FDR was much closer to being a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist. They sound similar but are quite different. Hell I think Bernie is closer to a Social Democrat, too. He praises the Nordic model and they're textbook social democracies.
I've always felt that's just pragmatism from Bernie, and in truth he's ideologically a democratic socialist. If it makes any difference this is coming from a democratic socialist who's a member of a social Democrat party.
I've always felt that's just pragmatism from Bernie,
If you read his book "It's Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism" it becomes very very obvious that this is the case. From quoting very radical anti-capitalists to tongue and cheek (somewhat) insider jokes such as naming the chapter on his time in mayoral politics "Socialism in one City", it shows he's definitely way more ideologically aligned with socialism than people give him credit for.
As an European, I have never understood why so many American leftists don't see that, even by simply listening to what he is saying or looking at what he is doing. I mean he literally has a picture of Eugene Debs on his desk and mentions how he is this political role model and hero any chance he gets, that alone should tell you where he stands on an ideological or philosophical level..
And of course, he has been involved in various socialist groups his whole life and literally still calls himself a democratic socialist. Why would he do that if it wasn't true? To gain a political advantage, in America of all places, where calling yourself a socialist would have generally been political suicide?
And then are his policies, where many will focus on healthcare and say "he just wants healthcare" and ignore anything else. But of course, healthcare is a major issue because it makes the working class even more dependend on their employers because they lose tgeir healthcare if they get fired, so it makes sense for him to focus on tgat first. And of course, he also had other policy in his program, like transfering 20% of ownership over major corporations to their employees and having workers electing half of the board of directors.
You can call him a reformer, you can call his participation ineffective, but why deny his political believes?
Completely agree with everything you said.
The same has also started to be done with Bernie's "successor's" like AOC and Jamaal Bowman, I'm not sure how exactly they can stop that other than regularly virtue signaling how radical they are and potentially alienating any moderates.
The oddest part to me is the people who downplay Bernie's radicallness. I've only ever heard it done by left wingers who think he's not actually left wing enough, thereby distancing themselves from their best option, and by right wingers looking for an easy gotcha against lefties by going "He just wants Denmark that's not socialism". Literally the only people downplaying Bernie's radicalism are the ones who would seemingly have a vested interest to do the opposite.
The same has also started to be done with Bernie’s “successor’s” like AOC and Jamaal Bowman
Don't know too much about Jamaal Bowman, but AOC also seems like a genuine leftist activist that happened, mostly because of a glitch in the system and pure luck, to slide into somewhat of a political position.
And of course, there will always be severe limits to what that path can bring. Which is why they mostly focus on rhetoric and making their ideas more mainstream viable and popular. I think at the moment, that's probably the best they can do. They cannot solve our problems for us, and even if they could, that shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be that we get into a position where we can solve our own problems.
The oddest part to me is the people who downplay Bernie’s radicallness. I’ve only ever heard it done by left wingers who think he’s not actually left wing enough
In my view, it's mostly done by "radical online Marxists" and edgy radicals, who I suspect aren't actually doing much except for complaining about it on twitter, which is probably why they get uncomfortable with people actually doing real world stuff? And not gonna lie, sometimes I get my tinfoil hat on and start to question if those are actual misinformation bots.
I also have seen it a lot on the right and with other anti-socialists, who just want to paint Bernie as a hypocrite. Same people who say "But Bernie is a millionaire, what a hypocrite"..
He wasn't even a social democrat. At the time, social democrats were democratic socialists, the shift away from reformist socialism happened around the 80s (some social democratic parties still hang onto reformist socialism, at least in theory).
He was a smart liberal who realized that in order to save capitalism from collapsing again, some regulations are necessary. In Europe, similar policy was often pushed by social democrats, which sometimes leads to confusion. But actual social democrats at the time went (or at least wanted to go) further, like nationalization and socialization of major industry, worker representation at companies, and increasing worker and union power in general.
Social democrats stated endgoal was a socialist society. FDR's endgoal was to protect and maintain capitalism.
Edit: Also, Bernie is definitely a reformist socialist, I will never understand why people think otherwise. He literally mentions Eugen Debbs, one of the most influencial socialists in American history, as his role model and hero every chance he can.. And he praises the nordic model because the nordic model was literally pushed by reformist democratic socialists.. Here is Olaf Palme, one of the most important figures when it comes to the nordic model and prime minister of Sweden (until he was murdered), explaining why he is a democratic socialist:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7i2Ws1X5DSA
Just imagine a conservative politican, calling themselves a fascist, keeping a picture of Mussolini on their desk, saying he is their political role model. Would you claim that he isn't really a fascist? It's not even as if Bernie Sanders was dog whistling, he couldn't be any clearer about his believes.. Yet somehow, so many American leftists seem to sonehow doubt his intentions? Why? Because he isn't radical enough? Because he isn't throwing molotov coctails at the police? What does he have to gain from falsely calling himself a socialist??
The man's presidental campaign was giving 20% of major corporations to it's employees and having about half of the board of directors be elected by workers, among other stuff..
if you don't even want to acknowledge his values and his ideology simply because he is playing the politics game and is a reformist, send him to Europe, we would love a genuine leftist like him with so much charisma. I don't think you appreciate him..
Imagine dedicating your life to fight for a better life, involve yourself in the civil rights movement, work in various socialist groups, calling yourself a socialist and calling for major industry to be socialised, being constantly attacked by right wingers for your socialist believes, etc, only for fellow leftists denying that you are a "real socialist"..
I appreciate the positive response, if my tone might have been a bit aggressive, that was not my intention. I understand why people were mislead about Bernie, there was a ton of media reports about how Bernie "isn't a real socialist" and it's not like Bernie is god or anything, there are obvious limits to his approach. It forces people to make compromises and water down their believes. But I do believe he is genuine, or at least the most genuine seeming politician I have seen.
Also, AOC seems to be very similar, although she doesn't have the same knowhow yet about politics and mostly focuses on rethoric. But she is basically a leftist activist who, with a shit ton of luck, managed to get into politics.
I really appreciate this write up. As when I saw this post I started questioning my own understanding of FDR. Which aligns with yours. That his intention was to find a middle ground between the working class and the capitalists. Whereas Bernie is much more about reforming capitalism.
I appreciate the positive response, if my tone might have been a bit aggressive, that was not my intention. I understand why people were mislead about Bernie, there was a ton of media reports about how Bernie "isn't a real socialist" and it's not like Bernie is god or anything, there are obvious limits to his approach. It forces people to make compromises and water down their believes. But I do believe he is genuine, or at least the most genuine seeming politician I have seen.
Also, AOC seems to be very similar, although she doesn't have the same knowhow yet about politics and mostly focuses on rethoric. But she is basically a leftist activist who, with a shit ton of luck, managed to get into politics.
Yeah I love Bernie and AOC both. And I understand their pragmatism too.
I think it's that pragmatism that more militant leftists latch onto and say oh they're not left enough.
But if you just look at Bernie's life, the guy's the real deal it's obvious.
He wasn't even a social democrat. At the time, social democrats were democratic socialists, the shift away from reformist socialism happened around the 80s (some social democratic parties still hang onto reformist socialism, at least in theory).
He was a smart liberal who realized that in order to save capitalism from collapsing again, some regulations are necessary. In Europe, similar policy was often pushed by social democrats, which sometimes leads to confusion. But actual social democrats at the time went (or at least wanted to go) further, like nationalization and socialization of major industry, worker representation at companies, and increasing worker and union power in general.
Social democrats stated endgoal was a socialist society. FDR's endgoal was to protect and maintain capitalism.
Edit: Also, Bernie is definitely a reformist socialist, I will never understand why people think otherwise. He literally mentions Eugen Debbs, one of the most influencial socialists in American history, as his role model and hero every chance he can.. And he praises the nordic model because the nordic model was literally pushed by reformist democratic socialists.. Here is Olaf Palme, one of the most important figures when it comes to the nordic model and prime minister of Sweden (until he was murdered), explaining why he is a democratic socialist:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7i2Ws1X5DSA
Just imagine a conservative politican, calling themselves a fascist, keeping a picture of Mussolini on their desk, saying he is their political role model. Would you claim that he isn't really a fascist? It's not even as if Bernie Sanders was dog whistling, he couldn't be any clearer about his believes.. Yet somehow, so many American leftists seem to sonehow doubt his intentions? Why? Because he isn't radical enough? Because he isn't throwing molotov coctails at the police? What does he have to gain from falsely calling himself a socialist??
The man's presidental campaign was giving 20% of major corporations to it's employees and having about half of the board of directors be elected by workers, among other stuff..
if you don't even want to acknowledge his values and his ideology simply because he is playing the politics game and is a reformist, send him to Europe, we would love a genuine leftist like him with so much charisma. I don't think you appreciate him..
Imagine dedicating your life to fight for a better life, involve yourself in the civil rights movement, work in various socialist groups, calling yourself a socialist and calling for major industry to be socialised, being constantly attacked by right wingers for your socialist believes, etc, only for dudes on the internet denying that you are a "real socialist"..
Socialists want the workers to own the means of production.
Capitalism/liberalism wants capitalists to own it (though the workers can be the capitalists in question). Social democracy is a form of liberalism that seeks to improve quality of life and economic outputs through the creation of a well regulated welfare state (typically).
Other than that, it depends. The two groups mostly agree that poor people shouldn't starve, that living wages should be a thing, and democracy and human rights matter, and one of the best ways to accomplish this all is the empowerment of worker unions. Everything else gets complicated.
FDR was definitely not a democratic socialist. He also wasn't what modern views would consider a social democrat, but if it wasn't for America still being segregated he probably would have counted as one easily enough. For the time? Probably. Some Greek Social Democrats wanted to conquer Turkey and expel the Muslims...
Not to be agist, but bernie is rapidly approaching his UBD. Closest we have to him in a viable position is AOC
Hey, nothing wrong with being agist in this situation, let's be honest. Nobody - not Biden, not Bernie, not Trump - will be as cognitively-sharp when they are 80 as they were when they were 50, 40, 30. We wouldn't want an 80-year-old lifeguard or firefighter, right?
And until an 18-year-old can be president, we're already agist in one direction.
That we think putting geriatrics in the White House to run one of the most stressful jobs that is on-call 24/7 is a good idea... I mean it's absurd. Just look how much Obama aged in 8 years. Forget the fact that the general risk of all-cause mortality is far greater, that's just another risk-factor for running the country.
So yeah unfortunately I agree... Bernie's opportunity was missed. When AOC runs one day, I will campaign as hard as possible for her victory.
I would happily see an elderly Bernie in office. Why? Because he would fill the system with younger, capable individuals, and trust their opinions. He would leave the system a better place.
That's actually the main reason I didn't want Bernie as president. His campaign staff were terrible for both of his runs.
Bernie wound up having a far greater political impact in the country than anyone would have believed 10 years ago. He didn't have to become president to influence a shift....democrats have gotten alot better overall on domestic policy and the way Bernie inspired millions of us to demand this from the dems we vote for was hugely impactful imo.
It’s almost like supporting progressives down ballot provides greater success than crucifying the Democratic Party up ballot especially during a presidential race.
It’s almost like Bernie working with Biden was better than “Bernie or Biden but fuck the possibility of both”. I mean just ask Bernie what he did…
Like we are living the benefit of compromise while folks keep saying any possible compromise is the end times…
Like we are living the benefit of compromise
Oh fuck off. Who's this "we"? Glad to hear your life is going well bud. Good for you.
We have to face that loads of high ranking "moderate" Dems would prefer a Republican to a progressive.
If a Republican gets in office, it makes it easier to get people vote lesser of two evils.
If a progressive gets in office, it's really hard to unseat them. They can barely manage to get House Reps out for moderates even with AIPAC money.
If Bernie had won 2016, he'd have gotten to name the DNC chair, he could of solidly ended in the failed neo liberal experiment.
We were really fucking close to fixing things, but after NH got their delegates stolen, I don't think itll happen.
I honestly think if a real progressive wins a presidential party primary, the standing party might disregard it.
presidential
partyprimary
There was an autocorrect there, but if that doesn't clear it up:
A primary isn't binding.
That was the DNCs legal argument for why if they rigged it, that would be legal.
The entire primary process is merely a survey.
This is really a good argument for nonpartisan blanket primaries, which in other countries would be known as the first round of a two-round system. And it really should be advertised that way so people don't just write it off as "just a primary".
California adopts this system. You vote for one candidate in the primary. The top two candidates appear on the second round ballot. Most votes in the second round wins.
However, the fact that parties choose the candidates is really not unusual at all. In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process. In most countries, interested candidates apply for the party's nomination, and then the party's central leadership or local party committee vets the applications and nominates their favourite candidate. Only the chosen candidate gets to stand with the party's rosette.
In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process.
How?
The primaries are non binding and can be legally rigged because of that...
Two things:
It being legally permissable doesn’t mean that it happens
Have you ever thought about what a great investment a bridge is?
There's one a Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing.
Why do you suppose I included this sentence at the end of that bullet point?
This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.
...and why did you, having read that, assume I made that implication anyway?
I'll explain it for you, the top-level commenter is unhinged and prone to use conspiratorial excuses for why their preferred policies are not enacted instead of coming to the realization that they are not widely popular enough to carry the day.
DWS. I know it wasn't just her, but I will forever curse the name of Debbie Wasserman Schultz
You can think of it like nepotism in the DNC. Bernie was the more electable candidate. The candidate the liberals and the left preferred. They went with Hillary anyway and they underestimated Trump's electability in the actual presidential race. Essentially giving Trump the presidency in 2016.
You can watch all of their surprised Pikachu faces during Hillary's concession speech. They had a huge glass ceiling they were going to shatter all of this stuff. And it all fizzled out.
From what I understand, the DNC made a Faustian deal with the Clinton Foundation. They were in debt up to their eyeballs during the Obama Administration and the Clinton Foundation offered to pay off their debts in exchange for making Hillary the nominee and replacing key DNC staff with Clinton Foundation personnel.
You can tell they're telling the truth because they didn't mention how the vote tallies have Hillary beating Bernie by an even wider margin than she beat Trump by in the popular vote.
Figures the people still moaning about Bernie losing twice now would think other people voting is the DNC putting in a fix, these loons have actually said that votes shouldn't count and we should have counted individual donations instead. Because if anything says democratic process, it's a literal donor class literally buying the candidate they want over the candidate who got more votes.
Honestly I was in jail when all of that happened so the news I got about it was the misinformation that was originally leaked by the media. Misinformation that came from somebody that worked at the DNC and was backed up by Elizabeth Warren..
And you could have corrected the narrative without being a total fucking dick about it like you just did.
Instead I looked it up and educated myself. And you came out looking like an asshole.
Yeah how dare I be an ass about a fight I've been having with fucking children since 2016 over their shock and awe that having other plans on primary day doesn't win your preferred candidate the nomination.
You aren't owed being corrected gently when you step into a fight that's been going on for almost a decade now.
You didn't try to correct me at all.
You shamed me and acted like I wasn't even there.
Go read your comment.
I'm talking to you now. You tried to publicly shame me because I didn't know something?
Because I was misinformed by the media?
Because I've been in jail and didn't have the same access to information that you did?
I was speaking in good faith based on information that as far as I knew was true. You're the first person that has ever pointed that out to me and if you would have done it in a gentler manner you would have won somebody to your side and made a friend instead of somebody that's going to tell you to go fuck yourself
Not-an-American, but what I heard was that BOTH DNC and RNC do not choose the more "popular" candidate. The parties choose the candidate that their "donors" actually want. In RNC I think they straight-up just rig the process and push their choice.
But in the case of the DNC I believe the DNC "promises" to choose the candidate that is the most popular. BUT DNC "donors" have what is known as "super-delegates" or some bullshit ( Extra Votes for Money ? ) Soooooo Hillary went around ALL the states "buying" up all the super-delegate votes........ so in-effect Bernie lost even before the voting had even started! And on top of all that I think that so many candidates ran at the same time that it split most of Bernies votes down the middle which might have been the strategy engineered by DWS and the DNC.
Those are not the only problems with the DNC..... I believe that Hillary and DWS and DNC ran political ads PROMOTING Drumpf because he would be "easier" for Hillary to beat. So effectively the DNC and Hillary were campaigning for Drumpf! !!!!
I think 'Murica has a lot more serious problems and a lot more roadblocks but breaking the fundamentals of democracy by rigging votes and installing puppets seems almost comical and farcical if it wasnt so damaging and dangerous.
Yeah how dare Hillary and the DNC respect that more people voted for her instead of applying EC logic to make Bernie win despite him losing by a wider margin than Trump lost the popular vote, and how dare the moderates still be more popular than Bernie to the point that all it took was there being only one in the primary field for Bernie's chances to be "sabotaged".
Harry Potter and the magical thinking of Bernie bros who still can't get over other people not voting the same way they wanted them to while also not voting themselves.
Bernie deserved better than fucking all of you.
Not going to argue with you, but super deligates are why Hillary was the candidate and super deligates are bullshit and the definition of everyone is = but some are more = than others.
Millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton.
If it wasn't for the undemocratic caucuses, Bernie would have lost earlier in his primary run.
I'm not a big fan of centrist democrats but Lemmy (and most of internet) is not representative of the broader electorate.
That why the delegate counts actually tilt the scales in Bernie's favor?
In any case, any argument you could make about the superdelegates basically amounts to "look what you made me do!" for not going to vote against this supposed she devil everyone had a violent hatred for. Y'all didn't vote. You just didn't. I'm saying this as a guy who did vote for Bernie, there was no fix, you all just abandoned Bernie at the one place it matters and have been trying to shift blame for your own slackoff asses since.
Bernie deserved better than every last fucking one of you!
Have you ever seen the man in the high castle? Well, we're definitely not in the worst timeline, but missing out on pals like Bernie shows that we're definitely not in the best either...
"Things could be worse" is always such a depressing reflection.
You're not wrong....but it sure is bleak isn't it!
I always found it a comforting/uplifting thought. Like it proves humanity has taken some of the good forks in the path and so is capable of doing so now and in the future, too
He also put Japanese Americans into internment camps, his New Deal policy led to institutional racism (red lining), and he ordered the FBI & IRS to investigate someone further left than him because he was worried they posed a political threat.
(Source on that last one: https://www.history.com/topics/crime/huey-long )
His left wing credentials are a bit lacking.
You're correct, but also missing the point. He implemented economic policies that were further left than any other US president.
Absolutely. I just don't think we should use him as a symbol of social democracy, because we can do much better. We need better than FDR, not just for leftwing politics, but leftwing social issues.
What I like about this conversation is the parallels to today.
Edit: To be clear, I mean FDR did some bad things, just like Biden. But we still remember all the good that came from him, of which there was arguably more.
That comes from an incredible point of privilege.
If you were one of the people who were thrown in an internment camp, you probably wouldn’t remember all the good. You would only remember years of your life, wasted, having been thrown in prison camps due to the circumstances of your birth. Fuck, if you were the child or grandchild of a survivor of it, you would remember the stories of your grandparents thrown in a camp, discarded from society by a xenophobic government who clearly sees them as a second class citizen. You might remember hearing about them selling their homes for a fraction of their worth in order to get anything from them at all. When they were finally free, they were homeless too.
If you were a Palestinian American, you probably are stressed out of your mind, waiting on the uncommon phone call from your family, hoping for a confirmation that they are alive, and hoping you don’t hear that your cousin was gunned down by a gun drone when looking for food, or your aunts, uncles, and their children were blown up at a refugee camp, or executed in a hospital.
You might not have heard anything for six months, and you feel like absolute shit, having gone to protests, and even direct actions to try and put a stop to it only to be ignored, called antisemites, or otherwise degraded by a government and press lying through their teeth to justify a “war” wholeheartedly supported by the president. You might be looking at your paystub, seeing almost a hundred bucks, maybe more, being taken by the government to fund the extermination of your family.
To say “FDR did some bad things, just like Biden. But we still remember all the good that came from him, of which there was arguably more” is not a pragmatic calculation. It is valuing the good done to you, as a person who wasn’t systemically attacked by the government during that time, over the suffering of a marginalized group who felt the force of a white supremacist government coming down on them. Being a social democrat doesn’t excuse anything bad FDR did, and it certainly doesn’t make up for any of the bad things either.
Hi, Palestinian American here, I think securing Gaza's natural resource rights and being the point of negotiation that secured a bunch of people getting to see their families again is good actually.
I also see all the white kids raising stink about my people's struggle and feel fetishized and used by people who couldn't even begin to understand what my people's struggle is like and who need to BTFO using it as their excuse to be petulant little twits about doing the bare minimum duty to defend their democracy from the guy who'll make our struggle exponentially worse.
I thought about it and realized that you missed the point of what I’m saying.
I’m arguing that the only way you can view them (both biden and FDR) as someone who did more good than harm is if you abstract the harms and goods from the perspective of someone who is not being harmed while being a person who is benefited.
FDR sentenced a single ethnicity to prison for the crime of being japanese. This destroyed generational wealth, and ruined the upward mobility of a generation. It’s easier to say “he did more good than harm” if you are both the one being harmed.
Biden is not just allowing genocide, but funding it, and attacking those who prevent it from continuing. If you are isolated from the suffering he is causing, it’s super easy to say he is doing more good than harm.
Sure, there are parallels that can be drawn, but that’s not what I’m arguing against. To say I’m proving this point would be true, but completely dishonest since it blatantly ignores the argument I made against that point you madr in the edit.
Yup, understood and agree with all that the first time.
But since the "royal we" spread these memes like wildfire, then "we still remember all the good that came from him, of which there was arguably (to all the people you describe) more."
Red Lining itself was definitely established well before the New Deal, and the practice had spread across the US by the end of the 1920s
It would've been more accurate for me to say that it continued institutional racism, and denied black people from benefiting equally from the New Deal. It led to further economic disparities, and Democrats overall should've used the opportunity to chip away at institutional racism.
There isn't a single leader in history who would pass your smell test. The reality is every human is complex and no one is all good or all bad. Except Andrew Jackson. Fuck that guy
But really, take a look, for example, at Lyndon Johnson. He was a renowned racist who ushered through the Civil Rights Act among many other progressive policies. He also escalated the Vietnam War. Dude did a lot of great things and a lot of bad things, and there's no single policy or act in his life that defines the entirety of his administration.
Actually just to wrench your caveat, Andrew Jackson was a major figure in the voting rights battle of the day, the right of non property owners to vote.
If it weren't for the Jackson admin, we wouldn't have the language we used to expand voting rights even further when those fights came to their crescendoes, and this country would still be entirely governed as a landowner oligarchy instead of just significantly like it is now.
That sounds sarcastic and cynical but there is a big difference.
I appreciate the info. You're totally right, and this further proves my point. People deride "the founding fathers" for the racist, capitalist state they created, but the reality is that what they created was absolutely radical for their time. The idea that white people of common birth could have power was incredibly radical in the late 18th century.
Since the US was founded, it's been a steady march to increase rights, first to white landowning men, then to poor white mean, then to white women, and then to black, brown, and indigenous people. Many will say "well we haven't gone far enough," and that's true, but that doesn't discount the progress that's been made since we were literally beholden to the whims of a king
Yeah, we can absolutely recognize that the FFs were quite radical for their day. I don't question their merits as their day's progressive wing, my beef with their document is in how poorly it's aged with the nation, to the point that serious overhaul if not a complete rewrite is needed to address the problems we face today because of problems in the document.
Oh I'm not denying that at all. I'm just saying that FDR is a flawed human and we shouldn't lionize him as a symbol of social Democrats.
He is a symbol of social Democrats, though, but he's also a realistic product of his time. I heard an interview with a historian awhile back I wish I could find again. They basically described how if you try to judge a historical figure through today's moral lens, you'll always be disappointed, because history is rife with racism, dehumanization, slavery, and genocide. The most ardent leftists will point to the handful of white people who were actively fighting racism in the 1930s and say "See? Roosevelt didn't have to implement racist policies!!" But the reality is that the majority culture was racist. The concept of not being racist just didn't exist to 95%+ of white people at the time. Abraham Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality, but I don't use that to discount his positive contributions
Yeah it's difficult to judge. Don't Ask Don't Tell for gay rights was once considered leftwing politics for instance. I guess it is unfair to blame FDR though. He was no worse than most of the American left at his time. I still think we can aspire to much better though.
And annoyingly he is (along with the other Roosevelt) still among our best presidents in history. We really shoupd demand more from our representatives.
We get what we deserve unfortunately. If we had 100% turnout and more of us considered running for office ourselves, we would see huge improvements.
I've thought about doing local politics in retirement, and maybe see where it goes. I don't think it's my primary calling -- but then again, perhaps that's the exact issue I'm pointing out.
Most of the country didn't even have voting rights when FDR was elected.
And today we still see tons of voter suppression as well as outright cheating from the right and dismissal of the will of the people, by institutions like the DNC.
Fair points! But Bernie's are not... (Unfortunately I think he's legit too old now anyway, and I would bet he would agree.) Not saying I wouldn't vote for him, but I think age alone would stop many. (insert Biden/Trump swipe here)
Yeah unironically Bernie is further left than FDR when you look at it holistically. FDR may have been further left economically (which he also had to be pushed on a bit), but Bernie is left all around.
I think at this point in his career, the Senate is probably best for him. We need powerful progressive senators to pass progressive legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act could only go as far as it did because of Bernie's influence and cooperation with Biden.
Which is something important I want to highlight -- Clinton scorned Bernie, while Biden welcomed him. Biden was friendly to him in the Senate, and that set them up for a successful cooperative future. Lemmy could learn a lot from that. We're stronger when we ally together.
I think at this point in his career, the Senate is probably best for him. We need powerful progressive senators to pass progressive legislation.
I've seen this sentiment expressed before and I agree, it's a reasonable view. I'd still enthusiastically vote for him tomorrow if he could be on the ballot instead of Biden. I am not a strident hater of Biden, but I agree with most of the (non-maga) criticisms against him to one degree or another. No doubt I'm picking him over Trump, but I wish we had better choices.
Which is something important I want to highlight – Clinton scorned Bernie, while Biden welcomed him. Biden was friendly to him in the Senate, and that set them up for a successful cooperative future.
Yep, I don't keep a spreadsheet of these sorts of things or anything, but I remember claims during the 2020 runup that he would at least take advice from progressives under advisement, and I get the feeling that he's lived up to that much, at least.
His left wing credentials are a bit lacking.
No one in the US political establishment has any "left wing credentials" or ever has. FDR (and every other so-called "social democrat" then and now) are merely advocating for measures to make the status quo more stable and resilient - not for dismantling it (which is what an actual leftist wants).
Making a small minority of people happier at the expense of everyone else is bad, actually!
FTFY - note I also removed your /s, as this is your actual belief.
Making a small minority of people happier at the expense of everyone else is bad, actually!
I do actually agree with this, but this is not what it seemed like you were implying. How would making the few happier at the expense of the majority be increasing stability and reinforcing the status quo?
How would making the few happier at the expense of the majority be increasing stability and reinforcing the status quo?
Very simple... it's literally recent history. FDR's New Deal (for instance) enriched the white working class and thereby separating it from the non-white working class, making any kind of class consciousness in the US very unlikely and preventing a repeat of the labor movements that rocked the imperialist nations in the aftermath of WW1 and the subsequent Influenza pandemic. The Apartheid-regime in South Africa essentially did the same thing without bothering with all the liberal propaganda.
It worked. In both states, it created a white "middle class" that was loyal to the status quo - you can witness that loyalty in it's full glory right here on lemmy.world. Neoliberals (as personified by Reagan and Thatcher) easily manipulated this loyalty to usher in the dismantling of New Deal-style Keynesian economics, leading to the deprivations you see in the US right now.
You're right. Whenever somebody makes a post like op I can just smell the authoritarian bs leaking from hexbear and lemmygrad.
Nah this isn't authoritarian or Tankie at all. It is a valid point that economically left-wing policy was very successful in the past (and it's just a meme anyway, it's tongue in cheek).
Now there's a lot of discussion we can have about why left-wing economics aren't as popular among Americans anymore -- I don't think FDR's policies could win an election today necessarily. But I think they can in the future. Reagan made us a deeply conservative nation and we're only just coming out of that now.
You're right, we should abolish term limits to make a forever leader whose opposition gets disappeared, and we should start apprehending and sentencing to death any wealthy who disagree with that leader. Trump seems to claim he's the opponent of corruption and big money, right? He can be our leftwing supreme leader. /sarcasm
Can you point to where anyone said we should "abolish term limits to make a forever leader whose opposition is disappeared?" If you can't, this is what's called a straw man argument.
The meme states that they "had to enact term limits" to stop leftists. The leftist in question had the FBI and IRS investigate his opponents.
So you can't point to where anyone said we should "abolish term limits to make a forever leader whose opposition is disappeared." This is what's called a straw man argument. You're arguing against a straw man.
Roosevelt overcame strong opposition from conservative leaders in the Democratic Party and had Wallace nominated for vice president at the 1940 Democratic National Convention. The Roosevelt-Wallace ticket won the 1940 presidential election. At the 1944 Democratic National Convention, conservative party leaders defeated Wallace's bid for renomination, placing Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman on the Democratic ticket instead.
Do you know where there's more specific info about how the DNC (or whatever the equivalent was in those days) Bernie'd him?
Wasn't the McGovern/Humphrey dem primary done similarly to Sanders/Clinton too? I think I remember my dad saying something like that a long time ago
I have no idea who this is because I'm not American.
From the comments, I assume his name was Bernie?
The person in the image is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1933 to 1945. He was effected to four terms and died in office, shortly after his fourth inauguration (now there's a two term limit). The name in the title refers to Bernie Sanders, who OP wishes had been nominated and elected in 2016.
Thanks. I recognise the name, but I don't recognise his face. I was leaning towards "Bernie" being Bernie Sanders, but I wasn't sure.
I appreciate the clarity.
I would add to the other explanation only that they both represent the progressive wing of the nation's politics for their time, and are analogous to each other in that regard. Bernie is beloved and renowned for his civil rights activism and his incorruptible concern for regular folks and trying to make things better for people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Political_positions
Bernie "walks the walk" as they say, and has for his entire career.
That's right. Filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 24 years.
You can go even further, filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 44 years.
They also refused to get rid of the filibuster. They could have done it any time after it became clear that filibustering everything was the new playbook, around about 2012. This has been a problem for over a decade now and Democrats pretend they can't just change the rule.
They could have also reformed it to require physical presence and actually filibustering, instead of being possible via email from the tropics. Then again, with the average age and health of Congress, that would likely put a significant limit on its effectiveness as a tactic (I don't believe for a second that McConnell has the physical endurance to actually filibuster even a single bill).
Democrats pretend they can’t just change the rule.
And even more, they pretend like Republicans won't change the rule. If parliamentary democracy required a supermajority to do anything, every government would fall.
And FDR was in a wheelchair no less. Imagine the current rabid right’s reaction if a democrat president was in a wheelchair?
Texas's Governor Abbott is in a wheelchair, and I don't see much criticism, but I also don't know how many people know he is
Abbot is a republican. If he were a democrat, the republicans would call him weak for being in a wheelchair
100% - the former guy said on national television that he likes “soldiers that don’t get captured” and people still voted for him. The Rs would have no problem with “I like governors who can walk”.
I can’t take credit for that one, it came straight from the mouth of Joey B. himself: https://12ft.io/https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/19/opinions/the-former-guy-trump-biden-dantonio/index.html
The US has, through concerted effort by the right wing, forgotten why FDR came into power. He was the heir of an extremely rich family. He managed to convince enough of the other oligarchs to avert going the way of the USSR. The US had revolutionary potential or the powerful would not have let this happen.
The policies that resulted from FDR's presidency had an enormous effect on the US's populace. It completely changed what the average American expected from their government. The politics of the Democrats, and even the Republican, president's that followed reflected the change that FDR's policies wrought.
It took 40 years of concerted media, intellectual, and religious capture for the right to regain anything resembling the political ascendancy they saw before the 1930s.
I am just guessing that had it been due to exclusively the ideology of a democratic socialist, that there would have been more people to choose from.
FDR was popular because the policies worked. If he'd crashed the economy again instead of beginning the recovery it doesn't matter how much people liked him, he'd have lost reelection.
But was it him who came up with the policies or his political oeientation? were the policies socialistic democratic policies? If so, why didn't they reelect an other democratic socialist if the policies based on that ideology worked, instead of voting for the same person again and again?
They did, and it eventually ended up with ending segregation with the Civil Rights Act (more or less)
And then Reagan
I reckon FDR has managed to do as much as he could because he is already wealthy and doesn't have to worry much about funding election campaign. He did not have to beg to rich people and businesses for funding in exchange for doing favours for them. After all, there is strong correlation with how much campaign funds you have with thei likelihood of winning the election.
He did not have to beg to rich people and businesses for funding in exchange for doing favours for them.
That's totally untrue. FDR was about as deep in with the military industrial complex and the financial interests as anyone on the Republican side of the aisle. The fundamental difference between FDR and Hoover was that FDR didn't surround himself with the most economically blackpilled advisors. He treated the Great Depression as a subject of scientific inquiry and tried a whole litany of approaches to get us out of it, while Hoover treated it as a test of his convictions and clung stubbornly to the most conservative panacea.
The Roosevelts profited handsomely from both the national rebound and the subsequent war. They profited from America's predominant position as industrial superpower, by the end of the war. But their profiteering came as a consequence of successful economic experimentation and strategy.
By sharp contrast, the Von Mises / Rothbard / Ayn Rand capitalist die-hards repeatedly ruined themselves chasing economic orthodoxy and had to keep coming back to the state and national governments for bailout after bailout.
It was the private sector's continued heavy reliance on public authority that gave FDR a free hand, not FDR's own personal fortune. For the next forty years, private industry struggled to see the kind of enormous returns of the pre-war era. The struggles against an insurgent global anti-colonialism curtailed profits internationally. Strong unions at home curtailed profits domestically. Private industrialists relied enormously on state contracts and federal interest rates to turn even marginal profits.
Not until the Volcker Shock and the decoupling of labor productivity from economic growth could conservative business interests reliably reassert themselves against state control. That unleashed private enterprise from public financing and allowed for the steady re-privatization of the economy under Ford, Carter, Reagan, et al. This is the point at which unfettered freely flowing campaign donations began to eclipse the usefulness of large local party organizations, and the national privatization of politics really took off.
bro literally pulled the country out of the great depression, i wonder what could possibly influence the voters in this regard.
Let's run through the recent story so people have it:
(First on FDR, that was before 45 years of anti-communist rhetoric, which frankly turned into anti-government-policy rhetoric.)
Jimmy Carter: Told people to conserve and got voted the fuck out.
Bill Clinton: After successive losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid". And when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you have to run from the center. So that's what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on broad "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.
Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit left with the Map Room to fight climate change. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He's actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center.
And people are amazed that they don't run an extreme left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, like they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the centre to find votes. You don't get big steps without the small steps.
Revisionist history. To pretend like Hillary went slightly left and Gore didn't have the election stolen from him is disingenuous at best.
They claim Hillary lost because she went a little left and it is the fault of... left wing voters? Hmm.
I'm of the opinion that Hillary lost because of the blatant super delegate shenanigans within the DNC. I know I was LIVID. However, I wasn't one of the folks who were so livid that they protest voted third party. I held my nose, suppressed my gag reflex, and voted for Hillary, though I really didn't want to.
US liberals (in contrast to progressives) exhude such exorbitant amounts of political cretinism that it can be smelt from an ocean away. If you let your arrogance get in the way of properly analyzing what could you have done differently in order to win the election, you're incompetent in politics. But they're too emotionally immature to understand that if they want to ensure the vote of their natural allies to their left, they need to reach out to them, not flaunt their contempt.
Ah, amazing to see how leftists get berated by liberals all the time here, but once criticisms of the same magnitude get levied against liberals, moderators remove the comments. Are we headed towards becoming like Reddit now?
We're seeing it now with leftists who refuse to vote for Biden. Thankfully Lemmy isn't really representative of the population. But they do exist.
We are entering perhaps the most important election in history. I know that's said at every election but this time, this could very well be the last free election we have.
A vote against Biden, regardless of how it's done, is a vote for fascism. Plain and simple. It's no longer theoretical or fantasy. Or exaggeration or whatever the right is trying to paint this as.
Biden won in 2020 because it was a vote against Trump. Not because Biden was a good candidate. It just was not as terrible as Trump.
We are entering an election where Trump is promising to punish his enemies. This rhetoric is dangerous to our democracy and nation. The fact that we are debating this is by itself scary.
Trump WILL bring authoritarianism to our country. He will install himself as king and our country will be a democracy in name only. Hell it wouldn't surprise me if the fascist regime goes on to rename our country "The Democratic Republic of the Gilliad United States" just to keep up appearances.
Anyone who wants our country to be free must vote Biden in November. Is he contributing to genecide? Yes. Is he doing enough for climate change? Of course note. Is he tackling minimum wage? Nope.
But at least he's willing to listen to you. We might even be able to change his mind after he is in his second term.
You will get none of those things if Trump wins.
Honestly I think this is it. Do you think project 2025 goes away just because Trump does? It'll just be updated for 29 and as soon as the next Republican wins that's it, shows over. We can't keep pretending that winning this election will defeat them once and for all. It's just kicking the nuclear bomb down the road a bit. Eventually it will catch up and we will be living under a dictatorship anyways.
This is a terrible point of view.
We can't keep pretending that winning this election will defeat them once and for all.
No one is pretending this. We keep authoritarianism and fascism at bay through constant vigilance. We defeat them by resisting and rejecting them at every turn.
The idea that we should just give up is asinine.
I'm not saying to give up, I'm saying I want to see the Democrats do anything to protect us from a future Republican presidency other than hoping they'll be elected for the rest of time (which is an impossibility let's be real here)
If lemmy was representative of the population, trump wouldnt even be a concern. Unless he starts running an ML campaign
Hillary lost because she coasted through the end of her run. Everybody thought Trump wouldn't stand a chance. We had more faith in people.
That and conservative psyops getting Bernie Bros to abstain from holding their nose and voting Hillary because they felt like they were being wronged.
Hey wait a sec that last part is happening again today...
Through the end? Most of her campaign was coasting by on solid blue areas and ignoring whole parts of the country.
So many people were surprised by her loss in 2016, but I saw it coming months away. The fact that her campaign pushed trump as a pied piper candidate and gave him credibility because they thought she could easily beat him is just the icing on the turd cake.
That had nothing to do with that election or any election
There was actual fraud at play, stop blaming people fed up with this bullshit
Maybe you reply replied to the wrong message, because the left wing protest non-voters have to do with every single election.
I said Hilary went an itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit left with the map room to fight climate change. That's what she did. And she lost. Thanks protest non voters!
Did we have President Gore? No we did not. We can talk all day about this or that, but we did not have President Gore. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
Hillary lost because she was a corrupt, out of touch (Pokemon go to the polls), unlikable piece of shit who stole the primary from Bernie (as shown by the John Podesta email leaks). She also used the "pied piper" strategy to help Trump win the RNC primary because she thought he was the most beatable candidate. Voters didn't even know she wanted to fight climate change because she never talked about it. She also participated hardcore in voter shaming (which is also what you're doing) and ran a pro-corporate, right wing campaign against Trump in the general. No shit, she lost, especially in the Rust Belt, which Bernie was doing well in according to polls.
Al Gore lost because the Republican party refused to count several votes in Florida, claiming that hanging and dented chads were not valid. It was later found with a recount that Gore won that election.
When leftist voters have to choose between corporate right and corporate right, they will sit out, protest vote, or begrudgingly vote for the Democrat due to a lack of a better option. Voter shaming is extremely toxic and will actively repel leftist voters.
Voters need something to vote for, not against.
Whatever else you can say, Hillary was not channeling a lot of enthusiasm outside of a very narrow group.
It felt like there were weeks in peak campaign season where she wasn't touring or making speeches. What even was her signature issue? (Considering how she was associated with the abortive attempts towards universal health care during Bill's term, that would have been a sensible focus, but I don't recall it mentioned once)
The whole campaign reeked of "play to not lose" rather than "play to win". She assumed she was the annointed favourite, guaranteed the win, and that's not really going to excite uncommitted voters. Bernie, at least, generated buzz.
Hillary thought that the elites decide elections and not the voters, so she appealed to the elites more than the voters.
The whole campaign reeked of “play to not lose” rather than “play to win”.
Dewey Defeats Truman moment
i see how it fits your theory but her leftness wasnt why people didn't vote for her. she didnt bother campaigning in the states that mattered and she acted entitled, and Bernie Sanders stole hearts while she stole DNC. etc etc.
She did do some campaigning early in those states. It turned out that the more they saw of her, the less they liked her. Her campaign kept her out of those states because she was a liability to her own campaign. Trump ran on fighting for average Americans. (Bullshit of course). Hillary ran on scolding the candidate offering change.
Let's try the more recent history again.
Obama ran on "hope" but, more importantly ,"change" and won in a landslide. Then he governed from the center as a status quo technocrat. He lost a Democratic super majority and almost the presidency to a slice of white bread.
Hillary Clinton was the most establishment centrist candidate the Democrats could have possibly run. Her campaign thought they could sweep the country by choosing a radical clown for the Republican opponent. They helped the Trump campaign get free media attention to win the primary, then they lost to the clown.
After 4 years of the clown, the country would have elected a ham sandwich. Even so, it was looking a bit close, so Biden did what most Democrats do in a close election and leaned left, almost sounding like Bernie lite at times. You can chart his popularity through his presidency and every uptick coincides with a move to the left, and every downtick with a move to the right.
Biden did what most Democrats do in a close election and leaned left
In a close election, and when running against an incumbent, Dems go to the center. Because that's where the voters are.
You're the first person I've ever heard say Biden leaned left.
I think you might just be a time traveler from the 90s. Everyone expected Biden to run further to the center but he did the opposite. Here is a partial list of his left leaning promises.
The thing is, that the left-right spectrum isn't the only axis that voters use to evaluate politicians anymore. A mich more important axis is now pro/anti establishment. Americans almost universally despise the DC establishment. Hillary represented that establishment, while Trump mocked it. Trump was a message in the form of a molotov cocktail.
He certainly paid lip service to the left.
Still waiting on any semblance of substantive policy regarding healthcare, student debt, income inequality, or labour rights.
Remember when the rail workers tried to strike and R̶e̶a̶g̶a̶n̶ Biden told them to get back to work?
Of course, this all pales in comparison to the giant genocide elephant in the room...
If you are unaware of the massive changes the department of labor has made under Biden, then you don't care all that much about unions. Biden has been great on labor issues.
He has been forgiving student debt piecemeal to get around Republican obstruction, so far forgiving around 10%. It's not what we want, but it's also targeted to the people needing it most.
Biden isn't the leftist firebrand I want him to be, but he's been way better than I anticipated. He is easily the furthest left president since at least Carter, though that's a low bar.
Unfortunately the most I can say on Palestine is that Trump would be a whole lot worse. Biden has been putting a lot more pressure on Netanyaho than he gets credit for, but that's understandable given the rhetoric he uses publicly.
Holy shit trying to blame hillarys loss on being too progressive. Somehow more progressive than Obama.
I said itsy tiny little bit left with the map room. How many adjectives do you need? No one is saying she was far left, again see adjectives. That's what she ran on and bam she lost the election. Thanks protest no voters!
Have you considered why you have to use so many adjectives? Because she didnt at all run on a progressive platform. And you are claiming Obama won for not running on any progressiveness. He extensively ran on climate change and healthcare reform. Youve stretched your characterizations so far to try to fit your theory that you put Hillary to the left of Obama. Maybe its your theory that needs changing instead.
I use those adjectives because you want to change it to "she's not [far] left". And I'm clarifying what her position was. It was just a tiny bit left.
The number of adjectives is because people like to skip over it l, so I add more to get people to notice. And you're still at it! That's twice that you try to force words into my mouth. So ciao.
Ok take out the far.
You're saying she's not left. And: I didn't say she's left, I said she ran a teeny weeny itsy little bit left with the map room to fight climate change. And you wonder why I have the adjectives lol.
I promise you I see the words. The problem is that Obama won his elections, so you can only downplay her progressiveness so far. I wouldnt characterize his campaigns as being itsy bitsy teeny weeny left. You mentioned him campaigning on the word Hope, but he also famously campaigned on "Change we can believe in".
You really drank the Hillary/DNC kool aid if you're still blaming protest voters in 2024.
And the double think in your post is glaring by the way. She went a tiny bit to the left and bam she loses the election because protest voters refused to vote for her? How does this even add up?
No she lost because she was an establishment candidate out of touch with the will of the people who ran on her privilege rather than her policies. So out of touch that she had to manipulate the primary to even get into the general. And so out of touch that rather than accepting the loss and taking responsibility for it, she shamed voters.
It was two fold why Hilary lost. Trump appealed to manufacturing class. And the left wing protest no voted.
because protest voters refused to vote for her? How does this even add up?
Well since you had a fun tone I'll take a fun tone. JFC because left voters did not show up. Instead of showing up, the left voters protest no voted. She stuck her head a tiny bit left with the map room and climate change, and the left wing did not show up to vote and instead did a no vote protest.
Right but the way your framing it you're acting like she moved a little bit to the left and that was the reason that left voters didn't vote for her.
At least that's the way I'm understanding what you are saying which is why I asked. I wasn't having fun. It was an honest question so I could hope to understand your position better.
I was having fun with my Kool-Aid comment. But that was a different paragraph.
A whole other way to frame this is that Hillary's nepotism and the DNC lost that election by assuming that the left owes them their vote. Rather than thinking that politicians should earn our votes, and that the DNC should listen to the their base if they want voter turn out.
You can get into whatever psychological analysis you want (and I'll do mine), at the end of it left voters don't show up. She moved a little bit left with map room to fight climate change, a policy that should have been important to left voters, and left voters did not show up.
So the next candidate Biden learns he has to go to the center to find voters. This is what happens every single time. Every time. Happened with Carter & Bill Clinton, happened with Gore & Obama, happened with Hilary & Biden.
If you or any other voter want things to go left, you have to give dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
Right, because she didn't move far enough to the left. That's what I was saying about she needed to turn out her base too.
And as I said in my other comment I think protest voting is petty and stupid. But I think Hillary's sense of entitlement was a huge fucking turn off to lots of people including voters on the left but also centrists.
So this is a situation of mutual responsibility. And blaming voters for not showing up when Hillary didn't do her part to encourage them to show up I don't think it's helpful either.
But you did say she moved "too far" left - if it was her itsy bitsy move left that caused non-voter protests, that is literally by definition "too far."
But you're misidentifying the cause here, while somehow still ending up at the right conclusion.
She very well may have lost because of non-voter protestors, but it was because she wasn't far enough left. And if Hillary had actually moved further left to win those protestors' votes, she would have lost the center vote. And Biden may very well lose for the same reason, so the lesson should be if you don't want Trump to win, then don't protest vote simply because Biden isn't far enough left.
too far
Ctrl+F "too far" and 0 results. Nope I didn't say "too far".
What I'm saying is that she stuck her head a tiny bit left, and guess what happened? The voters didn't turn out. They protest no-voted. As in, the left voters never show up. (or excruciatingly rarely) Candidates at various times stick their head a tiny bit left trying to court those voters, but nope the voters don't show up.
You think they have to go even more, but every time they run left in any amount (either Gore or Hilary) the voters don't show up. This is how it works, you go a little bit left, and see if you win. Sorry you don't go extreme left to see if you win, you stick your toes in first. And every time the Dems do, they lose. So what does the next candidate learn? Don't go left, because they don't show up and you lose. They learn you go to the center to find votes.
The message to left voters is: If you want things to move left, then you have to show up. The dems have learnt time and time again that you can't count on left voters. So they go to the center to find voters. If you want things to move left, then give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. You have to take small steps before big steps. You have to walk before you run. Not just president, congress too because again they will go center to find congress votes.
What I’m saying is that she stuck her head a tiny bit left, and guess what happened? The voters didn’t turn out.
So you're saying that she went too far left for the electorate right? Or are you saying her going left had no appreciable impact, because she didn't go left at all and these massive paragraphs you're writing are just an exercise in pretending to be a LLM?
Okay, it sounds like you're saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it "wasn't enough." Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.
No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.
Although I'll admit it's a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don't vote because we think they're not left enough.
And you end up with the stupid idealist 3rd party voters that think “we’ll send a message with how we vote!” (Or don’t vote) not realizing the true impact they’re causing and the message it sends by having to go back to the center (which inches right more and more each time).
3rd party does have a place, but not right now with how screwed up things are.
Its forever going to be "not right now" for you, so we're not waiting anymore, its only going to happen if we make it right now.
Its on people pushing a candidate they dont even like. Happened with hillary, its happening again with genocide joe. Let us support progressive candidates we like
What happened with Hillary is that idiots decided to vote third party for a planted candidate and fucked everything up. Dividing progressive votes means a loss for progressives in every case. You will be part of the problem when Trump gets reelected and dismantles democracy. That will be the end of voting and the reemergence of mass suffrage. Oh and I forgot, climate change will continue to get worse and people will start getting sick because Trump has already promised to end climate/pollution regulations. Equal rights will be stripped and slavery will be brought back even for white people because, chances are, minimum wage will be wiped out. This dude plans to do so much damage if/when he gets back in office.
Dividing progressive votes means a loss for progressives in every case.
I agree, we should all vote for the progressive candidate.
genocide joe
Tell me you’re a Russian supporter, without telling me you’re a Russian supporter… that’s all I needed to know, thanks for playing.
Tell me you like painting others as strawmen without telling me you're painting people as strawmen.
Voter shaming will only make less people vote.
Many people need something to vote for, not against.
He loses the nickname when he stops funding genocide. Shoot, might even get our vote too.
Take that one however far center or right you want to, the point is that's what he had to do to find votes (after successive Dem losses).
At the end of the day, votes is what wins elections. He had to go to the center (or as the other guy thinks, the right) to find votes.
To find funding from oligarchs for campaigning in order to get votes.
Nothing has a single cause and condition.
Another way to look at it is that Clinton sold out. A third is that he was being pragmatic.
Either way moving to the center didn't win him votes with centrist voters as much as it allowed him to campaign effectively against an incumbent that was heavily backed by corporate finances.
It wasn't being centrist that won over voters in other words. It was being cenrist that won over oligarchs.
We're going to have to disagree.
I think it was to find voters. At the end of the election they count votes, not donations. If all these left wing voters people that I see on this platform were to actually vote, then wow that would have an effect. But instead they think protest 3rd party or protest no-voting works, when it doesn't. All these supposed informed, logical voters people that are just waiting in the wind for that left platform and then they'll vote. Donations don't sway these people, they want the big left platform, which won't appear because they don't show up and vote.
So what can voters do? Vote for the dems. If you want things to go left, then vote and give dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
I mean I'm voting for Biden Don't get me wrong. And I think protest voting is a petty act of rebellion that doesn't really help.
But I also think acting like your entitled to votes rather than needing to spend effort turning out your base, is also a wrong view.
I guess I'm saying both Hillary and protest voters caused what happened in 2016. As well as the DNC betting on an establishment candidate when the pulse of the country was obviously sick of that shit.
So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on broad "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars.
The "Hope" slogan was coined by Shepard Fairey on the poster of Obama he created and distributed independently of the Obama campaign, albeit with tacit approval. The campaign's actual slogans were "Change you can believe in" and "Yes we can."
You also left out that Clinton only won because Perot was in the race and took voters from Bush, Carter lost because of the gas shortages, not to conserve and Biden won because he was against a historically unpopular incumbent. Your explanation is in complete and reductionist.
You also left out Kerry who ran as a moderate and lost to Bush.
This just isn't true. There is a wealth of scholarly writing on the subject from both political science and statistics approaches. Clinton wins with or without Perot.
The DNC pursued a policy of progressive policy to counter Bush.
Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
And then Trump won, at which point you saw a leftist presence being entertained again by his midterms.
So to answer your final question: The record shows victories appear to cause the Democratic Party to move right. Often argued as a result or consequence of any implemented leftist policy. Backlash, if you will, but still.
Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
Guess how many years Obama had a Dem House of Representatives and Dem Senate? 2 years. Not 8. Only 2. That's when we got the ACA though.
Contrary to how many people talk the president is not a King. The president does not pass laws, Congress does. And Dems need control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) to pass much of anything. So when the lose control, like they lost control for 6 years of Obama's presidency, they have to reach across the aisle. Do you remember what happened? The GOP shut down the government under Obama.
Obama had 1 victory and then 3 losses. 1 victory for 2 years and then 3 losses for 6 of his years.
You want them to not reach across the aisle? Then give Dems victories in all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency.
(Btw guess how much the Dems have had all 3. They have had it for 4 years out of the last 24 years. That's right. They basically never have it. Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. What to go back further? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again: 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. And if you want filibuster proof majority, them it's 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. You need to readjust what you think are victories.)
I think you read way more into what I wrote. Obama won. Party moved right. Both statements of fact. The 'backlash' I mentioned.
But alright.
Progressivism has strong resistance, as demonstrated. It takes a leader like FDR to withstand that resistance and marshal their party towards a political goal. The president is the executive branch but they are also the effective leader of their party's and their political goals.
Leaders who buckle under pressure or demand their followers or voters lead the way for them are incredibly weak. Lame ducks. A failure.
I didn't "read into it", I explained how government works. You missed the entire reason why Obama had to reach across the aisle. Which he had to do for 6 of the 8 years of his presidency. I'm tempted to write why but it was all written out above.
If you think "Obama won" and "[be a] leader" is how it works, then you desperately need to learn how it actually works.
I don't really know why you're working on such a condescending manner over something I am in no disagreement about? That's what I meant by reading into it? FDR absolutely acted as a leader for his Party and marshaled forward progressive legislation and policies. And yes, you have clearly and dismissively explained that Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.
The DNC from 05-09 operated on a progressive platform to reach out everywhere in all 50 states. That strategy ended in 09 right after Obama took office. Here's an article from 2009 talking about the division that already existed in before those 6 remaining years. I am sorry for any paywall, its a nyt thing but its to show that there was a clear rightward movement from the start.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/health/policy/26dems.html
As a result: Obama spent his presidency reaching out to republicans and mostly being humiliated. I don't disagree with you. It is what happened.
Sigh. I'm explaining how things work.
Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.
Big disagreement. You seem to think "acted as a leader" is all that matters and all that's necessary. I'm saying that's dead wrong. Congress is what matters. The house of resentatives is what matters. The Senate is what matters. That's how it works. The president can't do much without the House of Representatives and the Senate.
President can't do jack shit with all the leadership in the world if he does not have congress, if he does not have the house of representatives, if he does not have the senate.
So you want to talk the first two years of Obama? He likely reached out for two reasons. One: he wanted to mend the divisions after Bush's disastrous wars. Get the country unified and back on track and all that jazz. Two: any intelligent candidate knows it's unlikely they're going to have control of Congress for all eight years, so he wanted to come off as reasonable and could be worked with, so that he could still accomplish things later in his presidency. I barely blame him for that. Who knew that the GOP was going to explode and become obstructionist to that degree because a half black man got elected. (Btw that's why allusions to FDR don't cut anything today. Completely different time.) (Also btw Biden learned from that and said nuts to it, he's doing what needs to be done.)
Now back to the main point about Obama and how leadership is not the be all of everything. If anything Obama proves this. Obama had leadership (if you want to say that). But Obama only had Congress the first two out of his eight years. The remaining six years he did not have congress. The GOP had Congress. All the leadership in the world did not matter because he did not have Congress for six of his eight years. All the leadership in the world for six of his eight years did not matter. And this was proven when not when the GOP shut down the government under Obama. Congress. has. control. Leadership does not matter (in that way). Control of Congress is what matters.
I didn't say leadership was the end all be all. I said it was a feature of FDR: the topic of the post, and by extension: being a poor or weak leader is a disaster for a party. I used the term 'lame-duck' which is a common term for a weakened president whose party doesn't have control of legislative branch.
I don't see how stating the features of an effective or ineffective presidency so quickly translates to some total lack of understanding how American governance or legislation works. Nor do I see how it demonstrates an extremely narrow position I don't hold or have argued for. Your need to explain is condescending, arrogant, and entirely unnecessary.
There is a term called "bully pulpit". It is a very common and well known concept in politics. FDR used it well. Obama did not. FDR was a very successful president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftists.
Obama had leadership (if you want to say that).
For the level of argumentative browbeating you're engaging ing and then you... FFS.
they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years
Where are those numbers from? Presidential elections from the last 24 years don’t add up. Are you only counting election years? Or something other than presidential elections?
They've had control of all three (house of representatives, Senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years. The first 2 years under Obama, then the first 2 years under Biden.
You need all three to actually pass anything. Dems especially because they want to pass progressive things and GOP is more that happy to block it. And they can block with only 1 of any of those 3, which the GOP has had for 20 of the last 24 years.
The president is not a king. Congress (house of representatives and the Senate) passes laws.
*If you want to go further back, then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. Want even more? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years.
You also need a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate which the Democrats have had even less time with, so that 4 years when they could pass legislation is actually significantly shorter. Last time they had full control was during Obama, that lasted 4 months and they passed the ACA.
Yep. America just isn't that left in general. The right had the benefit of a cult of personality pushing fear to motivate voters. But being seen as left is still considered radical by a lot of Americans, unfortunately.
Edit: others below will continue fine reasons to shit on Hillary because Bernie just wasn't popular enough.
I appreciate much of your list and accept the danger of the third party vote.
And while that's partly a result of right-wing and foreign operatives seeking to wedge-drive the Democratic coalition, it's also a reflection of lack of voter enthusiasm and greater apathy.
Like it or not, for better or worse, elections in the US are popularity contests akin to shitty reality TV. It's not about who is more qualified; it's not about experience or education. As much as it should be, it IS NOT a job interview.
Whoever stands out, for better or worse, tends to win. Obama was different. He stood out; he won. JFK was different. He stood out; he won. Trump was different. He stood out; he won.
Hillary was boring. Uncharismatic. Anything but new. Carrying the baggage of decades of right-wing smere. Poll after poll of voter enthusiasm was in the gutter.
Voter enthusiasm for Biden was shit, too. But Biden stood out because he was at least different from Trump.
If Dems wanted to ensure victory they'd yank Biden and run someone fresh, young, charismatic, likable. Easy win. Why? Because they stand out, the right-wing taking-points and marching orders wouldn't be prepared, and people would be excited for something different.
What I see a ton of on Lemmy is the supposed logical voter. Who's waiting for the logical policy, and the logical platform, and the logical position. And they will logically wait for it, and until then they will logically not vote, in logical protest, to send a logical message. Because they are the be all of logic.
And what I'm saying is that if you want to be productive and effective in moving the window left, you accomplish that by electing Dems. Consistently and overwhelmingly. Because every time they lose they go to the center to find votes.
I agree. I also think it's important to note that the nature of entropy dictates it's far easier for Republicans to cripple the nation and set us back than to rebuild let alone add extensions. So for me a vote for Biden is above-all damage control.
Still I only wish we could curate better candidates because I think we can eat our cake and still have it. This appeal to the middle in terms of policy; this watering down our rhetoric tends to shoot ourselves in the foot in the long-run.
Stagnation (and regression) is easy.
Progress requires effort, hard work, and time. And all 3 houses (house of reps, Senate, presidency) to actually pass anything.
Don't disagree with that either. I just think:
I already said, I am talking to the supposed logical voter that I see everywhere on lemmy, who logics and you know what I already said it all.
Changing the winning candidate at the eleventh hour for a nobody is definitely the worst thing Democrats could do.
Who would they even pick that the majority of Americans have heard of?
If the news dropped at the right time, it would be free publicity across social media and every corporate media outlet nonstop until election day. Not necessarily a nobody, but just someone less in the spotlight.
I'm pretty certain given my previous arguments that a young and semi-charismatic individual could sweep the election solely on age and freshness alone. And I'd say Kamala, but she's uncharismatic and conservatives already have talking-points written up for her.
Considering the current polls, leaving Biden in is frankly just as if not more risky in my view. (disclaimer: I'm voting for Biden, of course).
That's impossibly risky and there's already been primaries. And the fact you don't have a name and are proposing this shows there simply isn't anyone.
Republicans would eat them alive. So close to the end it'd scream desperation of the worst kind by the Democrats and everyone would assume Biden was dying.
I can't come up with a plan that would ensure another Trump presidency with more certainly than that.
As I said, it's impossibly risky right now as it is. In what should be an obvious slam-dunk, Biden has largely remained stagnant in polls with Trump catching up in fundraising no less. There are no perfect options; only dilemmas. Clearly I'm spit-balling here and I'm no advisor so that's not lost on me. However: I'm not the only one talking about this. Just yesterday's Washington Week round-table episode on PBS had them talking about this.
The fact that I don't have a name is quite honestly irrelevant. There are are PLENTY of candidates on the left that fulfill that niche of youth and charisma: Booker is one example if you really need one. Nevertheless it's irrelevant because if we can't name it, then Republicans can't predict it. And we know the right-wing media largely controls the narrative in this country; and the less time you give them to develop talking-points, the better. I've already proved that Likability, Youth, Charisma are the KEY adjectives to winning elections for Democrats. WHO within that subset almost doesn't even matter -- for we know what issues concern the vast majority of voters RIGHT NOW: Age of candidates, and they're sick of both of their faces. That's quite literally all the info we need to know. So if you accept the premise that we run an American Idol contest for Presidency, then I believe my argument is quite solid.
There's no desperation in giving the electorate what they are asking for. Look at the polls for yourself detailing their reasons for apathy or dislike for the candidates.
Finally, Primaries don't reflect general election performance. Hillary beat Bernie; but Bernie would've likely done better against Trump. It's not like Democrats who voted Hillary would suddenly not vote for Bernie come November with Trump on the ballot.
He was re-elected because he won the war and was a good leader at the time, nothing really to do with socialism. He navigated a depression for the American people and they loved him for it
FDR died about a month before Hitler's surrendered. His navigation of the depression was accomplished in no small part to democratic socialist policies.
