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.
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 race was NOT very close! HRC won the popular primary vote overwhelmingly, 55.2% for her, 43.1% for Bernie. Superdelegates had ZERO impact on the outcome.
I never understood why the Dem Party frequently tries to run the same coterie of candidates with proven losing track histories, rather than frequently comb through their ranks for individuals with actual potential. Their platform of "yea, but the other team is even worse. If we lose, it means they cheated" does nothing to encourage me to vote for their ticket.
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.
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.
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.
Then the Republican Party will be the vehicle for change. (See, e.g., the overturn of Roe by justices that Hillary would not have appointed.)
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.
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 race was NOT very close! HRC won the popular primary vote overwhelmingly, 55.2% for her, 43.1% for Bernie. Superdelegates had ZERO impact on the outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Yeah, the myth making around his run is weird. He definitely mobilized and inspired, no doubt. But he was trounced fair and square.
I never understood why the Dem Party frequently tries to run the same coterie of candidates with proven losing track histories, rather than frequently comb through their ranks for individuals with actual potential. Their platform of "yea, but the other team is even worse. If we lose, it means they cheated" does nothing to encourage me to vote for their ticket.
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.
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