297
Democrats are trying to work out what went wrong. On the left a consensus is forming
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
297 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2900 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They didn't show the entire tweet chain. Murphy starts off saying we should abandon neoliberalism which is good. But then finished by uncritically supporting men's rights, abandoning social issues, and abandoning action on climate change.
He's calling for Democrats to move to the right. The big tent he's pitching is fascism. A true populist movement that champions socialism and progressive causes can bring people together while also championing these issues.
You mean this?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1855616243039916152.html
That doesn't fit your description.
It fits the description to a T. We don't have time for 50% or 0% action on climate change. The window to avert key tipping points that will have catastrophic consequences for the Earth's climate is now.
As a trans person, I am not interested in 50% or 0% of my rights. I would like my right to exist, 100% of the time.
We should push back on some of the more fringe men's rights groups. No one is entitled to a state mandated girlfriend. But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.
Exactly. Trans rights, radical climate solutions, but also yeah we need to work with young men to help them feel less isolated and vulnerable to the far right. We need to be talking with rural people as people not just over them
On climate:
He doesn't say anything else on climate, and this is not "abandoning action on climate change." The people already in the tent don't agree on everything, and they have not "abandoned action" because of it.
On men's rights:
This is not "uncritically supporting men's rights."
Sure, if that's how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won't be.
The people who don't agree with climate change don't believe it exists.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/06/trump-victory-sweeping-climate-consequences
Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.
We are listening to them. This is what they are saying.
https://www.vox.com/politics/384792/your-body-my-choice-maga-gender-election
That's how we're framing it. If that's not appealing to some people, there's a mainstream fascist political party they can join. We don't need two mainstream fascist parties.
By the way, the worldview is that all people are equal. And that inequality harms us all, but some people are harmed more than others. People on the left have no interest in a worldview where women are second class citizens.
Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?
And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.
Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.
We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don't believe in climate change. It would be a waste of time since they want to kill us and want to pollute as much as possible.
My argument didn't tell the MAGA movement to be fascists. A progressive and socialist populist movement could rally most people without needing for anyone to hate minority groups or disregard scientific consensus.
Good, so you agree then? We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution. edit: typo
Not believing in climate change does not make someone a fascist. Murphy was talking about accepting people who don't want to be aligned with MAGA. That is plainly a strategic imperative.
I agree that we need to watch out for cryptofascists, but your meter is too sensitive.
Similarly, men's concerns about loneliness etc. are worth hearing out. I wouldn't say that has much at all to do with "rights," though.
As far as I can tell, yes. I suspect I would be more hands-off about correcting some harms, but I strongly agree with no second class of citizens.
I don't object. I'm an ex-Republican long since committed to riding the Democratic wagon wherever it goes. I would take FDR 2.0 if that's what can defeat MAGA, but I don't have confidence that it's a good approach. I do think the wealth/income gap is a threat to liberty and stability.
Weirdly, no where in my argument do I claim this. But if a person isn't a fascist or isn't at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.
No he said:
He didn't mention the MAGA movement or how aligned with MAGA a person wants to be in that.
The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth's climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There's no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument's meter not picking this up?
Sorry, what harms are those? =/
Billionaires have formed an oligarchy around Trump who is threatening to deport millions of people, round up homeless people into camps, and be a dictator on day one. This state of affairs is directly derived from late-stage capitalism and the 40 years of neo-liberalism that enabled the rich to extract wealth from everyone else.
People want a populist narrative. We can easily give them that since it's the truth. That's what the Democrats were lacking in their campaign that Trump used to win, a populist narrative. Democrats spent the months between the DNC and election day appealing to moderate Republicans. Their reward was around 10 million fewer votes. Murphy is another Democrat who refuses to listen and is part of the Democrats predictable shift to the right in response to this loss.
There can be more than one lesson to learn from an election. People do need to learn to leverage power and vote for Democrats in elections, but the Democrats need to learn from their mistakes as well. Or at least be co-opted by people who learned the lessons for them.
Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person's opinions makes them functionally a fascist? I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism. Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism. This descent into madness has been really hard to watch. If any of them were to renounce Trump, I'd welcome them eagerly.
I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you're so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent. And if someone opposes Trump I am not terribly concerned about their thoughts on the climate.
I don't know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?
No, that's why I separated the two in my argument.
How in good faith does a neoliberal doubt the science? They definitely incorrectly doubt the magnitude of change to our society that is required to fix climate change, sure. But the science itself?
Neoliberalism is part of how those people got to fascism. It's much easier for a fascist to convince people to adopt fascists positions when they already have neoliberal ideas in their head. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems. It's a smaller jump to convince neoliberals to change the people in society than it is to convince them to change institutions they believe are infallible.
Yes, but in hindsight it is clear how we got here. Neoliberalism and the right-wing information sphere are two of the major culprits.
We don't get this for free though or by comprising all of our positions. Democrats have been trying to reach across the aisle for a while. They failed in this election in large part because of that continued attempt to reach moderate Republicans. What Democrats need is a populist narrative. This will rally people around our side of the issues.
Not if we have to comprise our positions to get them in the tent. We need full speed ahead on climate change action. If we have to go the speed we are now, slower, or backwards like we will be in a few months, then that isn't a useful alliance.
I think you're referring to harm to other living, breathing people. You want to be a part of the big tent? Time to spill the beans on your positions. Whether they're considered political or otherwise. A bulleted list is fine. edit: typos
I think they are suspicious of the institution of science and the scientists within it. The replication crisis gives some validity to their concerns. I think political motives are also suspected.
It doesn't help that these people are by and large not scientists and don't have the training to read the science. The suspicion is a boulder that is not too difficult for Republican propaganda to tip down the mountain.
How you break through that, I have no idea. And I think basically this same suspicion was turned on the government to produce MAGA.
Ha! I don't think you would easily find anyone to defend the institutions as infallible right now, least of all the trumpers. The Courts, Congress, the Deep State (career workers in the executive branch), it's all suspect for them. I myself was counting on SCOTUS to hold until it didn't.
No, I think the slide into fascism has been about lack of trust rather than an overabundance of it. I can imagine getting there the other way too, though.
I think you are significantly overestimating the pull granted by simply being in the tent.
How very broad. I didn't have anything particular in mind. The government exists to mitigate harm, yet I don't believe in equipping it to solve every conceivable problem because I fear centralized power. I suspect you would more eagerly expand its power.
Several regions of government need to be reformed in order to halt harm primarily to black people. I'm thinking of the prison pipeline and similar.
I support several federal agencies such as the FDA, USDA, EPA. This support is somewhat reluctant; if I could devise an alternative that didn't accrue power to the federal government I would prefer that.
I support anti-trust. I think multinational corporations are a threat to the individual to rival the government. I think the government is at risk of losing relevance, leaving only the corporations, and this future is a dystopia.
I want to find a way to drain generational wealth without killing the economy. I don't think democracy can survive an unhindered class of trust-fund babies (nobility in all but name).
I support a "safety net" that allows for the most meager existence - enough to survive and to be employable. I don't want to spend more than we must on freeloaders, and I don't want to make this a better deal than being productive is.
Uh, what else? I am adamantly opposed to abolishing money or ownership of real estate. I'm interested in seeing further experimental results from worker co-ops; so far they are not looking advantageous.
I think social media may have ruined education for Generation Z, as if we had given them all really bad drugs. My aversion to government action is making me uncomfortable with what we may need to do.
Your turn.
This hasn’t been an issue for climate science at all. People have done separate studies and come to the same results. In fact Exxon’s models seem to be highly accurate.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
These news articles don’t require scientific training to read, but they contain the results of the research.
These are non-issues.
This is conflating trust in the institutions with trust in the people. I’m sure most people would be happy to change the individuals in charge of the systems. But I doubt those same people would be interested in radically changing those systems.
That is putting the cart before the horse. The policies of the tent are created as part of the groups forming the coalition. It’s not an afterthought. Your argument is underestimating the pull of populism in the early 21st century.
The US needs majority rule democracy. Currently US democracy is flawed as it has many institutional issues that lead to minority rule. The electoral college and our first-past-the-post voting system are two culprits. But also things like the House being capped at 435 seats, the filibuster in the Senate, the fact each state gets two Senate seats. The Supreme Court justices need an enforceable ethics code, term limits, and should be selected by popular vote.
The US needs socialism. We need a welfare state for the people who fall through the cracks. It’s too easy for businesses to fire the poorest customers on essential services like housing, even when a person works multiple jobs. We need to regulate businesses to prevent conflict of interests, malpractice, and oligopolies. We need to have a wealth tax on billionaires and millionaires to reinject the wealth that is not larger circulating in the economy.
We need to redirect the owner class’ source of wealth. The workers need to own the means of production. Which means workers need to own an equal portion of the corporations they work for in the form of non-tradable stocks or bonds. The workers need to receive regular payouts at least quarterly in the form of dividends or interest respectively. And those corporations need to be run like democracies in a way that reflects the number of people working there for things like choosing the C-Suite and company values.
The goal is to eliminate a class of people, not the individuals themselves. As long as the owner class exists, they are incentivized to overturn our democracy. Even now we are seeing an oligarchy of billionaires forming around Trump as a dictator.
Also, corporations are not people and we should get private money out of elections.
I mean if we could get rid of those while keeping all the benefits the technologies give us that would be pretty cool right? I see a stateless society like that as an ideal to strive for by removing unnecessary or theoretically redundant layers of hierarchy in our society. I’m a social democrat. Some people would say I’ve taken from market socialism, but it’s not my fault if they only have one idea.
The US is a federal presidential constitutional republic. I’m fine with federalism as long states’ rights are about governmental separation of concerns. When states’ rights become states have the right to be a dictatorship where people have no rights, that is where I have a problem.
I would like to see a radical change with how we fund government agencies. We should get rid of the debt ceiling. Congress will still need to budget for the year. But if agencies need additional funding they should be able to pull from Congress who could choose to approve or deny funding as needed. Like a US military model of pulling resources as opposed to a Soviet military model of pushing resources. Government agencies shouldn’t be in a position where they aren’t fully funded or think they won’t be fully funded if they don’t use all of the allotted funding. But there should be transparency to the process of funding.
Single payer health care, free college tuition, decomodify housing, public drinking fountains.
Defunding the police by having them focus on solving crime and giving the excess funding to agencies that specialize in jobs we don’t want police doing like mental health or animal control, etc. Cops shouldn’t be making wellness checks on patients or wasting their time catching stray dogs.
I recommend talking to people from this generation. The people I have met in person are all well adjusted people.
We will need a massive and sustained cult deprogramming effort for people who have been watching Fox News for nearly three decades. The alternative is continued political unrest and domestic terrorism even if we manage to educate the rest of the population out of neoliberalism and fascism.
Based on what you wrote I’m going to guess that the cult deprogramming position is going to be the most disagreeable with you. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. It is based on my own interactions with people who have uncritically consumed right-wing media for too long while trapped in an information silo.
Outside of defending ourselves, violence is our least useful tool. It seems like your account is new, but people have multiple accounts. This take is probably on the milder side here on Lemmy. You’re likely to come across people and communities that are prone to fed posting, if you haven’t already.
I firmly believe we can educate the population out of this problem and that education is the long term solution to fascism. There are a lot of people on here who do not feel that way. Regardless I believe the big tent can include all people on the left and even neoliberals and neocons who are willing to learn.
Tankies are red fascists, authoritarian communists, and I wouldn’t include them anymore than I would include fascists. Both red fascism and fascism are far right ideologies. Hexbear and Lemmygrad are the two main culprits. With a few notable and welcome exceptions I suspect the majority of users on .ml are tankies.
Thanks for sharing your views.
No, I didn't mean climate science hasn't been replicated. It's also not a straightforward distrust of science, but that's not far off. Republicans will generally trust their doctor's recommendations, but for COVID they also needed to trust a wider apparatus that included government.
How much of this distrust a prospective member of the tent would share, I have no idea.
If someone trusts the institutions only while their party holds them, they cannot be said to trust the institutions.
Yes, I think the main objection lately is only who controls them.
Agreed.
Do you mean something beyond my "safety net"?
As far as I know, tech is the main area we don't already do this, just because it's relatively new.
I'm partial to a "death tax" (estate tax) myself. Even then, I think there is a risk of capital flight that needs to be mitigated somehow.
I don't trust that you can actually do this without triggering a catastrophe. I would be more interested if it were structured as incremental reforms.
Eh... You might as well say it would be cool if we could all be Vulcans.
I might fight you on the particulars... I like efficiency and simplicity, but redundancy can be valuable in critical systems.
Market socialism is the only socialism that seems remotely plausible to me, and I have absolutely no objection to cannibalizing someone else's system. I'm a software developer, so that's pretty close to what I do.
Yes, that behavior is one of the main reasons the system as designed didn't have enough guard rails. That argument against the states only works so long as the federal government is trustworthy, though. We may be about to see the opposite scenario play out.
If we can find a way to make Congress take money seriously, I'm fine with all of that. Running a deficit should exclusively be an emergency measure, and the debt should then be promptly paid down when times are good.
I'm not including the debt that is important for the weird-ass way the global economy works now.
Does anyone do it like you want? I agree that we need healthcare reform, but I don't generally see glowing reviews of other systems either.
This is mostly a budget thing IMO. If you can set aside funds for it, go ahead. If you can't, that's society deciding this is not worth doing.
I'm not familiar with this one, and a brief search makes me think it may be HOAs on steroids. Do you have an explainer you can link?
? You mean just more of them? We have them in like every park around here.
I would at least give various levels of police support for the wellness check, ranging from a police radio to backup close at hand.
Yes, it's worth noting that was based on recent reports from teachers that I have seen on Reddit, in center-aligned politics subs. I am expecting that if it's a real problem there will be press on it soon.
How do you even go about that?
My own parents are the best possible argument for it, but it would still need to pass muster in terms of the Constitution.
I definitely have a distaste for media that attempts to proselytize, though.
I had to look that up. That is irresponsible at a personal level as well as a societal one.
On the other hand I don't think we're getting out unscathed from this trap we've set for ourselves.
(I had this name several months ago but apparently Lemmy pruned me? I am increasingly uncomfortable with Reddit, but my re-registration was actually prompted by a temporary problem that made me think the Reddit app was demanding notification permissions on my phone to continue functioning.)
Here's part 2 of my comment because lemmy wouldn't me put this in the first reply.
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/decommodification-and-its-role-advancing-housing-justice
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-thinking-public-drinking-fountains-are-gross-problem-180955931/
Having security for social and health care workers or someone to restrain a patient is a separate concern from what the police do. If the police show up they can use deadly force, which isn’t wanted in health care cases. Social workers will most likely own a cell phone to call 911 and could easily be provided with one. I recommend watching Last Week Tonight, they’ve done extensive research into police reform.
https://themighty.com/topic/mental-health/police-respond-mental-health-crisis-check-dangerous/
https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-police-are-trained-to-do-when-confronting-suspects-2015-4?op=1
It seems there has been work done on this topic. There are apparently more effective ways to go about it than 1970s cult deprogramming techniques. By all means, do those. But the answer cannot be to do nothing. It’s got to be to do something.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-of-mind/202303/beyond-cult-deprogramming
My Mom and my deceased Grandmother are as well. I’m sure lots of people can attest to this.
The foundation of freedom is the truth. That’s true of free speech and free press. At the bare minimum the media needs to be committed to telling the truth. To be clear, correcting errors is important, but I am referring to the Fairness Doctrine. We used to have standards for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
We are discussing climate science, so this wasn’t relevant at all. Specifically we are discussing climate science in the context of Chris Murphy’s assertion that we need to embrace climate science skeptics and other people on the right. A populist movement will be able to bring uniformed or even misled people into a broader movement without needing to compromise on any of the social, cultural, gun and climate issues listed in his tweets. The Democratic Party needs to build a populist narrative that will attract people into a coalition, not continue the failed strategy of trying to grab moderate Republicans while alienating progressives and socialists.
The above paragraph is what is relevant to the discussion at hand. I thought it was fair to exchange a general list of positions since part of the topic is coalition building. I am going ahead and responding to most of these topics, because what we as individuals need to be doing is educating ourselves and others.
Also, I’m not google, and I don’t always have the free time to respond. If we dive too deep into any of them we will miss the point of this discussion and the lengths of our comments will get too long. If you want to go deeper into any of these topics, I recommend starting a post in Ask Lemmy or another relevant community. As it is I am going to have to break this reply into multiple comments because we’ve hit the capacity for comments with our discussion.
The anti-vax movement, which has existed for centuries, is the reason the COVID misinformation was so widespread.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/history-anti-vaccine-movement-4054321
For many people, if not most people, these are one in the same. The idea that institutions themselves are what need to be changed is seemingly unintuitive in today’s society.
There are people who want a dictator that agrees with them.
Best business practices involve not doing business with ‘unreasonable’ people who won’t pay higher rates. Unreasonable is a cute way of saying a person cannot afford to pay more. I’m sure for some businesses who only deal with rich people this advice seems harmless. But when it’s the same advice that a landlord would use when raising rent it goes from cute to making people homeless. In a capitalist society, it isn’t profitable to target the lowest income brackets. Especially when the initial investment the business needs to make is in new buildings.
https://postpressmag.com/articles/2015/top-5-reasons-to-fire-a-customer/
We aren’t doing this enough in every sector. Tech is a noticeable example of this.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/121514/what-are-some-current-examples-oligopolies.asp
Waiting for billionaires to die will take too long. We needed wealth redistribution decades ago. Billionaires have access to the best health care money can buy and they are in no hurry to die.
We have the capacity to write tax laws that do not give legal windows for capital flight and we have the capacity to enforce those tax laws. The US legally freezes assets, usually as part of sanctions, routinely. We need the political will to do so.
Also, we are currently spending more money than the next nine countries combined on defense spending. We are logistically capable of stopping billionaires who attempt to illegally move assets out of the country. The 2024 article is more recent but the 2020 article does have some interesting comparisons with the rest of the world.
We also need to cut defense spending, because it’s taking money from education and essential services. Not to mention electing a dictator who does whatever other dictators want is bad for national security and military readiness. So not educating people is actually bad for national security and military readiness since an uneducated populace is easier for a christo-fascist dictator to manipulate to take power.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreylevine/2021/06/11/can-congress-really-increase-taxes-retroactively/
https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-9-countries-combined/
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2020/04/30/us-spends-military-spending-next-10-countries-combined/
It’s not an issue of trust. It’s an issue of understanding ideas and math. This is the prevalence of neoliberal ideas my argument references. Incremental reforms will not work because the owner class will always take measures to thwart them. This is because they will always be incentivized to behave that way. And as long as they have the money to do so, they will be able to act on those incentives, both economically and politically. There is no catastrophe that will be triggered if rich people are less rich and everyone else is better off. Instead we would see economic prosperity.
This attitude could have been used to dismiss any technology. Star Trek popularized the idea of computer tablets. Now we have tablets. The humans in Star Trek live in a post-scarcity society. If we don’t dismiss it out of hand, people could be living in such a society or comparable society in the future. In real life the answer might not be replicators, but more equitable and inclusive political and economic institutions.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/how-star-trek-artists-imagined-the-ipad-23-years-ago/
If the costs of the redundancy outweigh the benefits we should remove the redundancy. The redundant elements of society are billionaires and millionaires. As long as we use a market base system people are going to amass a certain amount of wealth that can easily stretch into the tens of millions. Billionaires have billions does not add anything to the economy. Having an investor class with tens or hundreds of millions that give loans can allow for new small businesses to take off. But we need to regulate these investments and eventually replace them with other systems or else investors will amass too much wealth.
It works as long the federal government is representative of the majority of people.
That’s what deficit spending is. The US is not a household. Deficit spending is a strategy and is not inherently irresponsible or responsible.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-single-payer
This is an issue of political will. As the Republican Party wants to rule, not lead, having an uneducated population makes their job of deceiving people easier. Trump is notorious for his comment on loving the poorly educated.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-love-poorly-educated/
Do you think men shouldn't have rights?