The Dems have moved so far to the right that what used to be the far-right (Bush/Cheney) now supports them
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
99 points (81.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7234 readers
581 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
This is all you need to know about the Democratic Party. How many years before they make Trump look sane?
The dems have already rehabilitated GWB, McCain, and Cheney. It's a trueism that the democrats of today are the republicans of 20 years ago.
current day libs will have rehabilitated trump sometime in the next 20 years. I am willing to bet every dollar I own on that. it will happen, just like bush and cheney have been rehabilitated.
The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.
- Julius Nyerere
I do think Bush/Cheney etc are also moving away from DJT.
10 years ago I used to bring up how Biden was one of the biggest proponents of the murderous drug war and the police militarization that came with it, and how he should never be president because of all the blood on his hands. I used to get called extreme for it
Just a few months ago it was impossible to criticize this old segregationist rapist. The two US political parties are worse than cults.
As are the Republicans. In a country with only two ruling parties, that means the country is. It's quite simple.
The distinction being drawn is that popular sentiments aren't going rightwards like the parties are.
If that was the case wouldn't dems win every election? How can the people stay center or move left and it not cause a landslide for the more left leaning party?
Marketing
Well, I would argue that that is like 95% where their votes are coming from, basically "This is still the 'left' option, I guess," rather than believing in any sort of positive vision on the part of the Democratic Party (it doesn't have one).
However, politics isn't just a 1-dimensional spectrum where things neatly slot into whatever is closest. The fact that they are lurching rightward, the apparent contempt they have for the left, the lack of any meaningful similarity between what a left-wing person wants and what the Democrats will even acknowledge is real (like action on the genocide in Palestine), means that what you are taking as similarity is in many cases difference. Just saying "Fuck you, vote for me because the other guy is worse" is really not a good strategy for getting votes unless you are holding getting votes as secondary to pandering to donors.
Like, do you think a new Republican candidate could just be blatantly pro-choice and not lose one or two dedicated blocs of the Republican voting base, just because "he's still the farthest right"? Of course not, democracy doesn't work that way. If you don't support people on the issues they care about most, a good number of them will tell you to go to hell while the others roll over as always.
Have been my entire life.
It may well turn out that humanity chases itself towards more and more hate and scapegoating as they make the world they live in less liveable.
The left is pro 2A.
Well when 30% of the country wants you dead just for being Democrat, can you blame them for wanting to defend themselves?
Democrats are not the left.
Not this shit again. Go away.
Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, marijuana reform...not to mention a Black man was president, and a Black woman is the party nominee.
Yeah, it sucks that progress is so slow, and yeah, it sucks that some things have gone backwards. But there has been a huge amount of progress in the past however-many years. We went from "don't ask, don't tell" to having a Catholic president openly support gay marriage in a relatively short time.
Using Harris' Glock anecdote as evidence the party is moving to the right is just lazy editorializing IMHO. Almost as lazy as just asserting that the party is moving to the left because of the issues that you decided illustrate the left-right difference...
Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, marijuana reform…not to mention a Black man was president, and a Black woman is the party nominee.
Oh do lgbt people have more rights now? Oh fuck, I'll let my trans refugee friends know.
The fact that your trans refugee friends continue to suffer is deplorable, but does not mean lgbt don't have more rights now. You're employing the same fallacy that anti-vaxxers use when they say it's pointless to get a vaccine when it doesn't 100% guarantee protection from the illness. Things are better for some people and still desperately need to improve for many others.
The fact that your trans refugee friends continue to suffer is deplorable, but does not mean lgbt don’t have more rights now.
Trans people are experiencing low key genocide but we also have more rights now?
Things are better for some people and still desperately need to improve for many others.
Things are desperately worse for some people and have improved slightly for others.
Genocide of trans people > gay marriage on the impact on the queer community
Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ rights, marijuana reform...not to mention a Black man was president, and a Black woman is the party nominee.
You forgot that the black woman is also the sitting vice president.
more 👏 representation 👏 in 👏 the 👏 oppressor 👏 class 👏
the only thing lazy here is parroting democrats who took credit for things they didn't do
Affordable Care Act
democrats walked back on medicare for all reforms ensuring that the aca will cease to function.
LGBTQ rights,
the democrats gave us don't ask, don't tell; doma; and 10450. the gays became accepted through portrayals in tv and movies; not because of democrats. the closest thing that could be misconstrued as lgbt right is the defense of marriage act which did nothing but give gay marriage bigots legal protections since the supreme court invalidated doma 8 years before.
marijuana reform…
nothing but lip service for the last 20 years
not to mention a Black man was president
a member of the ruling class
Black woman is the party nominee.
acab and a prosecutor who put many innocent people behind bars and then fought to keep them there once it became clear that they were innocent to just to save face.
I respectfully disagree. Half of independents and a quarter of Democrats said they'd support militarized camps for undocumented people.
The corporate/conservative propaganda is working.
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you. -Lyndon B. Johnson
That polling was mentioned immediately in the article, but it then points to the wealth of issues where the headline is true.
None of that matters to me. You can be conservative and give renters a break. As long as they're the right renters. This idea of in groups and out groups that is the core of conservative ideology is gaining ground.
Edit to add - It's struck me that the article and I are actually talking about two different things. Their real complaint is that the Democrats are moving towards servicing the donor class more than their constituents. My complaint is that the constituents are getting too cozy with the idea of in groups, as long as they believe they're on the inside.
The donors -- the domestic owning class -- were always a self-aligned ingroup, and it's been that way since before the country was founded. The fact that they have gotten complacent in just green-washing and rainbow-washing their marketing instead of allowing actual concessions to be made is not really a change in their ideology so much as their strategy. They still have the same goals that they've always had, it's just that the tiny little check on their power that the left and the working class more broadly represented has been systematically dismantled.
It's not a matter of what the owning class "believes" as though these conditions are a highly subjective thing, because ingroups are not just a quirk of psychology or social perspective, they can be and often are interest groups, people who share a common material interest. The owners are correct that it benefits them broadly to crush the power of labor so they can maximize profits, just like they know it benefits them broadly to do other things like scapegoat minorities, use drug policy as a pretext for mass-incarceration, and so on.
Oh look, more vote-third-party slop pushed right before an election. What a coincidence!
the democrats have received endorsements from dick fucking cheney and ex-reagan staffers. they have campaigned on building the border wall more efficiently, shutting down asylum and hiring more border guards. in the debate she promised the American military will be the most lethal fighting force in the world. democrats USED to campaign on medicare for all, a path to citizenship, ending forever wars, etc. the rightward shift of the party is abundantly clear to anyone not just playing team sports. you need to come to terms with the fact that your party has been assimilated by neoconservatives and push back on it, or it's only going to continue.
Including Obama who surrounded himself (top cabinet posts) with the most zionist neocon republicans in the democratic party, Biden and HRC, unprimaried Harris continues the tradition of Republican sympathizer nominee, as some desperate attempt to avoid a stronger fascism that DNC/media keeps humanizing. Media and Zionist first political donations is an insurmountable problem, though.
Third parties are never even mentioned in the article. Is all left criticism of Harris "vote-third-party slop"?
What a coincidence!
This is one of those things where we all know what it means but you have deniability if someone calls you out on it. Just say what you mean instead of resorting to dogwhistling.