Matt Taibbi on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs the US political establishment

Coming off Kennedy/Johnson the DNC lost 2 landslide presidential elections in row. Carter missed a second term, with 3 more landslides in a row. And Carter was considered almost as much of a joke as Ford until surprisingly recently.

During the same time they lost a shit ton of control in the states and their margin in congress steadily fell. And what’s more important than that is who was maintaining or winning seats where they were won. And like Clinton they were center right and blue dogs. The fact that Clinton even won his primary was a bit of a shock at the time, and that was very much the “New Face” of the Democratic Party at the time after widespread fear that the Democrats had lost the ability to win national elections or control the senate because they were out of touch with the nation as a whole.

One of the big wow facts coming out of the midterms was the DNC won its largest representation in State governments since the Carter administration.

Point being they saw a good lot more success at the time, and even through the 00’s than they were seeing before the rise of the center right.

MEANWHILE. Its not like the party sat there and said “hey lets tack right, over the course of 32 years!”. What happened is different more conservative politicians were elected as part of that party. And eventually rose to be central to that party. What they gained was that they had any representation at all outside of coastal cities. Your older batch of mid century liberals faded out, as they were replaced with politicians from a more conservative generation, elected by a more conservative electorate.

You can go check the tracking polls on religiosity, political alignment. Support on particular issue. Look at how rapidly public opinion changed on gay marriage.

Like I said there was a nation wide, general population, shift to the conservative. Starting in the 70’s. Accelerating in the 80’s, and peaking in the 90’s. It wasn’t just a momentary shift right for opportunity’s sake by the national DNC for a single election. The right went further right. And the left all but disappeared. Check the link I put up, in 1992 only 25% of Democrats identified as liberal. The gen pop it looks like something like 17%. And that’s after the parties resorted through Nixon and Reagan to pull segregationist, Southern Democrats into the GOP.

All I’m saying is the party didn’t shift right at odds with the population. They followed the country rightward.

Left wing identification has been moving upwards, steadily since the 90’s. As has support for a whole host of progressive policies. And its been accelerating the last 10 years. And its pretty much in lock step with what proportion of the electorate is still from those older generations that drove that rightward shift

3 Likes

tumblr_plrn3c6KbO1qzssc1_540

17 Likes

Rashida Tlaib’s on the same committee:

This could be good… :grin:

15 Likes

7 Likes

Yeah, but why did the nation shift right?

During this time the right successfully attached “communist” to “democrat” - a meme that still holds firmly in place to the current date - on top of stoking the fear of black people moving into their neighborhoods. The population didn’t just randomly start believing money was paramount, or start rioting over buss routes.

What you are saying is that the Democrats shifting right from the 70s on worked, and what I’m saying is that the strategy didn’t work well enough to say it worked.

1 Like

Oh, that is such good news!

12 Likes

The common explanation is wide spread white religious back lash against the successes of the civil Rights movement and feminist gains.

Capitalized by the GOP, especially starting with Nixon. Actively courting the very pissed former Democrats in the South.

What certainly didn’t work “better” at the time was those 30 years where running left of center and solidly progressive created a bunch of escalating loses. Because the DNC didn’t shift right from the 70’s, but voters did. Even when Bill Clinton succeeded that way it wasn’t something decided on or strategized by the party. Clinton was part of a new group of Democrats that came about in the 80’s in response to electoral defeats. And it was their success in elections where other Democrats were failing that brought them to prominence. Clinton effectively proved that worked when he took the party’s nomination. Putting this group in charge. Unfortunately he was Bill Clinton and we saw how that went.

It only “worked” in so far that it happened. Progressives and the left got drop kicked at the polls. Centrists and mild conservatives didn’t, the GOP moved consistently further right along the same time. Till you hit a political divide that was basically the far right against the middle with no space for the left.

What I’m saying is your talking about a half century process of erosion that peaked 20 years ago. And has only really started to reverse itself now. Or not really reverse it self since the right isn’t shrinking as fast as the left is growing, and it’s still moving further right.

But if you think it boiled down to smearing demcrats as communists you really need to check up on the history. Red smears go back much further than this, and often functioned as a dogwhistle. McCarthism wss the 50s. Turn of the century labor movement was loaded down with it before the cold war even started. And as labor became a key DNC faction accusations of communism became a key line of attack.

The 80’s/90’s GOP was about the rise of the religious right. And with Gringrich’s take over and the attacks on Clinton. The creation of a “moral majority” to take over from Nixon’s “silent majority”. An explicitly religious enforcement of moral rectitude on the nation. And the idea that conservativism and particular kinds of Christian faith were explicitly more American. It wasn’t that Democrats were communists. It’s that they were false, sexually loose, secret athiests, homosexuals, and inherently corrupt and came by their power illegitimately.

3 Likes

The political establishment is never interested in change. Not even when it’s the headline on their campaign posters. They are interested in protecting their privileges. If it was up to the Democrats at large, AOC’s political career would have been nipped in the bud, but hopefully she’s too popular already for that now.

4 Likes

Reminder that Crowley was Pelosi’s planned successor. Imagine what he could have achieved if he’d had the chance to put those sparkling political instincts to work as the Speaker of the House…

6 Likes

one thing about pelosi though, unlike some other democratic congresscritters of her generation, instead of saying a bunch of stupid shit about how aoc or tlaib need to sit down and shut up, she’a been getting them on committees with real responsibilities and real opportunities to get quoted even more.

tl;dr
pelosi knows how to roll with new and unexpected opportunities in a way a lot of people her age or her time in the house aren’t able to do. gee, i wonder if that’s another reason she’s the speaker?

edited for clarity by changing “are” into “aren’t” in the last line.

6 Likes

Pretty much, they both seem to want the same things with slight differences in flavour. The Republicans seem to want to transfer all of the wealth of the bottom 99.9% to the top 0.1% without much interest in that bottom 99+%; and they embrace a cadre of their followers who want society to roll back to the early 1950s, you know, where people knew their place. The Democrats (at least the Establishment ones) on the other hand seem to want to transfer all of the wealth of the bottom 99.9% to the top 0.1%, but to have an otherwise (mostly) equitable society where the hoi polloi have housing, food, and health care (just enough so that they don’t rock the boat, the old panem et circenses idea).

4 Likes

Yeah these are a little startling. Like I said the reports out of the speaker vote process were that progressives were brought to the table first, and got most of what they were looking for. The most important things being changes to how leadership positions work so younger members could at least get on the pathway. And committee seats.

But freshman representatives generally don’t end up with major committee appointments. And oversight is a pretty fucking major committee.

2 Likes

If you don’t mind, I’ll borrow this from time to time.

1 Like

LOL, you’re in flying form yourself @doctorow:

1 Like

I have a grasp on voter suppression and gerrymandering, Citizens United and other real factors; I also note that Obama didn’t even use his bully pulpit to speak out against them, or explain them to America because God forbid Obama ever, ever not look cool and unperturbed. And I’m not relitigating 2016, I’m trying to note how the past holds invaluable lessons. And Hillary had a vote surplus of 3,000,000, but that’s not what ended the election; it was the 80,000 she didn’t earn in WOMP by not going there, being a bad campaigner, assuming she had the rustbelt in the bag and refusing to play rough with Trump until far, far too late and even then with the weight of scandal and ignominy on her. And she won the primaries, yes – a primary that saw almost the entire former Confederacy weigh in before California. And with the hand of the DNC pushing the Ouija planchette away from spelling “BERNIE” and into spelling “I’M WITH HER,” a slogan that says everything about why Democrats lose – I don’t want to be with her, she’s a rich lady who’s doing fine. I want MY CANDIDATE WITH ME, not the other way around.

Everyone involved in the 2016 election, on the Democrat side, needs to go to a farm upstate and play with Michael Dukakis, Mondale and other smart losers. And as long as we have Democrats who are really Republicans, Republicans will win.

4 Likes
12 Likes

lol wtf

1 Like

does anyone have a suitable cartoon with the punchline “but her emails”?

additionally clinton won not just the south but also california, arizona, nevada, iowa, illinois, indiana, michigan ohio, as well as the whole northeast except vermont, maine, and a tie in new hampshire. yes, the establishment wing of the democratic party wanted clinton, but so did the majority of the democrats who voted in the primaries.

seriously, was there anything about the performance of our current president, during the campaign, that said “winner winner chicken dinner!!!” to you? can you point to something on the record to substantiate it? because i certainly didn’t think so. and i didn’t look at his performance and say to myself “even if he loses the popular vote, he’s going to leverage the electoral college to get into office” either.

seriously, i’m looking for a “but her emails” cartoon. help me somebody!

4 Likes

…and look at how much those sober, reasonable statements did.

Again: We lost a lot on Obama’s watch because he was a sellout centrist who didn’t look like one. I wanted a fighter, not a capitulation. And Obama would and did regularly cave in the face of a stiff breeze

image

image

8 Likes