politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Look, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a low information voter. People are busy, and reading endlessly about politics is an unproductive hobby, just one of many out there.
But it is absolutely true that the most critical people on the left tend to be extremely vague on the specifics. Because they don't know the specifics. And being baseline critical allows them to protect their ego. "Those powerful elites won't fool me!" And don't get me wrong, powerful elites are trying to fool you. But one of the ways they do that is by convincing you that nothing ever gets better. Nothing is worth supporting. That every policy is as bad as any other. Everything that looks good is actually secretly bad.
Here's an example. Lack of competition and enshittification is frequently in the news. Inevitably, someone will comment that "both sides" are corporate shills, and it'll get a ton of upvotes. Anyone who knows anything about the current FTC knows that that's insane. In a shocking move, Biden appointed a young progressive firebrand as the head of the FTC, Lina Khan. She literally wrote the academic article starting the super progressive New Brandeis school of anti-trust. This new FTC has been sometimes clumsy, but super aggressive against corporations. This was an olive branch to the far left. And it's one of the many reasons why progressives who are paying attention begrudgingly appreciate Biden.
That's nice and shows that we should continue to apply pressure so that they continue to put more progressive people and policies into practice.
Totally agree. But pressure is both positive and negative. It means rewarding good policy, not just criticizing everything. Biden has made many moves to satisfy progressives. But if none of it matters electorally, why even try? Why not go back to pandering to centrists and conservatives?
I reward them with my guaranteed vote, which happens to be guaranteed because the alternative is worse.
The progressive vote is hardly guaranteed. It's fickle, hyper critical, divided, which enervates us as a voting bloc. Conservatives are the most reliable voters, and, surprise surprise, they wield outsized political power.
The progressive vote would be guaranteed if democrats would push progressive policies in earnest instead of constantly trying to be republican-lite.
Exhibit A. That is exactly what they are not doing. Anyone who thinks they are Republican lite is not paying attention.
Oh really? So what do you think all that pandering to "centrists" makes them? After republicans have pushed so far to the right and with democrats following after them for so long, insisting that "we must work with republicans" (while republicans are free to obstruct and undermine), republican-lite is an accurate description.
This shows you don’t understand the US political system at all. The US system is intentionally designed to require compromise. The US also has extremely weak party discipline. Voting against your own party is unheard of in most parliamentary systems, but it’s normal in the US. That means there needs to be compromise even within a single party. If you want progressive policies, more progressive Dems need to be voted in.
There are people like you on the Republican side too. People who would rather the government shut down than compromise with Democrats.
Edit: if you seriously think a president Bernie Sanders wouldn’t also compromise with Republicans, then you don’t know the first thing about how legislation is passed.
You mean like when the republicans compromised with the democrats on the supreme court where Obama picked basically a conservative judge (Merrick Garland) as a compromise and the republicans didn't hold a hearing for him anyway? Yeah, the republicans were soooo punished for pulling that stunt with a majority batshit insane conservative court. You don't understand the US political system at all because you're taking democrats with their talk of "decorum" and "compromise" at face value. Democrats compromise with republicans but will not compromise with progressives. Democrats will try to primary progressive candidates and we all know how they treated Bernie during his two presidential bids.
Bernie would probably compromise with republicans because he isn't as fervent as republicans. I wish we had a progressive that fights as fiercely and as dirty as the tea party republicans. When you're in a mud wrestling match, you can't be afraid to get down and dirty. However, Bernie would be far more likely to push for progressive policies.
No. This is extremely lacking in nuance. I am not defending all compromise. Some compromises are garbage. But being against any compromise, and praising the Tea Party, is a lazy ignorant position. Obama was an overrated moderate president, unlike Biden who has tried very hard to pass progressive policies.
Even with a Republican president and senate, House Democrats somehow managed to pass some of the most generous and progressive Covid relief in the world (even more than Scandinavian countries), including expanding child benefits and Medicare, and the US is benefiting from the strongest economic recovery in the world because of it. Biden has eliminated $130 billion worth of student loans. The Inflation Reduction Act was the biggest environmental legislation in a generation, and recommits the US to the Paris agreement. You know who voted for all these good compromises? Bernie Sanders.
Calling that "Republican-lite" is straight up ignorant. Republicans wouldn’t do any of that.
I wasn't praising the tea party, I was saying I wish democrats would fight as hard and dirty because obviously that approach worked. It's funny that you think Biden is some step above Obama when it was Obama who joined the Paris agreement in the first place (plus did the Iran deal, which Biden refuses to rejoin, even though the US broke the deal). The covid benefits were generous under republicans too, but it doesn't matter since most of that shit was revoked and was a fraction of the money handed over to corporations. Yay, we caught some drips from the trillions of dollars printed.
The economic recovery is on paper, but there are severe vulnerabilities underneath. The US is standing tall because the other countries are simply doing worse. It helps a lot that the US dollar dominates global markets. I wouldn't want to hitch the economy onto the president so much because for one, the president has little to do with the economy, and second, if the economy happens to crash between now and the election, Biden's chances of re-election are toast.
Biden eliminated $130 worth of student loans after helping create the $1.7 trillion student loan crisis we have now: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/02/joe-biden-student-loan-debt-2005-act-2020
Causing a problem and then making minor chips at it is not a good thing. The "biggest environmental legislation in a generation" sounds great until you realize how little has actually been done about it. Also, it's huge in terms of money spent, but the benefits remain to be seen since the important point is where that money goes. Handing private companies tons of money doesn't necessarily translate to great results (it does result in great bonuses for execs, though).
This discussion is going off the rails. Most of these points are wild digressions.
How does that argument even make sense in your brain? Obama was president at that time, so it was impossible for Biden to be the one to join it. Joining the Paris agreement is absolutely empty without actions. Unlike Biden, Obama passed no major legislation to support it and did not make climate a priority.
You're missing the point. The US is doing better during a worldwide recession because progressive policies work. Left leaning economists like Joseph Stiglitz argue that the generous covid stimulus programs is why the US has avoided a recession, whereas Europe is suffering for their economic conservatism.
Biden was a centrist senator, but please stay on topic: we're talking about his current presidency not what he did 20 years ago. As Sanders said, "I think he is a much more progressive president than he was a United States senator".
The actual topic:
You made the ridiculous assertion that Democrats and Biden are "Republican-lite". You haven't addressed that point at all, because it's utter indefensible bullshit and you know it. People like you are why progressives keep losing. If progressives don't know and can't recognize when their policies are being passed, then progressive policies will never be passed.