The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

I'm past the point of thinking that Obama is just weak and ineffective. I don't believe he has anything close to a progressive agenda.

That's pretty obvious at this point.

[Balta1701]

I'm past the point of thinking that Obama is just weak and ineffective. I don't believe he has anything close to a progressive agenda.

The amazing thing though is that sometimes he'll get up and just nail why a progressive agenda is important in a speech, and then he'll never take any initiative to back up his own words.

[StrangeSox]

"she all of the sudden became the world's biggest derivative regulation backer"

 

Wait a second I'm not arguing against running liberals in primaries. I'm arguing against voting to bad Democrat candidates just because they're not Republicans.

[bmags]

"she said she would have voted to repeal DADT, but darn it, she just missed it"

 

Obama campaigned on all sorts of stuff he immediately backed away from as his opening move.

 

edit: What Balta said.

 

So, you have a great example of a completely conservative democrat in a state that only votes for democrats because of historical reasons, where everyone is worried that she won't vote for the derivative language in the bill because she's so pro-corporate, gets primaried by a slightly to the left candidate who paints her as pro-banks, and she then doesn't support that language because she wants it to be STRONGER...and primarying her didn't work because? Yeah, you're right, she's not russ feingold. But in a world with realities, you could look at what does work, and replicate it, or you could look at what doesn't work, and just assert really adamently that it should work. We know that latter doesn't work. But it's the only gameplan in the liberal handbook.

[bmags]

Wait a second I'm not arguing against running liberals in primaries. I'm arguing against voting to bad Democrat candidates just because they're not Republicans.

 

You could primary that bad candidate to the left. But the left doesn't do that enough. They just have them get voted out of office, let the republican get in office and vote in bad legislation, and then a democratic candidate will then position themselves as moderate, and if they win the liberals will celebrate, then sit on the sidelines and watch and bemoan the centrist candidate because they didn't vote for liberal causes, then let a republican take over.

[BigSqwert]

Taibbi wrote a pretty solid article yesterday on Obama and the debt deal.

 

Excerpt:

The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.

 

For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.

 

The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.

 

The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time -- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did -- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.

 

We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening.

[StrangeSox]

You've got one example of someone being pushed to back derivatives legislation shortly after derivatives made the world economy collapse. That's sort of a once-in-a-lifetime or at least once-in-a-decade situation where a majority of the voters are going to be strongly aligned with liberal policy preferences that a particular Democrat candidate doesn't support.

 

None of this addresses my initial comment that liberals can easily feel pretty disaffected right now because Democrats have not offered even token resistance to conservative policy narratives, thus making it that much harder for liberals to make their case to the public at large. When you don't have the President out there advocating against and explaining why a large austerity plan is a bad idea, but instead coming up with his own plan, how do you expect a liberal primary challenger to gain enough traction to sway enough moderate and conservative Democrats to back them?

 

[StrangeSox]

You could primary that bad candidate to the left. But the left doesn't do that enough.

 

Let's say that a liberal primary challenger runs but loses and ultimately doesn't get substantial policy changes from the winner. Should I still vote for that Democrat?

[bmags]

You have to understand that the majority of the public is worried about the deficits. When one party is swearing we're bankrupt, it's too counterintuitive to say "well actually 100% debt:gdp ratio is not unheard of for countries" blah blah people won't believe you. So they fought to make the austerity measures out of the short term and to include defense cuts. Given the circumstances, the question becomes whether you wanted that or the country to not pay it's poorest citizens social security because there is a delusional congressional majority and pass off congressional responsibility to a super committee. This is what you see in republics like the united states when a party starts behaving like republicans. One reason our country worked so well was because the ideological alignment was out of whack due to racism. that doesn't exist and it favors the party with more rigid discipline.

[Balta1701]

You have to understand that the majority of the public is worried about the deficits. When one party is swearing we're bankrupt, it's too counterintuitive to say "well actually 100% debt:gdp ratio is not unheard of for countries" blah blah people won't believe you. So they fought to make the austerity measures out of the short term and to include defense cuts. Given the circumstances, the question becomes whether you wanted that or the country to not pay it's poorest citizens social security because there is a delusional congressional majority and pass off congressional responsibility to a super committee. This is what you see in republics like the united states when a party starts behaving like republicans. One reason our country worked so well was because the ideological alignment was out of whack due to racism. that doesn't exist and it favors the party with more rigid discipline.

Why is "The deficit is causing unemployment" an easier argument to make than "We need to hire people to do stuff!"

 

People are only worried about the deficit because both parties have come together and agreed that it is the problem that is causing unemployment and needs to be dealt with. Until this deficit hysteria started, no one was worried about the deficit, nor should they have been...they were worried about being jobless.

 

People are more than willing to make the 2nd argument...it just gets consigned to the sidelines. Unless the person with the bully pulpit makes it, no one listens.

[StrangeSox]

More people were worried about jobs. Most people wanted a deal with revenues. You do not have to get technocratic to explain why austerity measures would be disastrous while pro-jobs bills would help the economy and the deficit at the same time. You don't have to take your option to fix the problem off the table from the start. Instead, they fought for a package to the right of what the public wanted.

 

What you're saying is that Democrats have no choice but to give in to conservative narratives over and over again. If they do that, of course the country will keep moving further and further to the right.

[StrangeSox]

Why is "The deficit is causing unemployment" an easier argument to make than "We need to hire people to do stuff!"

 

People are only worried about the deficit because both parties have come together and agreed that it is the problem that is causing unemployment and needs to be dealt with. Until this deficit hysteria started, no one was worried about the deficit, nor should they have been...they were worried about being jobless.

 

People are more than willing to make the 2nd argument...it just gets consigned to the sidelines. Unless the person with the bully pulpit makes it, no one listens.

 

Exactly. There was no reason that the Democrats had to instantly adopt the rhetorical positions of the Republicans. If neither party will push back again the "ZOMG deficits! CUT CUT CUT!" hysteria (or insert any other liberal positions Democrats refused to advocate), how on earth are you supposed to organize a legitimate liberal primary challenge?

[Balta1701]

Exactly. There was no reason that the Democrats had to instantly adopt the rhetorical positions of the Republicans. If neither party will push back again the "ZOMG deficits! CUT CUT CUT!" hysteria (or insert any other liberal positions Democrats refused to advocate), how on earth are you supposed to organize a legitimate liberal primary challenge?

You can actually see the impact of it in polling data.

 

 

Which do you think should be a higher priority for the government: creating jobs or cutting the deficit?

 

The people wanted jobs. They got convinced because both parties agreed the real problem was the deficit. Now we have a deficit reduction bill that will reduce jobs by 1.9 million next year.

[Jenksismyhero]

You can actually see the impact of it in polling data.

 

 

Which do you think should be a higher priority for the government: creating jobs or cutting the deficit?

 

The people wanted jobs. They got convinced because both parties agreed the real problem was the deficit. Now we have a deficit reduction bill that will reduce jobs by 1.9 million next year.

 

An alternative theory: since our government is so f***ed up, and we can't possibly handle more than one issue at a time, the timing of the debt ceiling made it convenient for the GOP to hammer at the deficit problem, which is a problem that can actually be addressed, as opposed to job creation, which is throwing darts at a wall and hoping something sticks.

 

Plus, you just had a President sell the American people on a gigantic stimulus spending bill that was supposed to fix the problems ...except that it didn't. You can't really fault GOP leaders for taking advantage of the timing. As bmags points out, that's politics that the GOP has mastered whereas the Dem party just sits back and expects their message to translate into actual governance.

 

I'd also add that while I find your guys' view interesting, seems to me you're ignoring the part where the majority of the country considers itself moderate. To a certain extent Obama HAS to be moderate to gain reelection. A small minority of people want the government to be progressive, a small minority wants the country to be ubber conservative. In reality the vast majority want business as usual with little to know change in their personal lives.

[Balta1701]

You're right on the last part more than any other.

 

Which is why "doing everything possible to help the economy and prevent another collapse" should have been the right move. Doing significant damage to the economy should have been something that was fought against like the dickens.

[StrangeSox]

I'd also add that while I find your guys' view interesting, seems to me you're ignoring the part where the majority of the country considers itself moderate. To a certain extent Obama HAS to be moderate to gain reelection. A small minority of people want the government to be progressive, a small minority wants the country to be ubber conservative. In reality the vast majority want business as usual with little to know change in their personal lives.

 

I've not said it explicitly but the problem there (from my perspective) is that lack of advocacy for a liberal position. I'm no political science expert, but I generally accept the theory behind the Overton Window. When Obama immediately caves to the conservative economic narrative, it means the entire mainstream political discourse in the country gets shifted to the right. Since this is already a center-right country, it only makes it that much harder to make a case against austerity packages or for universal healthcare or any other liberal positions that have been thrown under the bus by Obama.

[BigSqwert]

I think too many progressives were excited that someone with a "D" next to their name was elected without taking a step back to realize that there's virtually nothing progressive about the candidate.

[Jenksismyhero]

I've not said it explicitly but the problem there (from my perspective) is that lack of advocacy for a liberal position. I'm no political science expert, but I generally accept the theory behind the Overton Window. When Obama immediately caves to the conservative economic narrative, it means the entire mainstream political discourse in the country gets shifted to the right. Since this is already a center-right country, it only makes it that much harder to make a case against austerity packages or for universal healthcare or any other liberal positions that have been thrown under the bus by Obama.

 

But he started with universal healthcare and ended up coming back to the middle, "pulling" his position more to the left than what the country wanted, which was no additional government coverage.

 

Honestly I think you're just upset that more people don't think like you. Yeah, you might not have nearly as many "liberal" politicians as you'd like, but I think you're pretty extreme. There's not a single conservative policy you agree with. It's not easy to get voted in with a "let's change everything radically from what it is now!" campaign.

[StrangeSox]

But he started with universal healthcare and ended up coming back to the middle, "pulling" his position more to the left than what the country wanted, which was no additional government coverage.

 

He never started with universal healthcare. Single-payer was off the table from the very start of the debate.

[Balta1701]

He never started with universal healthcare. Single-payer was off the table from the very start of the debate.

Now wait a second there...there's no requirement that "Universal healthcare" = single payer, british style. Universal healthcare means that everyone has some sort of healthcare coverage. It can be done still using the private sector, Switzerland I believe uses that model.

 

The problem of course is that he said "Universal healthcare" was something no one wanted, which, if true, would mean that we're the most evil society in history.

[StrangeSox]

Britain's a fully-nationalized health care system. That's different than a single-payer insurance system, like Canada.

[Balta1701]

Britain's a fully-nationalized health care system. That's different than a single-payer insurance system, like Canada.

And that's still more specific than a "Universal" system.

[StrangeSox]

And that's still more specific than a "Universal" system.

 

Ok, then he never made the case for single-payer or nationalized health care. Instead he want straight to private insurance mandates.

[bmags]

But he started with universal healthcare and ended up coming back to the middle, "pulling" his position more to the left than what the country wanted, which was no additional government coverage.

 

Honestly I think you're just upset that more people don't think like you. Yeah, you might not have nearly as many "liberal" politicians as you'd like, but I think you're pretty extreme. There's not a single conservative policy you agree with. It's not easy to get voted in with a "let's change everything radically from what it is now!" campaign.

 

This is sort of what I'm getting at. A lot of people switched to "identifying democrat" during the latter bush years, and I think a lot of liberals mistook that as a drift toward liberalism. It really wasn't. The base of the democratic party is not liberals. Being a democrat in rhode island or ohio is a lot different than being a democrat in chicago or california.

 

The good news is that demographics are on the democrats side. The bad news is that in the short term, the largest voting bloc is very, very conservative, and very very good at voting. So that's why I don't think it's a good idea to just throw out any progress that IS made (and there was a lot), push the candidates that are there to the left, vote for the better candidate, push that candidate to the left, etc, all the while paying attention to local politics and zoning so we start building a more dense society...last part's all me, but nonetheless. This stuff is hard. And the past 3 years are no where near the success I was expecting. But progress is a lot harder than standing pat. ANd a lot of liberal policies that have evidence behind them are NOT very intuitive, whereas the GOP can sit there and be like "do you like taxes? No, well OUR party doesn't believe in taxes" and no matter how stupid that is, it's a winning electoral strategy.

[bmags]

Ok, then he never made the case for single-payer or nationalized health care. Instead he want straight to private insurance mandates.

 

Britain made the NHS is WWII, the US's employer provided insurance started in: WWII. Once something becomes structure it's incredibly hard to change. But there were a lot of good thigns in this bill you guys now call trash, things that will flesh out and improve. We put a bunch of "let's see" cost control measures that will go into effect and hopefully be built upon.