully aside from my original q, too.
>it follows that the left would want a white man champion (if it wants to win => ~unelectable).
For the record I think this is basically correct. I think that being black or hispanic means getting more penalized for being more on the left, and I think there's just generally a being a lady penalty.
Not insurmountable, but they make things harder. I think gender-flipped Hillary Clinton pulls it out in 2016, for example.
All of which is to say, let's hope Fetterman hangs on in Pennsylvania. Fetterman 28 or 32 would be possible then, but he has to have a win before then.
Do they though? Republicans don't really seem to have a problem voting for women or minorities as long as they have sufficient reactionary politics. I mean Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal. In the general election Hillary one the majority of the votes despite being not liked personally and Obama won twice.
I can’t remember where, but there’s been some interesting research into how conservative/republican aligned women are viewed more favorably than liberal/democratic aligned women candidates.
It's almost certain that women and PoC candidates pay a price due to sexism and racism across some part of the voter demographic, and it's also almost certain that their race/gender work in their favor across another part of it. To my thinking, it's a question of which outweighs the other on net.
Perhaps they are also more likely to *be* radicals if they’re Dems. The Squad’s social media presence certainly fuels that image, regardless of what their voting record may indicate.
The Obamas certainly endured this kind of ridiculous radicals-in-sheep’s-clothing framing from a certain deranged segment of the population despite clearly being centrists in practice. But not enough people actually believed it to vote him out of office.
The recent slew of "Biden shouldn't run again" pieces in solidly blue Acela Corridor, Professional Managerial Class targeted media outlets suggests there's already some old fashioned Kreminology underway to determine a successor on the ballot - Mayor Pete? Kamala? Who knows, but the knives are out.
And spoiler alert - nobody else in America actually wants these people to run for president again.
I'm waiting to see what else Ocasio-Cortez does. She definitely does not stay in the House for the rest of her life. The issue is there's nowhere for her to go in New York politics. Schumer is "only" 71, is running for reelection this year, and will most likely run for reelection in 2028 and probably 2034. Does Ocasio-Cortez want to be in the House until 2034 or 2040?
Gillibrand is even younger and could plausibly serve in the Senate for the next 30 years.
AOC will wind up running a faux social justice lifestyle brand or an activist group that mostly specializes in getting herself attention (ahem, women’s march). She has no appetite for actual work and her main talent is self-promotion. I can’t see her going anywhere beyond the House in politics, and she’ll never be in leadership because most of her colleagues can’t stand her.
Who are you referring to - women? Yeah, we know her type and don’t care for it. I’d hardly call that being driven crazy, but I guess this is the best rejoinder you’ve got?
She's more of a political influencer than a politician. I had high hopes for her in the beginning but she's been disappointing at every turn. I hate Twitter clout-chasers sooooo much. Can not imagine having one as president.
I think this was an interesting piece but mostly academic. As you note, Bernie definitely won't run if Biden runs (which seems more likely than not). And I think even if Biden does not run, Bernie isn't going to do it.
What he might do is put his weight behind a progressive candidate (assuming no Biden). No idea who that would be.
I think there is a 20% chance Bernie runs. It seems like he is angling that way in some of the media he puts out and there were a few press articles. Myself, I hope he runs.
The question is what is the inflation rate in 2024 and what is the unemployment rate? If you see both right around 6% I think that's a substantial impediment to any incumbent's re-election campaign. There is precedent in Johnson deciding to retire because circumstances on the ground probably made his re-election impossible.
I think Sanders is a good guy. But it needs to be pointed out that during the 2016 primary, when it was clear he would lose to Hillary Clinton, he said "She can't win without superdelegates".
That wasn't technically a lie, because the race was very close. If *all* of the superdelegates had voted for Sanders he would have won the nomination, despite the fact that he'd won fewer elected delegates than Clinton. (That's why superdelegates are bad! The nominee should be the candidate with the most popular support.)
But Bernie knew perfectly well that some of his less well-informed supporters would misinterpret his comment to mean that he had more elected delegates than she did, and that the superdelegates had used their votes to flip the outcome. Lots of people on the left still believe that, which made it a deeply irresponsible thing to say.
Meh. I support proportional representation, and if we had it I don't think there would be any reason for political parties to let the public have a say in their choice of candidates. If you think Kellogg's corn flakes have too much sugar you don't call for a referendum to change the recipe, you just try another brand of corn flakes.
In practice you can't get rid of the R/D duopoly without changing the electoral system, so until that happens it would be a bad idea to let party elites do their candidate selections internally. There has to be some public input, otherwise the dominant parties would have too much freedom to ignore what voters actually want.
But the American primary system really does suck... just not for the reasons that some Bernie supporters think it sucks.
It’s specifically annoying as a complaint against Hillary. Whatever one might say about her, she won more primary votes than Obama and lost. Then she won 3 million more votes than Trump and lost. If anyone has gotten screwed by the vagaries of the electoral system, it’s Hillary Clinton. The grievances of the Bernie fans can’t remotely compare. And no, I’m not a particular fan of hers.
The only primary I've ever voted in was 2016. I voted for Bernie. What can I say? I thought (and still think) income inequality is our biggest issue.
And I fucking HATE the Superdelegate system. Let the people decide on their own.
But I also can't stand the Squad. They've gone all in on what you call Social Justice Politics, and anyone peddling that crap simply isn't getting my vote. Sorry.
partially the internet partially the push towards a human capital economy and one where skills like "teamwork" and "presentation" and clerical skills are prized above all else. This leads to lots of "affirming" of people and "you're so valid-ifying" or things which is a destructuive trend
The Culture War/Counter-Culture War is the opiate of the masses in that it conveniently enables both parties to avoid enacting economic changes that are largely popular.
John Mearsheimer and Andrew Bacevich (both well known in FP circles) are both conservatives and both very-vocally supported Sanders for that same reason.
Exactly. Which created a moment when many voters across the social spectrum wanted an alternative. The Iraq disaster also contributed to that desperation. Then Obama produced a performance that left them feeling disillusioned. But before that no one thought he’d eventually fit the description of “fat Elvis of neo-liberalism”(many thanks to Matt Taibi for that unforgettable descrition).
One of the most disappointing aspects of the Democratic party, at the national level, is the lack of charisma and inspirational leadership on the bench. We shouldn't expect the hangers-on of the Boomer and Silent Generations to quietly back into the shrubbery of retirement. I really think we need an age cap and term limites for members of Congress, the White House and all Federal Judges.
The Democrats are “centrist” and the Republicans “far right”? Putting aside the fact that these labels no longer mean anything, this notion is a fairy tale and surprisingly out of touch. Tulsi Gabbard is right.
I think that the average Democratic voter is probably "centrist" as is virtually every republican I know (Aside from some Mormon friends, exactly none of them support banning abortion). The issue is that the Democratic PARTY has become toxic to centrists, including me. A friend texted me a few years ago saying "When the Democrats chase off a couple of commie, pinko fags like you and me, who's left?" NOTE: All terms I was called for years based on my politics, and all terms I wore with pride. You're right about Sanders, and it's a shame, because he and Rand Paul are basically the last honest politicians in America. There's much I disagree with on both their sides, but they're not lying or gaslighting everybody all the time.
I agree. My point was that the term “centrist” commonly evokes a sense of reasonability, fairness, balance, etc. —maybe not to some, but still—while the term “far right” is used to mean evil, fascist, extreme, etc.
I get that Freddie was using these terms more literally, but the language still plays into the harmful fairy tale myth that the Democratic Party is sane and “normal” while republicans (or literally anyone else who disagrees with them) are evil “far right” boogeymen.
Compared to parties in any of our peer countries, yes. By first world standards, the greens are a reasonable left party, and the dems are to the right of many of the more popular conservative options.
How much of the idpol stuff is actually issues, as opposed to rhetoric? We talk differently about some of this stuff now, but are Biden's policies really any different than Obama's?
Can you say more here? I'm not aware of anything like that that is even legal.
>gender affirmation mandates
Can you give an example? Certainly we talk about this stuff, but I can't readily think of where policy might come into play.
>He also tried for a whole bunch of dumb shit in BBB that Obama would have had the sense to throw cold water on.
I think you underestimate how ambitious Obama was, especially early on. OTOH, I will concede that 2012 Obama knew he wasn't getting anything else big done, so it's probably true that 2020 Biden was to his left.
It's reasonable to say that Biden would be considered a right-leaning CDU-type in Germany in terms of his economic policies.
Right now - leftist parties are only significant factors in the Global South. In the last 20-30 years they have lost support across most of Europe. It's enitrely possible that a winter of freezing to death in the dark due to adherence to the USA's dismal foregin policy might yet give them a shot in the arm in that region - but for the moment that's just speculation.
Freddie is correct. The political center of the Democratic party is not - for example - to the left of the CDU in Germany.
In the grand, global scheme of things you could probably define a 1-10 scale where a Marxist-Leninist is a "1" and Michael Flynn is a "10" and Bernie Sanders is probably - at most - a 3.5.
Reluctantly agree with you Freddie, I think his time has unfortunately passed. Although I would say his influence and legacy will remain for a long while. I don't like a lot of the alternatives either, but someone has to pick up his mantle...sooner rather than later.
Bernie will go down as one of the great "what if's" of early 21st century American politics.
Let's say the Boomers and Silent Generation hangers-on decide to think about the good of the country instead of their egos and retire/die en masse in 2030. Gen Xers in office will be pushing against the late 60s and will have probably stopped caring at this point, Millennials will be in their 40s having mid-life crises and writing articles about themselves having mid-life crises, meanwhile Zoomers will still be whinging about the lack life-work balance at their hot-desking job. I think we just need to let AI take over at that point.
I've heard of the game but never played any of them. The problem with our political system of letting Federal politicians and judges age/die out of their position is that it calcifies the political system and breeds complacency for those in power. They have no reason to give it up and no reason to pass the baton, or learn anything new which is why we have so much political disfunction in this country.
Correct on all three points, but I think a bit too generous to the Squad. There are reasons they don’t inherit the mantle of Bernie beyond sexism and racism.
First, they’ve embraced fashionable social politics (on immigration and policing, for example) that Bernie always understood to be untenable. He’s too old and has too much sense to fall for Twitter policy fads.
Second, the prominence of Ocasio-Cortez really detracts from Bernie’s brand of authenticity. Nobody could credibly accuse Bernie of champagne socialism or self-absorption. I liked AOC at first, but she’s got some pronounced narcissistic tendencies - glamour shots, constant pity plays, crying on the floor of the house, allergy to actual work. She’s not alone among her generation and certainly not among politicians, but it’s harder for me to stomach in a symbol of the left. (It also grates on a personal level because she embodies negative stereotypes of young women.) How I wish Ayanna Pressley were the front woman instead.
What do people think of Jared Polis? I know he’s a zillionaire, but he made his money from electronic greeting cards and flower retail, which is pretty low down the corporate villain list. Would Americans vote for a gay Jew?
Correct. Willie must have been pretty happy, since she got fast tracked to Senator, and those spots rarely open up in any state. Feinstein being Exhibit A.
She's gotten by initially on her looks (thanks, Willie), and then on pure media hype. She didn't get a single delegate (maybe one or two) before flaming out of the Dem 2020 primary, despite being the chosen one at the get go (Obama influence? IDK).
She flat out calls Biden a racist (I know, big deal these days everyone and everything is RACIST), and he picks her to be his VEEP. Politics are strange.
Bill Clinton was an absolute disaster for the left, though. And for the country in general. No, thanks, no Bill Clinton Mark II. As Freddie says, what we need someone young-ish who can credibly take up the Bernie banner.
Here's what I think a winning platform would like:
* Strong anti-trust (also strong anti-corruption - e.g. let's ban stock trades). This needs to include sectors like housing, too.
* Pro-labor stance
* Rather than forgiving student debt, would commit to cracking down on college costs (e.g colleges behaving like VC funds, investing in real estate) and allow student debt to be discharged into bankruptcy
* Much stronger position on healhcare reforms
* Generous, but ultimately managed, immigration
* Reign-in the financial sector; focus on the "real economy" (e.g. farming, manufacturing)
* Foregin policy restraint (get rid of the Blob). Closes a lot of those overseas bases.
* Tax the rich by taxing passive income streams at a much higher rate than earned income
* Acknowleges the need for fossil fuels as a bridge fuel. Embraces nuclear power while continuing to try to build green energy supply chains.
* No talk of "defund the police" but push for common-sense gun control
* In favor of reproductive rights.
Both our current economic and foregin policy positions are unsustainable - there's no going back to 1995.
I don't think it's a sure thing that Trump will run for the nomination again in 2024.
Having said that, nobody should rule out the possibility that he doesn't run for the nomination but shows up to the RNC convention in the summer of 2024 *asking* to be named the nominee!
This too. I think that "wokifying" is a combination of overblown and justified, but we've completely fucked the dog on the messaging here. We're going to get our asses kicked for a few years until we either get a better handle on the issue or drop it.
The problem with "woke" and the Culture War, in general, is that it makes a convenient wedge issue for Dem and GOP bases. Thus, it enables the Democrats to campaign on a fairly-hollow anti-racism platform while not offering real economic reforms.
Fetterman, if he can hang on in his Senate run. Warren, in a theoretical sort of way, but she isn't good enough. She can win the college educated manager class, but that's about it.
A bunch of people no one has ever heard of will toss their hats into the ring in 2024, like Pete did last cycle. If one of them has some of Bernie's charisma and policies, he could inherit that base. Probably the next Bernie is someone we haven't heard of.
Me too. I was pretty sanguine about him a month ago, but he's been trending the wrong way. Maybe he pulls it out, but at this I'm hoping for that rather than believing it. But I think he's pretty good, just in a difficult year. If he hangs on I think he'll be able to camp there, or move up if he wants.
>Warren has some of the worst political instincts I've ever witnessed and only appeals to girlboss identitarians.
Warren is great. Super-left wonk. Well suited to win house elections in districts containing large universities, or the Senate seat in a handful of very left states. Doesn't have much appeal past her base.
(which is just me repeating what you said with nice words because I like her)
Maybe? Computer programmer, and like many of my people I'm fairly socially awkward, so I don't manage anyone. I don't know if we're considered professional or not. On the one hand, I'm a keyboard warrior, but on the other, there's no professional organization who acts as gatekeeper. Anyhow, I'm honestly not sure how we're usually classified.
Warren isn't all that popular in her home state. The Massachusetts economy is largely driven by IP & healthcare rent-seeking - a lot of her platform positions aren't a comfortable fit for that.
The future of the party in Massachusetts is (unfortunately) - Seth Moulton.
Well, get elected to some political position, and in six years run for president. It's doesn't have to be a *big* position. Mayor of a mid-sized city will do the job, if you're good on the trail. Congress would probably be better, if you can manage.
Unfortunately Bernie saw which way the wind was blowing and reversed his previous stance on immigration. You can't be an immigration restrictions - in fact you can't be anything but massively pro-immigration - and win a Democratic primary.
I was going to mention that but I'm already a one-note race poster so I tried to exercise some restraint.
He debased himself and he debased his movement that day. I would still have supported him in the general over Trump, but reluctantly. But of course he lost so between Trump and Clinton I didn't even flinch before making my decision.
There's no question that "2016 Bernie Sanders" >>> "2020 Bernie Sanders".
I didn't vote for Trump in 2020 - but seeing how Biden is handling the Russia-Ukraine situation - I'm actually feeling remorse. The threat of nuclear annihilation is kind of important to me.
Arguably his most "extreme" position vis-a-vis the liberal consensus* is that he doesn't want to fully abolish ICE, just reform it. Otherwise it's open border boilerplate shared with every other Dem.
*not synonymous with Dem consensus, since as Freddie points out only half of Dems are self-identified liberal.
What exactly is the leftist argument against open borders? Certainly there are practical and political reasons to at least publicly oppose the idea, but I stuggle to conjure an idea of equality (which grounds at least MY leftism) that somehow doesn't cover people in other countries who would like to immigrate here. What is the leftist case that they should have less access to a prosperous country than someone with the luck to be born within its borders?
Thank you! Sometimes, reading left-leaning posters, one could come to the conclusion the working class doesn't even exist, or, if they admit to their existence, it's like - "Ew, disgusting manual laborers! You work with your hands? How sad for you." This is he fallout from the currently fashionable posture of cosmopolitanism. Madame Guillotine is coming and it's not going to be pretty.
In addition to miles' argument, or perhaps behind it: there is an underlying assumption here that a government's first duty is to its own citizens. This isn't *necessarily* incompatible with either internationalism or universalism. The principle of "think global, act local" could apply. The idea is that the industry within a country, and labor within a country, are discrete things in and of that country, and therefore should be protected by the people and the government within that country... even among outward-looking people who aren't opposed to (some) legal immigration, these weren't controversial at all right through to the 2010s. So too, the idea that "no person is illegal" would have been regarded as maybe a nice platitude but dismissive of the genuine concerns of organized labor in particular and the worker in general within the country to whom the government has the first duty. The welfare of people not under the care of that government are, of course, not absent, but very much secondary.
That's all gone completely out of the window now. This current doesn't exist within the Democratic Party anymore anywhere but the fringes. Even those who want *some* form of immigration enforcement at the level of the physical border cannot - in polite company at least - conceive of turning down any quote-unquote asylum claim or turning away any huddled masses. Your idea of equality, then, dominates the current party and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
You think humane policing and humane immigration policies are mere "fashionable social politics"? Say that to the prisoners striking in Alabama or the asylum seekers being moved around the country as political pawns after risking their lives to come here to escape violence and poverty.
I love Bernie to death. But another reason we shouldn't push for him to run again is that many of his followers conveniently neglect that our criminal justice and immigration systems are institutionalized violence against working class and poor people.
For every Bernie supporter in your tent - how many swing voters do you lose?
Right now the GOP is actually having enormous success running against *the idea* of a candidate aligning with Bernie Supporters. It sucks but I don't make the rules and the bad guys win all the time.
“Defund the police” is not the same as “humane policing.”
“Don’t enforce existing immigration laws” is not the same as “humane immigration policies.”
Your response is dishonest and childish. Defend the positions on their specific merits. Don’t relabel them and pretend that makes them incontrovertible.
You can't have humane policing without some kind of threat — such as defund — to make cops change. Why would they? As for immigration, int'l law posits that asylum seekers are legally allowed to show up to a border to have their claims processed and addressed.
Sorry if 500 year old leftists still see migrants as an economic threat. that's absurd.
Yeah you’re making about twenty logical leaps. There are a lot of ways to get more humane policing - curb their union power, elect more aggressive prosecutors, get rid of qualified immunity, mandate firing for certain offenses, higher qualifications, better training, prohibiting rehires in new jurisdictions - these are just a few options. And I don’t recall “defund the police” being merely as a threat to make them shape up; it was a policy position that AOC supported on its merits. Defunding the police is not synonymous with humane policing.
I’m familiar with asylum law, having represented asylum seekers. The law requires them to present themselves for asylum at a port of entry, not just cross the border and petition for asylum later once they’re caught.
I support both humane policing and humane immigration policies, and think both of these areas require a lot of reform. My point still stands that you should try defending policy positions on their actual merits instead of strawmanning and relabeling.
You think more aggressive prosecutors would result in more humane policing?
Also the point is that all of the reforms you list are not happening because there is no incentive for the institution to change. Yes, I agree that getting rid of qualified immunity would be a good step. How are you going to do that? "Let's just hope this powerful group opts to give up its power." Yeah, better training would be great. Again. How do you institute that when the status quo is throwing more money at police?
Defund was a very, VERY flawed slogan/movement. But the backlash to it masquerades as reasonable but is way more absurd.
Yes, prosecutors are the people who send police officers to jail when they break the law. They have a history of siding with the cops instead. Elect ones who will aggressively hold abusive police accountable. Thought that would be clear from context.
“These reforms aren’t happening because there’s no incentive for the institution to change.” None of these reforms would need to be generated from within the police department. They would be imposed by the legislature. And better training costs MORE money, not less. Putting the funding on strings to ensure compliance is a reasonable proposal, but again, that is NOT what defund campaigners proposed to do. In the words of AOC, “defund the police means defund the police.”
We clearly disagree on the merits of defund, which is fine. Happy to debate the merits. But my original point stands - you should not have pretended that anyone who questions AOC’s defund agenda is against “humane policing.” Especially since you concede that the slogan/movement were very flawed. Maybe its detractors are wary of those flaws, or believe in different solutions, and are not just evil cop-mongers.
International law posits that asylum seekers are supposed to go to the nearest safe country to make their claims. Instead, they try to come here, presumably because they can live off the taxpayers. Remember the Honduran caravan? Mexico generously offered them work permits, and got few if any takers. Trump enforced the "nearest safe country" rule, which Biden has abandoned.
Nor do I believe that all, or most, of the millions of people entering this country illegally are "asylum seekers."
Are you saying that the US "owes" a good life to people from countries whose governments are dysfunctional? I think you can say this because your job won't be impacted by the immigration. So, you have no skin in the game. You will suffer no losses. We can't save billions of people. It's simply impracticable.
I think we need a combination of managed immigration and a cessation of interventialist policies in Central and South America that cause would-be immigrants to flee their own countries.
The professional managerial class in this country, of which the Dem leadership is a part*, cannot fail. It can only be failed. People with utterly dismal track records remain respected national figures. Meanwhile people who live in the real world, by their fruits we know them. If your plumber one day lavishly floods your house, you're going to claim insurance and you're probably not going to hire him again. If you plunge the nation into ruinous wars, or recessions, you face absolutely no consequences whatsoever.
*this is not to excuse the Republicans, but at least Jeb had the decency to disappear after 2016. Disappear into a big Scrooge McDuck golden mansion, but disappear nonetheless.
You mentioned it earlier, but for me the biggest obstacle to a better politics, where failures are punished, is mainly the media (part of the PMC, for sure). Until that gets sorted out, which I think it will, we are going to be plagued with losers especially with the Dems. The GOP gets refreshed more regularly because they are treated harshly by the press, but unfortunately they get refreshed with someone like Trump because it isn't honest criticism.
I think most people in the USA believe the current neoliberal/neocon track will get most/all of us killed.
But the PMC seems to be an exception.
But the *useful* thing about "woke" is that it's sufficently-polarizing issue as to make the bases of both parties and swing voters "cheap dates". And thus the country spins about its neoliberal/neocon axis.
I disagree completely. The vast majority of people either don't think about this stuff or don't think about it in terms of any long-term trend, including annihilation.
Very few in the USA think long-term - that's true.
It's the logic of Oligarchy.
In the US, at least the left can cling to "Bernie would have won". Over here in the UK we made our Bernie – a white-haired Pure Socialist who's never been wrong in 40 years of politics, according to his supporters – leader of the opposition and he contested two elections in four years. Jeremy Corbyn didn't win the first, and Jeremy Corbyn resoundingly lost the second. But, like Trumpists, his supporters believe it was only betrayal, only the media, only the benighted misled public who caused him to fail and still hold his torch. Jeremy Would Have Won.
I think you're reading of recent hisotry is correct.
But with:
a) Liz Truss is considerable trouble
b) Keir Starmer recnetly having the look of a man who'd consider swimming the English Channel were he ever to become PM
Labour might yet move sharply left. Maybe it will be someone other than Corbyn at the helm - but his influence is likely to grow.
I was a Bernie supporter in 2016, and a volunteer for the campaign in 2020. I agree though that he shouldn't run again, and I'm a little tired of hearing of or from him. Yes, the left needs a new champion.
"in part because they labor under the burdens of racism and sexism."
Yeah ok
You think it's impossible that women candidates and candidates of color can pay an electoral penalty for that? In a general election?
I think arguably Barack Obama benefitted from his status as a racial minority in all sorts of unexpected ways. There is at least anecdotal evidence that desperate white working class voters chose him because they felt that his race made him an outsider and the candidate more likely to challenge the status quo.
And as we all know, anecdotal evidence is by definition, definitely evidence!
Labelling it as such at least frames it accurately. But it doesn’t render it false either. To assume the assertion is insignificant or even false you have to account for the fact that he won against a couple of GOP establishment insiders and four years later a much less charismatic candidate with an inflated reputation lost on a technicality to the ultimate rogue outsider.
I feel like people forget what was happening in the fall of 2008 under a Republican president. The world economy was on the brink of collapse. Any Democrat would have won.
Well yeah but then there’s also the evidence that he won the presidency twice.
There is probably a significant number of voters who defected to Trump after voting for Obama and there is speculation that the significant common factor between the two is their perceived status as outsiders.
I think the biggest common factor between the two is their shared open opposition to illegal immigration from Mexico.
Barack Obama: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
He wasn't all talk, deporting more illegal immigrants than any President in American history https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-mixed-legacy-immigration
You are also correct that there are numerous voters who voted for Obama for two terms and then for Trump in 2016 (https://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502032052/lots-of-people-voted-for-obama-and-trump-heres-where-in-3-charts; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Trump_voters), a data point which I think almost entirely undermines the claim that Trump was elected on a white supremacy/neo-Nazi platform.
My husband was one of these voters.
While not being a registered voter, I followed that exact trajectory, albeit for slightly different reasons.
As opposed to the teetering ziggurat of evidence you've presented for muh racism and muh sexism being factors in general elections.
I made no claims and therefore need not present any evidence.
Freddie did. He's wrong.
I agree he benefited from his race, but for a different reason. It meant that he got an automatic pass with most progressives so he didn’t have to go too far left during the primary. Now de-criminalizing illegal immigration, an insanely unpopular view with the country at large is a purity test. Obama never had to face that kind of pressure.
Very true.
I would agree with that to a point. Obama was an extremely adroit politican who carefully concealed his true nature (he was a dyed-in-the-wool Washington Consensus supporter) until he was in office. He was able to play Barbara Ehrenreich for a fool!
But Obama's polling lead was eroding up until mid-September when the 2008 Financial Collapse hit and the GOP was holding the bag. I think that - more than anything else - sealed the deal for him.
I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think there's much compelling evidence to suggest that Democrat candidates suffer as a result of being women or non-white. The US's sitting Vice President is a woman of mixed Indian and Jamaican descent. The US had an African-American President for two terms. Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren came third in the 2020 primaries. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Of members of Congress, 151 are women and 137 are non-white.
I think for sure they can pay a penalty for race and sex in a general election, but some of the excesses of their progressive politics are the bigger barrier.
Hmm. I think the excesses are definitely a problem (I mean, I have lost faith in the Squad/AOC and feel quite saddened by it honestly. But there’s a certain sometimes subtle sometimes not undertone to the AOC hatred though that I have a problem with…) but I’m not sure it outweighs a deeply held discomfort many Americans feel towards women and people of colour in positions of political power. I think the discomfort is often voiced in well reasoned thoughts about these excesses but I often wonder if that’s really the true fixation - I just think there’s more complexity that we deny because it’s easy, convenient and a way to reason with our own biases and issues.
I don’t deny it. I think sexism has always worked against Hillary. But AOC’s recent GQ interview in which she revealed that part of why she didn’t report her rapist was because she’s a prison abolitionist isn’t going to win any hearts and minds among feminists, never mind the wider population.
If you openly hate half the citizens in your country... Enuf sed.
Not op, but I was coming to make this point anyway. I think they absolutely do pay such a penalty. But I think the argument as you put it in the piece seems to lead straightforwardly to something like “to come to power, the left will need to be led or figureheaded by a white man.”
I DON’T think that’s what you probably mean, but I also think it’s a good faith extension of the argument as you’ve made it in this piece. I’m also genuinely curious where you find the break in that logical chain*, or if it comes down to “the left just has to not be an asshole about it.”
*which tbf I should explicitly lay out: if by dint of their non-white-man qualities the squad are unelectable, and this is a general condition of relevant politics, it follows that the left would want a white man champion (if it wants to win => ~unelectable).
I'm just baffled as to how anyone can seriously think that only a white man can lead the Democrats to victory. Obama was President SIX YEARS AGO.
That's a stinging criticism of something I didn't say.
I was directly responding to Samuel, not to you. Sorry for the confusion.
I think it’s logically possible to think that those headwinds along with the specific and potentially amplified headwinds associated with a leftist candidate would be overwhelming in a way that they weren’t for Obama. Articulated that way I’m not sure I agree (but it’s also a slightly different argument now), in particular because I think Obama got a fair amount of juice in ‘08 by being perceived as more left wing than he was.
But of course he also had 3/4 of a billion in fundraising against a candidate who stuck with the public funding of about half that; there’s widely an idea that the sense of moment there was exhausted by it and the Obama presidency such that it can’t be replicated, and so on and so on.
FWIW I think there’s a just-believable-enough not to laugh off path for AOC to the presidency IF she can win the primary AND keep the party from splitting off into a major centrist faction (Bloomberg spoiler campaign); but I also think that’s not worth doing because having a leftist president without a congress would be borderline useless, and certainly a poor use of her talent. But that’s now fully aside from my original q, too.
No edit button, so as well: nor do I think I’m representing fdb’s point of view here directly above. Damn would I like an edit button
There's an edit button under the three dots.
>it follows that the left would want a white man champion (if it wants to win => ~unelectable).
For the record I think this is basically correct. I think that being black or hispanic means getting more penalized for being more on the left, and I think there's just generally a being a lady penalty.
Not insurmountable, but they make things harder. I think gender-flipped Hillary Clinton pulls it out in 2016, for example.
All of which is to say, let's hope Fetterman hangs on in Pennsylvania. Fetterman 28 or 32 would be possible then, but he has to have a win before then.
Do they though? Republicans don't really seem to have a problem voting for women or minorities as long as they have sufficient reactionary politics. I mean Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal. In the general election Hillary one the majority of the votes despite being not liked personally and Obama won twice.
I can’t remember where, but there’s been some interesting research into how conservative/republican aligned women are viewed more favorably than liberal/democratic aligned women candidates.
It's almost certain that women and PoC candidates pay a price due to sexism and racism across some part of the voter demographic, and it's also almost certain that their race/gender work in their favor across another part of it. To my thinking, it's a question of which outweighs the other on net.
There's truth to Freddie's point here. Black candidates and Women are easier to paint as radicals.
Perhaps they are also more likely to *be* radicals if they’re Dems. The Squad’s social media presence certainly fuels that image, regardless of what their voting record may indicate.
The Obamas certainly endured this kind of ridiculous radicals-in-sheep’s-clothing framing from a certain deranged segment of the population despite clearly being centrists in practice. But not enough people actually believed it to vote him out of office.
"The Squad" present themselves as radicals, rightly or wrongly. There's no "painting" involved on behalf of their Republican opposition.
The elephant in the room for me is this: why would Bernie even be running again in 2024? To challenge a sitting president from his own party?
Or is the assumption that Biden will not be running again despite the fact that he's two years younger than Sanders?
The latter. There's still a lot of talk that Biden won't run again.
The recent slew of "Biden shouldn't run again" pieces in solidly blue Acela Corridor, Professional Managerial Class targeted media outlets suggests there's already some old fashioned Kreminology underway to determine a successor on the ballot - Mayor Pete? Kamala? Who knows, but the knives are out.
And spoiler alert - nobody else in America actually wants these people to run for president again.
And yet somehow the most likely matchup for 2024 is Trump versus Biden.
If Biden is alive he's going to run again.
Yeah, Biden won't run again. Everybody knows it man.
I'm waiting to see what else Ocasio-Cortez does. She definitely does not stay in the House for the rest of her life. The issue is there's nowhere for her to go in New York politics. Schumer is "only" 71, is running for reelection this year, and will most likely run for reelection in 2028 and probably 2034. Does Ocasio-Cortez want to be in the House until 2034 or 2040?
Gillibrand is even younger and could plausibly serve in the Senate for the next 30 years.
FOSTA is an abomination.
I'm against FOSTA ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
AOC will wind up running a faux social justice lifestyle brand or an activist group that mostly specializes in getting herself attention (ahem, women’s march). She has no appetite for actual work and her main talent is self-promotion. I can’t see her going anywhere beyond the House in politics, and she’ll never be in leadership because most of her colleagues can’t stand her.
Man, she drives you people crazy, doesn't she.
Who are you referring to - women? Yeah, we know her type and don’t care for it. I’d hardly call that being driven crazy, but I guess this is the best rejoinder you’ve got?
She's more of a political influencer than a politician. I had high hopes for her in the beginning but she's been disappointing at every turn. I hate Twitter clout-chasers sooooo much. Can not imagine having one as president.
I think this was an interesting piece but mostly academic. As you note, Bernie definitely won't run if Biden runs (which seems more likely than not). And I think even if Biden does not run, Bernie isn't going to do it.
What he might do is put his weight behind a progressive candidate (assuming no Biden). No idea who that would be.
I mean I debated whether it was worth writing down, but I have a lot of friends who are yearning for a Bernie 2024 campaign
I think there is a 20% chance Bernie runs. It seems like he is angling that way in some of the media he puts out and there were a few press articles. Myself, I hope he runs.
The question is what is the inflation rate in 2024 and what is the unemployment rate? If you see both right around 6% I think that's a substantial impediment to any incumbent's re-election campaign. There is precedent in Johnson deciding to retire because circumstances on the ground probably made his re-election impossible.
It would be pointless. Many of his former backers no longer back him for one reason or another.
I think Sanders is a good guy. But it needs to be pointed out that during the 2016 primary, when it was clear he would lose to Hillary Clinton, he said "She can't win without superdelegates".
That wasn't technically a lie, because the race was very close. If *all* of the superdelegates had voted for Sanders he would have won the nomination, despite the fact that he'd won fewer elected delegates than Clinton. (That's why superdelegates are bad! The nominee should be the candidate with the most popular support.)
But Bernie knew perfectly well that some of his less well-informed supporters would misinterpret his comment to mean that he had more elected delegates than she did, and that the superdelegates had used their votes to flip the outcome. Lots of people on the left still believe that, which made it a deeply irresponsible thing to say.
Yeah, the myth making around his run is weird. He definitely mobilized and inspired, no doubt. But he was trounced fair and square.
I think the West Virginia scenario really poisoned a lot of people to the process, and it was certainly understandable
Meh. I support proportional representation, and if we had it I don't think there would be any reason for political parties to let the public have a say in their choice of candidates. If you think Kellogg's corn flakes have too much sugar you don't call for a referendum to change the recipe, you just try another brand of corn flakes.
In practice you can't get rid of the R/D duopoly without changing the electoral system, so until that happens it would be a bad idea to let party elites do their candidate selections internally. There has to be some public input, otherwise the dominant parties would have too much freedom to ignore what voters actually want.
But the American primary system really does suck... just not for the reasons that some Bernie supporters think it sucks.
And you can't change the electoral system without changing the Constitution. The Constitution more or less ensures the two-party system.
It’s specifically annoying as a complaint against Hillary. Whatever one might say about her, she won more primary votes than Obama and lost. Then she won 3 million more votes than Trump and lost. If anyone has gotten screwed by the vagaries of the electoral system, it’s Hillary Clinton. The grievances of the Bernie fans can’t remotely compare. And no, I’m not a particular fan of hers.
The only primary I've ever voted in was 2016. I voted for Bernie. What can I say? I thought (and still think) income inequality is our biggest issue.
And I fucking HATE the Superdelegate system. Let the people decide on their own.
But I also can't stand the Squad. They've gone all in on what you call Social Justice Politics, and anyone peddling that crap simply isn't getting my vote. Sorry.
partially the internet partially the push towards a human capital economy and one where skills like "teamwork" and "presentation" and clerical skills are prized above all else. This leads to lots of "affirming" of people and "you're so valid-ifying" or things which is a destructuive trend
I agree. Ruy Teixeira would, too.
The Culture War/Counter-Culture War is the opiate of the masses in that it conveniently enables both parties to avoid enacting economic changes that are largely popular.
You really raise a good point about inequality.
John Mearsheimer and Andrew Bacevich (both well known in FP circles) are both conservatives and both very-vocally supported Sanders for that same reason.
Yes. I voted for him in that primary as well. The way the Dem's treated him is one factor that pushed me to vote against Hilary.
Exactly. Which created a moment when many voters across the social spectrum wanted an alternative. The Iraq disaster also contributed to that desperation. Then Obama produced a performance that left them feeling disillusioned. But before that no one thought he’d eventually fit the description of “fat Elvis of neo-liberalism”(many thanks to Matt Taibi for that unforgettable descrition).
One of the most disappointing aspects of the Democratic party, at the national level, is the lack of charisma and inspirational leadership on the bench. We shouldn't expect the hangers-on of the Boomer and Silent Generations to quietly back into the shrubbery of retirement. I really think we need an age cap and term limites for members of Congress, the White House and all Federal Judges.
The Democrats are “centrist” and the Republicans “far right”? Putting aside the fact that these labels no longer mean anything, this notion is a fairy tale and surprisingly out of touch. Tulsi Gabbard is right.
I'm a Marxist
Which is to say that "out of touch" is your brand?*
*I don't actually want to get banned for this comment, but thought it was funny enough to risk it.
I think that the average Democratic voter is probably "centrist" as is virtually every republican I know (Aside from some Mormon friends, exactly none of them support banning abortion). The issue is that the Democratic PARTY has become toxic to centrists, including me. A friend texted me a few years ago saying "When the Democrats chase off a couple of commie, pinko fags like you and me, who's left?" NOTE: All terms I was called for years based on my politics, and all terms I wore with pride. You're right about Sanders, and it's a shame, because he and Rand Paul are basically the last honest politicians in America. There's much I disagree with on both their sides, but they're not lying or gaslighting everybody all the time.
I agree. My point was that the term “centrist” commonly evokes a sense of reasonability, fairness, balance, etc. —maybe not to some, but still—while the term “far right” is used to mean evil, fascist, extreme, etc.
I get that Freddie was using these terms more literally, but the language still plays into the harmful fairy tale myth that the Democratic Party is sane and “normal” while republicans (or literally anyone else who disagrees with them) are evil “far right” boogeymen.
I don't really agree.
I think the Democratic party has chosen to become "more socially liberal" to avoid the donor-induced pain of becoming "more economically liberal".
Freddie deBoer for president.
Compared to parties in any of our peer countries, yes. By first world standards, the greens are a reasonable left party, and the dems are to the right of many of the more popular conservative options.
How much of the idpol stuff is actually issues, as opposed to rhetoric? We talk differently about some of this stuff now, but are Biden's policies really any different than Obama's?
> and racial quotas
Can you say more here? I'm not aware of anything like that that is even legal.
>gender affirmation mandates
Can you give an example? Certainly we talk about this stuff, but I can't readily think of where policy might come into play.
>He also tried for a whole bunch of dumb shit in BBB that Obama would have had the sense to throw cold water on.
I think you underestimate how ambitious Obama was, especially early on. OTOH, I will concede that 2012 Obama knew he wasn't getting anything else big done, so it's probably true that 2020 Biden was to his left.
It's reasonable to say that Biden would be considered a right-leaning CDU-type in Germany in terms of his economic policies.
Right now - leftist parties are only significant factors in the Global South. In the last 20-30 years they have lost support across most of Europe. It's enitrely possible that a winter of freezing to death in the dark due to adherence to the USA's dismal foregin policy might yet give them a shot in the arm in that region - but for the moment that's just speculation.
Freddie is correct. The political center of the Democratic party is not - for example - to the left of the CDU in Germany.
In the grand, global scheme of things you could probably define a 1-10 scale where a Marxist-Leninist is a "1" and Michael Flynn is a "10" and Bernie Sanders is probably - at most - a 3.5.
Reluctantly agree with you Freddie, I think his time has unfortunately passed. Although I would say his influence and legacy will remain for a long while. I don't like a lot of the alternatives either, but someone has to pick up his mantle...sooner rather than later.
Bernie will go down as one of the great "what if's" of early 21st century American politics.
Let's say the Boomers and Silent Generation hangers-on decide to think about the good of the country instead of their egos and retire/die en masse in 2030. Gen Xers in office will be pushing against the late 60s and will have probably stopped caring at this point, Millennials will be in their 40s having mid-life crises and writing articles about themselves having mid-life crises, meanwhile Zoomers will still be whinging about the lack life-work balance at their hot-desking job. I think we just need to let AI take over at that point.
AI, huh? Anyone here a Metal Gear Solid fan? That's basically what happened in that game series' story.
I've heard of the game but never played any of them. The problem with our political system of letting Federal politicians and judges age/die out of their position is that it calcifies the political system and breeds complacency for those in power. They have no reason to give it up and no reason to pass the baton, or learn anything new which is why we have so much political disfunction in this country.
!
Lol this guy gets it
Correct on all three points, but I think a bit too generous to the Squad. There are reasons they don’t inherit the mantle of Bernie beyond sexism and racism.
First, they’ve embraced fashionable social politics (on immigration and policing, for example) that Bernie always understood to be untenable. He’s too old and has too much sense to fall for Twitter policy fads.
Second, the prominence of Ocasio-Cortez really detracts from Bernie’s brand of authenticity. Nobody could credibly accuse Bernie of champagne socialism or self-absorption. I liked AOC at first, but she’s got some pronounced narcissistic tendencies - glamour shots, constant pity plays, crying on the floor of the house, allergy to actual work. She’s not alone among her generation and certainly not among politicians, but it’s harder for me to stomach in a symbol of the left. (It also grates on a personal level because she embodies negative stereotypes of young women.) How I wish Ayanna Pressley were the front woman instead.
Nor would I. She is an immature shill.
AOC's greatest accomplishment is the number of TeenVOGUE subscriptions she's managed to sell.
Worth noting that economically moderate (at least based on polling) would involve supporting single payer and an expanded welfare state;
What do people think of Jared Polis? I know he’s a zillionaire, but he made his money from electronic greeting cards and flower retail, which is pretty low down the corporate villain list. Would Americans vote for a gay Jew?
I’ve got eyes on him for sure.
I am so pro Jared.
Seems like he’s doing a great job governing a purple state, an energy state, with a hugely liberal city core, not to mention how he handled Covid.
Secretly a libertarian. Wants to abolish the state income tax in Colorado.
I bet that would poll well in Colorado, actually.
Agreed. Except that it's not really a secret...
I've been waiting my whole life to vote for a gay Jew.
"(sorry Kamala)"
She's as smart as she is hard working.
"Which is neither"
Correct. Willie must have been pretty happy, since she got fast tracked to Senator, and those spots rarely open up in any state. Feinstein being Exhibit A.
there was an expose recently about how she seems to be lazy. that's confirmed by her public appearances where she has no idea what she's talking about
She's gotten by initially on her looks (thanks, Willie), and then on pure media hype. She didn't get a single delegate (maybe one or two) before flaming out of the Dem 2020 primary, despite being the chosen one at the get go (Obama influence? IDK).
She flat out calls Biden a racist (I know, big deal these days everyone and everything is RACIST), and he picks her to be his VEEP. Politics are strange.
Biden should have picked Karen Bass. Unfortunately, she made one tweet about Castro's passing...and, well, the internet never forgets.
Bill Clinton was an absolute disaster for the left, though. And for the country in general. No, thanks, no Bill Clinton Mark II. As Freddie says, what we need someone young-ish who can credibly take up the Bernie banner.
sadly such a person does not exist. which means it's gotta be bernie
I think Lucas Kunce is a possibility.
Here's what I think a winning platform would like:
* Strong anti-trust (also strong anti-corruption - e.g. let's ban stock trades). This needs to include sectors like housing, too.
* Pro-labor stance
* Rather than forgiving student debt, would commit to cracking down on college costs (e.g colleges behaving like VC funds, investing in real estate) and allow student debt to be discharged into bankruptcy
* Much stronger position on healhcare reforms
* Generous, but ultimately managed, immigration
* Reign-in the financial sector; focus on the "real economy" (e.g. farming, manufacturing)
* Foregin policy restraint (get rid of the Blob). Closes a lot of those overseas bases.
* Tax the rich by taxing passive income streams at a much higher rate than earned income
* Acknowleges the need for fossil fuels as a bridge fuel. Embraces nuclear power while continuing to try to build green energy supply chains.
* No talk of "defund the police" but push for common-sense gun control
* In favor of reproductive rights.
Both our current economic and foregin policy positions are unsustainable - there's no going back to 1995.
I agree with all of this but given that the squad can't inherit that mantle and if Bernie is too old what does that leave us?
I don't think it's a sure thing that Trump will run for the nomination again in 2024.
Having said that, nobody should rule out the possibility that he doesn't run for the nomination but shows up to the RNC convention in the summer of 2024 *asking* to be named the nominee!
This too. I think that "wokifying" is a combination of overblown and justified, but we've completely fucked the dog on the messaging here. We're going to get our asses kicked for a few years until we either get a better handle on the issue or drop it.
The problem with "woke" and the Culture War, in general, is that it makes a convenient wedge issue for Dem and GOP bases. Thus, it enables the Democrats to campaign on a fairly-hollow anti-racism platform while not offering real economic reforms.
A good point. It's was fascinating to see hwo quickly the "Green New Deal" morphed into the "Woke Strike Fighter".
Fetterman, if he can hang on in his Senate run. Warren, in a theoretical sort of way, but she isn't good enough. She can win the college educated manager class, but that's about it.
A bunch of people no one has ever heard of will toss their hats into the ring in 2024, like Pete did last cycle. If one of them has some of Bernie's charisma and policies, he could inherit that base. Probably the next Bernie is someone we haven't heard of.
>I doubt Fetterman even wins this race.
Me too. I was pretty sanguine about him a month ago, but he's been trending the wrong way. Maybe he pulls it out, but at this I'm hoping for that rather than believing it. But I think he's pretty good, just in a difficult year. If he hangs on I think he'll be able to camp there, or move up if he wants.
>Warren has some of the worst political instincts I've ever witnessed and only appeals to girlboss identitarians.
Warren is great. Super-left wonk. Well suited to win house elections in districts containing large universities, or the Senate seat in a handful of very left states. Doesn't have much appeal past her base.
(which is just me repeating what you said with nice words because I like her)
Maybe? Computer programmer, and like many of my people I'm fairly socially awkward, so I don't manage anyone. I don't know if we're considered professional or not. On the one hand, I'm a keyboard warrior, but on the other, there's no professional organization who acts as gatekeeper. Anyhow, I'm honestly not sure how we're usually classified.
You?
Warren isn't all that popular in her home state. The Massachusetts economy is largely driven by IP & healthcare rent-seeking - a lot of her platform positions aren't a comfortable fit for that.
The future of the party in Massachusetts is (unfortunately) - Seth Moulton.
problem is I have Bernie's charisma and policies but no one has heard of me yet
Well, get elected to some political position, and in six years run for president. It's doesn't have to be a *big* position. Mayor of a mid-sized city will do the job, if you're good on the trail. Congress would probably be better, if you can manage.
Im considering moving back to Vermont and getting involved there's a real dearth of leadership in the Burlington City council right now
The "idea of John Fetterman" is ultimately a bit more compelling than the man himself.
Unfortunately Bernie saw which way the wind was blowing and reversed his previous stance on immigration. You can't be an immigration restrictions - in fact you can't be anything but massively pro-immigration - and win a Democratic primary.
I was going to mention that but I'm already a one-note race poster so I tried to exercise some restraint.
He debased himself and he debased his movement that day. I would still have supported him in the general over Trump, but reluctantly. But of course he lost so between Trump and Clinton I didn't even flinch before making my decision.
There's no question that "2016 Bernie Sanders" >>> "2020 Bernie Sanders".
I didn't vote for Trump in 2020 - but seeing how Biden is handling the Russia-Ukraine situation - I'm actually feeling remorse. The threat of nuclear annihilation is kind of important to me.
Bingo!
Did he? I missed that. Ugh.
https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm
Arguably his most "extreme" position vis-a-vis the liberal consensus* is that he doesn't want to fully abolish ICE, just reform it. Otherwise it's open border boilerplate shared with every other Dem.
*not synonymous with Dem consensus, since as Freddie points out only half of Dems are self-identified liberal.
What exactly is the leftist argument against open borders? Certainly there are practical and political reasons to at least publicly oppose the idea, but I stuggle to conjure an idea of equality (which grounds at least MY leftism) that somehow doesn't cover people in other countries who would like to immigrate here. What is the leftist case that they should have less access to a prosperous country than someone with the luck to be born within its borders?
Well you COULD have both but it is true that immigration pulls in that dir
Thank you! Sometimes, reading left-leaning posters, one could come to the conclusion the working class doesn't even exist, or, if they admit to their existence, it's like - "Ew, disgusting manual laborers! You work with your hands? How sad for you." This is he fallout from the currently fashionable posture of cosmopolitanism. Madame Guillotine is coming and it's not going to be pretty.
In addition to miles' argument, or perhaps behind it: there is an underlying assumption here that a government's first duty is to its own citizens. This isn't *necessarily* incompatible with either internationalism or universalism. The principle of "think global, act local" could apply. The idea is that the industry within a country, and labor within a country, are discrete things in and of that country, and therefore should be protected by the people and the government within that country... even among outward-looking people who aren't opposed to (some) legal immigration, these weren't controversial at all right through to the 2010s. So too, the idea that "no person is illegal" would have been regarded as maybe a nice platitude but dismissive of the genuine concerns of organized labor in particular and the worker in general within the country to whom the government has the first duty. The welfare of people not under the care of that government are, of course, not absent, but very much secondary.
That's all gone completely out of the window now. This current doesn't exist within the Democratic Party anymore anywhere but the fringes. Even those who want *some* form of immigration enforcement at the level of the physical border cannot - in polite company at least - conceive of turning down any quote-unquote asylum claim or turning away any huddled masses. Your idea of equality, then, dominates the current party and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
Not necessarily true. Fetterman did not embrace open borders.
You think humane policing and humane immigration policies are mere "fashionable social politics"? Say that to the prisoners striking in Alabama or the asylum seekers being moved around the country as political pawns after risking their lives to come here to escape violence and poverty.
I love Bernie to death. But another reason we shouldn't push for him to run again is that many of his followers conveniently neglect that our criminal justice and immigration systems are institutionalized violence against working class and poor people.
For every Bernie supporter in your tent - how many swing voters do you lose?
Right now the GOP is actually having enormous success running against *the idea* of a candidate aligning with Bernie Supporters. It sucks but I don't make the rules and the bad guys win all the time.
“Defund the police” is not the same as “humane policing.”
“Don’t enforce existing immigration laws” is not the same as “humane immigration policies.”
Your response is dishonest and childish. Defend the positions on their specific merits. Don’t relabel them and pretend that makes them incontrovertible.
You can't have humane policing without some kind of threat — such as defund — to make cops change. Why would they? As for immigration, int'l law posits that asylum seekers are legally allowed to show up to a border to have their claims processed and addressed.
Sorry if 500 year old leftists still see migrants as an economic threat. that's absurd.
Yeah you’re making about twenty logical leaps. There are a lot of ways to get more humane policing - curb their union power, elect more aggressive prosecutors, get rid of qualified immunity, mandate firing for certain offenses, higher qualifications, better training, prohibiting rehires in new jurisdictions - these are just a few options. And I don’t recall “defund the police” being merely as a threat to make them shape up; it was a policy position that AOC supported on its merits. Defunding the police is not synonymous with humane policing.
I’m familiar with asylum law, having represented asylum seekers. The law requires them to present themselves for asylum at a port of entry, not just cross the border and petition for asylum later once they’re caught.
I support both humane policing and humane immigration policies, and think both of these areas require a lot of reform. My point still stands that you should try defending policy positions on their actual merits instead of strawmanning and relabeling.
You think more aggressive prosecutors would result in more humane policing?
Also the point is that all of the reforms you list are not happening because there is no incentive for the institution to change. Yes, I agree that getting rid of qualified immunity would be a good step. How are you going to do that? "Let's just hope this powerful group opts to give up its power." Yeah, better training would be great. Again. How do you institute that when the status quo is throwing more money at police?
Defund was a very, VERY flawed slogan/movement. But the backlash to it masquerades as reasonable but is way more absurd.
Yes, prosecutors are the people who send police officers to jail when they break the law. They have a history of siding with the cops instead. Elect ones who will aggressively hold abusive police accountable. Thought that would be clear from context.
“These reforms aren’t happening because there’s no incentive for the institution to change.” None of these reforms would need to be generated from within the police department. They would be imposed by the legislature. And better training costs MORE money, not less. Putting the funding on strings to ensure compliance is a reasonable proposal, but again, that is NOT what defund campaigners proposed to do. In the words of AOC, “defund the police means defund the police.”
We clearly disagree on the merits of defund, which is fine. Happy to debate the merits. But my original point stands - you should not have pretended that anyone who questions AOC’s defund agenda is against “humane policing.” Especially since you concede that the slogan/movement were very flawed. Maybe its detractors are wary of those flaws, or believe in different solutions, and are not just evil cop-mongers.
International law posits that asylum seekers are supposed to go to the nearest safe country to make their claims. Instead, they try to come here, presumably because they can live off the taxpayers. Remember the Honduran caravan? Mexico generously offered them work permits, and got few if any takers. Trump enforced the "nearest safe country" rule, which Biden has abandoned.
Nor do I believe that all, or most, of the millions of people entering this country illegally are "asylum seekers."
Are you saying that the US "owes" a good life to people from countries whose governments are dysfunctional? I think you can say this because your job won't be impacted by the immigration. So, you have no skin in the game. You will suffer no losses. We can't save billions of people. It's simply impracticable.
I don't have a trust fund but I am an immigrant, so surely you can where I'm coming from.
Please my job is clearly going to be taken over by AI. I give it 5 years til autocorrect starts being to write and do journalism.
Rather facile, don't you think? So, just hand-wave the problem impacting millions of actual people's lives? Did you grow up in a cocoon?