296
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
296 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3347 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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