Like “not a true progressive.” Smear. It has no relevancy and is not a critique of their policy proposals. It’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy at its base.
The core criticism is that, while Warren will talk a good game, she is too cozy with the corporate and political elites and will be unable/unwilling to fight against them
And Bernie has the same history of taking corporate donations. So it’s not a credible fear. And particularly not credible given her history and the votes she’s cast.
Rather than supporting establishment interests, it shows fear of the chaos voter - the (at least hypothetical) population who, if they don’t get enough of their way, are going to vote for “burn it all down.” Which, ironically, leads to a quest for the inoffensive candidate, and converges on the one least likely to quell the chaos vote.
Which, ironically, has been the strategy of the establishment white centrists for many decades.
“Keep taxes low, the empire dominant and the Blacks suppressed or we’ll vote for the Republican”. See, for example, Democrats for Nixon. And Reagan Democrats. And the PUMAs. And the assorted DNC-linked billionaires who’ve threatened to vote Trump if a leftist is nominated.
And yet, nearly every time we see this critique raised, it is aimed at a tiny hypothetical minority of supposed radicals who somehow simultaneously believe that (a) electoral reform is futile, and (b) the electoral strategy of a tiny minority is the way to bring about radical change.
Weird indeed. And yet, there’s a widely spread narrative that Trump rose to power on the support of often-progressive disaffected industrial workers who chose fascism over yet another centrist. Of course you’re right that it does indeed fit the DINO story as well.
Moreover, the pusillanimous centrists so control the strings of power that I don’t foresee an adoption of ranked preference voting (which is the only thing I see as being capable of breaking this impasse in the two-party system) in my lifetime. Both parties have too much to lose.
And yet, when you look at the demographics of the 2016 election, the three key predictors of Trump voting were (1) whiteness, (2) maleness, and (3) wealth.
All groups of white people voted majority Trump, but working class whites voted for Trump at a lower rate than any other economic group. Overall, the working class (which is very much not white in the USA) were the base of the strongest opposition to Trump’s election.
Fascism is a middle class pathology, based in the suppression of the working class and the defence of fading privilege. It comes from above, not below.
—
OTOH, there is one way in which the “working class rejection of neoliberalism gave us Trump” narrative is true; the shittiness of the establishment Democratic party is the primary cause of low turnout among working class communities (of all races, not just white).
Absolutely. As I said, I wouldn’t vote for Gabbard (unless it was vs Trump). I don’t care if RT and some racist rednecks like her any more than that good liberals slap labels on her for easy dismissal. Her value is simply making the anti-war issue come up repeatedly. I agree overall that Bernie has been good on these issues for decades, but overall has been more talk than action. He did support Clinton’s violence in Kosovo. He was not against war in Afghanistan in 2001, but he’s saying a lot of the right things now.
Yes, well, he was right to do so, given the genocidal shit show the the UNPROFOR allowed to go on in Bosnia… The bombing in Serbia saved lives, including the lives of Serbians in Kosovo, Serbia, and in the JNA, as the exact same thing was about to go down in Kosovo. I’m generally not a fan of interventionism, but it was far too late in coming in Yugoslavia. Thousands of lives could have been saved if there had been an intervention sooner.
I’m sure you’re well aware that Sanders generally speaking is generally against the use of force for no reason. The fact that he supported the bombing in this case should tell you something about the situation.
You have lower standards than I do, then. Putin’s propaganda organ and the alt-right praise her for a reason: because she’s “anti-militarist” in a different way than Sanders is, even if they both oppose military adventurism on behalf of the fossil fuel and other industries. For example:
That’s exactly what I’m talking about when I contrast Sanders’ more nuanced position regarding military intervention to Gabbard’s taking an America-First isolationist position (at least as far as other nation-states are concerned – she’s fine continuing the “War on Terror Muslims”).
I’m always happy to see a candidate putting an issue the party establishment doesn’t want to talk about front-and-centre, as Inslee did with climate change. But if that position is simplistic and appeals most of all to a foreign autocrat who wants a free hand for expansionism and to bigoted Americans who admire said autocrat’s war on brown-skinned Muslims, it’s not helpful.
Oddly enough, in a 20-candidate race, more than one person can be a creep. Stating Biden is a creep doesn’t refute my belief Gabbard is a creep, as we’re both right.
