this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
521 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3406 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
521
The Democrats must become an anti-establishment party | Robert Reich (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 21 hours ago by WestBromwich@feddit.uk to c/politics@lemmy.world
152 comments fedilink hide all child comments
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 40 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I've said this before, but I think it needs to be repeated:

The populist, anti-elitist lane on the left is wide open. I don't know that a mainstream "Democratic" party can take that lane, and I don't know if we should bother trying to drag them there. However, what I can say is that there is going to be some significant hay to make in that field.

I think Pramila Jayapal, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Delia Ramirez, Jamaal Bowman, Summer Lee, Cori Bush, Katie Porter, anyone who has been rat-fucked by Democrats should all abandon their identification with the Democratic party and become independents. And in the time that he has left, at their lead, should be Bernie Sanders, who never needed to be told about the consequences of running with milquetoast policies.

Even if they caucus with Democrats, true progressives need to show them that their votes aren't a given, and if they want them, they need to take a step towards their legislative priorities. Giving up our votes without leverage, giving in to the Washington groupthink: THIS LOSES ELECTIONS!

We shouldn't focus on redeeming the Democratic party. Let them sink. Focus on getting good quality, reliable progressive populists elected. The Democratic party is a fucking anchor and we're better off without it. Let those unwilling to let go of that Washington groupthink sink with it.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 17 hours ago

Split the non Republican vote so you leave the door wide open for them? That's the problem with first past the post...

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 12 hours ago

While this strategy may feel good, it makes the minorities Republicans want to hurt the cost of doing business. Even if Democrats can't deliver on anything substantial in the short term voting for them in elections is useful.

First, it reduces the harm done to minorities. Second, it demonstrates there is a progressive voter block the democrats could shift closer to. Third, assuming we get more elections and the Democrats aren't all in jail, it creates time for a progressive, like the Democrats your argument listed, to co-opt the Democratic Party. Like what Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats.

Rather than trying to achieve moral victory over Democrats, let's leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt.

[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The democratic party per se isn't the problem.

First past the post democracies always result in what we have now. The democratic party will completely disappear under proportional representation. In it's place you will see a proliferation of the power that is being grimly clasped by the corporate kleptocracy and their minions. Instead of 1% deciding how we manage our society, everyone gets a say.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 14 hours ago

They will be the establishment no matter what they do lmfao. Can't claim to not be unless they choose to go the Republican route of lying their asses off

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 18 points 20 hours ago

Hear fucking hear.

[–] MyDogLovesMe@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

There simply won’t be another election.

The whole point is a cow’s opinion. It doesn’t matter.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

It's "moo".

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 hours ago

There simply won’t be another election.

That is a possibility. The US elected fascists who now control all three branches of the federal government. However they do not have a two-thirds majority in congress or control two-thirds of the states. So it will be difficult for the fascists if they choose a purely legal route. However, since they are fascists, they might use violence to get what they want. We won't know until they try.

In the event that we still have elections and Democrats can still participate we should leverage power and vote for Democrats in those elections. This will reduce the harm done to minorities by fascists who want to kill them.

I wanted to add to your point, because people in this comment section are attempting to write off future elections unless Democrats completely meet the demands of progressives. This isn't something Democrats are likely to do. But the people who will be harmed by hypothetical future Republican administrations would prefer if Democrats were clogging up the works and knocking fascists out of power at the very least.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 13 points 20 hours ago

Democrats are the establishment that needs to be laid out to pasture and replaced

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

Bit late init

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago

Democrats don't learn lessons.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Wasn't there a recent conspiracy theory that the establishment doesn't want Trump (hence the assassination attempts) because he's an easily manipulated loose canon who doesn't follow orders like a good shill should lol?

Point being that dems lost this election because they are inherently more pro establishment and have been for a while.

[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I think that there is one issue which Trump will deliver the Dems what they really want, and they won't stand in his way as he does it: liquidating Palestine entirely. In the next ten years if nothing is done by Arab nations, the UN or the US left, Israel will likely declare war on the Palestinian Authority itself, exiling or killing its leaders if they do not submit to Israeli sovereignty over the entirety of Palestine.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Sounds like he'll end the genocide! Technically, it's no longer genocide when there's no one left to murder.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Monster grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the strength to change the things I can, and the Noodle to know the difference.

RAmen

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

I suggest we all get together and form a party. We can hold it somewhere well known; maybe a waterfront, or harbor. I hear Boston is a nice place. Very patriotic even. We can even have refreshments; maybe a nice tea? Who’s in?

[–] Juice@midwest.social 3 points 18 hours ago

"These bonobo monkeys must become Rhodes scholars" is a more believable headline

[–] Vailliant@lemmy.world -1 points 11 hours ago

They have, they were just as beholden to money interests as the Republicans...

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: anybody not cheering for Fox News' talking points sufficiently enthusiastically is declared "socialist" and all but suggested as target for public lynching (or in some cases actually the target of a lynch mob storming the capitol) and the masses have been drilled into going berserk at hearing the right keywords, regardless of what happens in reality.

Calling an attempt to break this information monopoly over half the nation an uphill battle is the epitome of understatement.

[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly, Fox News is going to call anyone against them a socialist. That's just what they're going to do. There are even some Republican policies which can be construed as socialist, such as public spending on schools, even private schools.

The average voter really doesn't care about if something is socialist or not. They clearly don't care if something is fascist. They only care about the perception of how it will affect their life.

If you tell people they're not going to have to pay for healthcare ever again, or that cannabis will be legal, or that you will fix the massive wealth gap, they will vote for you. Nominal Republicans would even vote for you. The downside of using the word socialism like that, is that Fox News that has removed the meaning of socialism from their base, meaning that actual socialism will not seem like such a big deal.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Being called socialist isn't even the issue. My point is that a news monolith has spent decades radicalising half the country and at this point there are enough cultists that will mercilessly tear down anybody Fox&Co paint a target on. Until there is a solid defense against such a hate machine, no party will flourish on its merits as long as Fox-drilled stooges will only be fed a caricature of any opposition Fox designates as the enemy. Even your perfect ideal candidate would lose the election. The boogeyman Fox would paint them to be would be so repulsive and half the country would never even hear their ideas anyway, except what skewed perspective Fox would blast the viewers with 24/7.

[–] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

My point is that they're construction is inherently self-destructive. They have made their base extremely susceptible to populism.

If a populist candidate from the other direction arises, a large portion of the Fox News base will support them. You mark my words. Just think about how quickly they turn against Fox News when they don't do what they want

[–] ZK686@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Isn't that what Trump is saying he is? I mean, they're both claiming to be "against the machine..."

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›