Which has… what, exactly, to do with what I and the person I was addressing were talking about? We were discussing a hypothetical situation where Bernie was the nominee. If you’d prefer a hypothetical situation where Warren was the nominee, just replace all instances of Bernie with Warren. My opinion is the exact same.
1 Like
It seems to me that what is actually happening is a return to core Democratic Party principles, not a co-opting of Sanders principles. If you compare Bernie’s stands on issues to those of, say, Teddy Kennedy, you won’t find much difference, except maybe Teddy was a stronger proponent of single-payer national health care and gun control (and incidentally advocated raising both the minimum wage and taxes on millionaires like himself).
The Party took an unfortunate rightward detour in the 80s, with Bill Clinton one of the drivers of the movement. Jimmy Carter’s fight with Kennedy and massive loss to Reagan gave the once-fringe DLC an opportunity to grab the party’s reins, and their core ideas were dominant for a long time.
With Hillary losing an election that should have been an easy win for the Democrats, perhaps the pernicious DLC influence is finally waning and traditional Democrats are starting to emerge from the shadows. Rather than complain that they are copying the ideas of others, those of us on the left should take some comfort in this long-overdue realignment/correction of party principles.
I can agree completely with this … except for one pernicious factor: the stranglehold that the neolibs like Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, etc have on the Democratic Party. If anything, “stranglehold” is too mild a word. Look at the dismissive way Pelosi addressed the rise of AOC and other progressives in her 60 Minutes interview. Look at how vociferously Pelosi and almost all the Dems applauded when OrangeAnus said “we will never have socialism in America!” (if neolibs were actually progressive, the most they should’ve done is maybe one clap at that line)
This leads to the inescapable conclusion (IMHO, as well as Millions Of Humble Opinions), that most of the Dem candidates espousing progressive views are Trojan Horses. Sanders is literally the only candidate who has stated nearly the same plank of policies for decades.
1 Like
Hardly. From Beto to Biden to Booker the “moderates” and “centrists” are pulling out the stops for plutocracy.
3 Likes
something you may not be taking into account in all of this conjecture of yours is how generational so much of it is. the younger cohort of politicians is less afraid to be unapologetically progressive because they didn’t grow up watching the destruction of presidential campaigns from the left in the democratic party while candidates from the right of the democratic party (carter, bill clinton) prospered. the lesson for most of pelosi’s generation seemed clear.
sanders hasn’t really succumbed to that type of thinking mainly because the politics of vermont have given him a huge amount of freedom to operate.
btw–
are you saying that aoc and ilhan omar are trojan horses? infiltrating what to gain what advantage?
4 Likes
They aren’t candidates. From the post you responded to: “most of the Dem candidates espousing progressive views are Trojan Horses”. I assumed it was understood from the context that this point was about 2020 presidential candidates.
To expand upon that point, the level of “Trojan Horsiness” a particular person has can be examined.
First, look at their voting/action record, especially early on when they were starting out.
Next, look at their donation records - the big donor/small donor ratio is an indicator. Or their donors in general. I learned that Rupert Murdoch’s son donated to Buttigieg while looking for links on this point.
Occasionally an in-depth article is posted about a particular “out of left field” or “too good to be true” candidate like Beto or Buttigieg:
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/01/04/factual-reporting-david-sirota-stirred-epic-freakout
1 Like
And I heard a rumor that Fox News donated airtime to the Sanders campaign.
1 Like
i supported o’rourke in his bid to defeat ted cruz because beto is easily to the left of cruz. i am from texas, just to be clear. i do not support him in his bid to become president because he is to the right of almost everyone else in contention. even the most progressive texas politicians tend to be on the center-right of the national party.
given that your first paragraph was mostly spent discussing members of the congressional party it didn’t seem obvious so i asked to be clear.
also, from that paragraph–
i don’t know who she’s fooling, since the important and high-profile committee assignments pelosi helped aoc and omar get have been instrumental in their rise to prominence. pelosi may be trying to placate or calm some of the other establishment democrats but she seems quite comfortable helping the progressives along. i think pelosi remains cautious because of the severe beatings liberal/progressive candidates have taken at the polls through the majority of her working life.
edited to remove redundancy.
4 Likes
What kind of power does Clinton have in the Party? Do you want to lock her up?
2 Likes
I am out of spoons today to summarize a response to that first question. Start here: https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Yes that is in regards to the 2016 primary in that article, but it makes obvious that Clinton has power within the party.
To the second part, come on… this is dull reactionary discourse.
So not at all relevant to my point.
2016 is history.
Which is my point. The demonization of the irrelevant is a staple of the GOP arsenal, and no less irritating when it is used by people on the left.
2 Likes
As we all know every year the capitalism tournament ends and everyone starts back at $0 and no social connections to give new players a chance.
Yes, because that’s totally what I was saying.
Relitigating 2016 will make some people happy, but you can count me as not one of them
3 Likes
Yeah, the narrative trying to pit Pelosi against AOC and others is bullshit, yet it keeps being repeated. Notably, I don’t think Ocasio-Cortez herself has shown any of the hostility her more ardent fans show, quite the opposite.
4 Likes
Their position isn’t “millionaires are evil.” Their position is “millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share in taxes.”
Saying a millionaire can’t support fair policy is like saying a guy can’t support feminism or a white person can’t support the Civil Rights movement.
6 Likes
If any Americans care about the direction their country is going they need to push back against these “mainstream democrats”, expose them for the “republican light” they are and demand that its Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren that go on the ballot instead of some straw horse that would just loose to Trump again.
For example:
4 Likes
5 Likes
Oh good grief. “Both parties are the same so don’t vote!” Worked out great last time, eh?
1 Like
Oh, good grief. “We should only vote for Moderate Centrists who have been dragging the Democratic Party to the Right for fifty years. You grotty little Poors will vote for who we tell you to, and YOU WILL SMILE while you do it.”
We have a choice, continue to grovel and provide degrading intimate favors to billionaires or take the Democratic Party back and inject some democracy into it. One way leads to fascism slightly slower than the Republicans are taking us there. The other offers some hope.
So yeah, vote. But don’t vote for people who just lag the evil by five years. Vote for people who have your interests at heart.
1 Like
