rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,831
How are Dems supposed to fix those cities when Trump's federal government is running roughshod over them and refusing to let them govern themselves?
Sean O’Brien
- Thread starter Paine
- Start date
- Replies: 99
- Views: 2K
- Politics
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,831
Dems championed Obamacare. Pubs want to destroy it and make health care more expensive and more privatized. Do voters care? No.
Dems built and championed the CFPB to protect ordinary Americans from predatory corporations screwing them over. Pubs attack it and likely will now dismantle it under Trump. Do voters care? No.
Dems passed Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis to protect ordinary Americans from greedy risk-taking by financial institutions. Pubs are dismantling the regulations. Do voters care? No.
Dems champion student loan reform and relief, something that benefits tens of millions of working class Americans. Pubs oppose it at every turn. Do voters care? No.
Dems argue for raising taxes for the rich and corporations. Pubs lower the taxes of rich guys and accelerate growing income inequality. They have been saying tax cuts for the rich will trickle down for decades; but after decades of tax cuts the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. Do voters care? No.
Dems champion unions and fight for them. Pubs pass right-to-work laws that destroy unions everywhere and cater to union-busting billionaires. Do voters care? No. (Heck, the union members themselves don't even care.)
How do you look at all this and conclude that the ideal strategy for Dems is to lean into economic populism? Voters don't reward Dems for economic policies aimed at making the lives of the working class better. The working class either doesn't see that these help them or doesn't care. They consistently react to social and cultural messaging more than economic messaging. MAGA as a movement is far more about cultural dissatisfaction than economic dissatisfaction; the low-propensity voters they turned out care more about being able to joke about minorities without being cancelled and beign able to say stupid things without some academic nerd telling them they're wrong. It has been a wildly successful political movement, one that's about to lead us all off a cliff. Maybe once we hit the bottom, an economic populist message will still work.
Dems built and championed the CFPB to protect ordinary Americans from predatory corporations screwing them over. Pubs attack it and likely will now dismantle it under Trump. Do voters care? No.
Dems passed Dodd-Frank after the financial crisis to protect ordinary Americans from greedy risk-taking by financial institutions. Pubs are dismantling the regulations. Do voters care? No.
Dems champion student loan reform and relief, something that benefits tens of millions of working class Americans. Pubs oppose it at every turn. Do voters care? No.
Dems argue for raising taxes for the rich and corporations. Pubs lower the taxes of rich guys and accelerate growing income inequality. They have been saying tax cuts for the rich will trickle down for decades; but after decades of tax cuts the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. Do voters care? No.
Dems champion unions and fight for them. Pubs pass right-to-work laws that destroy unions everywhere and cater to union-busting billionaires. Do voters care? No. (Heck, the union members themselves don't even care.)
How do you look at all this and conclude that the ideal strategy for Dems is to lean into economic populism? Voters don't reward Dems for economic policies aimed at making the lives of the working class better. The working class either doesn't see that these help them or doesn't care. They consistently react to social and cultural messaging more than economic messaging. MAGA as a movement is far more about cultural dissatisfaction than economic dissatisfaction; the low-propensity voters they turned out care more about being able to joke about minorities without being cancelled and beign able to say stupid things without some academic nerd telling them they're wrong. It has been a wildly successful political movement, one that's about to lead us all off a cliff. Maybe once we hit the bottom, an economic populist message will still work.
Last edited:
Some thoughts:
1) Democratic leadership has a transparency gap. They need to publicly account for their role in trying to get Biden through the electoral year. Democratic congressmembers should unilaterally agree to be bound by insider stock trading rules.
2) Student loan forgiveness is not a working class issue. Bringing it up pisses much of the working class off.
3) Many communities are in isolation - Dems need to advocate moving government agencies out of DC into the country. We do this with military bases in order to provide political coverage. We should do this for civilian agencies as well.
4) Tax the rich, and don't be apologetic. Remove or modify the SS tax threshold (Should We Eliminate the Social Security Tax Cap?). Increase the cap gains tax.
5) Don't retreat on social issues. We need to keep our base and retain our values. But until we offer other policies, it's easy to define the party purely by social issues.
6) The current backlash against DEI is a backlash on assortment by historic identity. Cool it on that, while emphasizing that we want to break down barriers to opportunity wherever we see them.
1) Democratic leadership has a transparency gap. They need to publicly account for their role in trying to get Biden through the electoral year. Democratic congressmembers should unilaterally agree to be bound by insider stock trading rules.
2) Student loan forgiveness is not a working class issue. Bringing it up pisses much of the working class off.
3) Many communities are in isolation - Dems need to advocate moving government agencies out of DC into the country. We do this with military bases in order to provide political coverage. We should do this for civilian agencies as well.
4) Tax the rich, and don't be apologetic. Remove or modify the SS tax threshold (Should We Eliminate the Social Security Tax Cap?). Increase the cap gains tax.
5) Don't retreat on social issues. We need to keep our base and retain our values. But until we offer other policies, it's easy to define the party purely by social issues.
6) The current backlash against DEI is a backlash on assortment by historic identity. Cool it on that, while emphasizing that we want to break down barriers to opportunity wherever we see them.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,870
It might be time for a thread of economic populism because it isn’t just about policies that make people’s lives better. It is a specific disposition and centering of economic justice in order to further Dem’s message and cred. Not just technocratic solutions.
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,831
I would dispute the characterization of many of the things I listed as "technocratic" but would love for you to start a thread on economic populism so you can explain what it is you think Dems should be messaging about that they aren't already.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,870
I might do at some point. This thread has tired me out for now lol.
SnoopRob
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,817
I can largely agree with the rest of your points, but this one seems strange to me.
There are significant advantages to having military bases spread out (ability to provide immediate defense across the country) as well as they typically need significant land, so you likely don't want them terribly close to major urban centers.
I imagine there are significant benefits to having government agencies near each other and near the WH & Congress. While you could mimic those benefits with technology, I'm guessing you'd lose something overall.
I also wonder how much you'd hurt the ability of agencies to recruit the best if you told them they'd have to live outside of a major urban area. You would probably pick up some folks who'd welcome the ability to work for the government in a lower cost of living area, but I imagine there are a lot of folks for whom DC is a major draw in joining the government as an employee.
And I would guess you could have the "best of both worlds" with WFH policies for a significant number of government workers while keeping the top folks at each agency near each other for better cross-agency planning/interaction.
Government jobs are more stable (until recently) and higher paying than other jobs in smaller cities and rural communities. It provides a buffer against industry swings in the private sector.
It also improves transparency. Why is the Department of Interior in the DC, when most of the land it manages is in the West? It should be located where its policies are most impactful.
It also improves transparency. Why is the Department of Interior in the DC, when most of the land it manages is in the West? It should be located where its policies are most impactful.
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,369
Unless I'm mistaken, DOI already has offices and a lot of personnel spread out across the country. I'll see if I can find the specific breakdown. I don't see the value in moving the headquarters out of DC. If anything, that just makes it easier for Congress and everyone else not to give DOI the attention it deserves.
I agree with your other points, and especially the first two, and ESPECIALLY #2. That was such a self-inflicted wound.
ETA -- A high level overview. Not sure if this has employee counts. Regional Offices | U.S. Department of the Interior
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,831
Yeah I just fundamentally disagree with this. The Department of the Interior and its subsidiary departments (like BLM) have tons of offices and employees all over the country, out exactly where the land is located. That's how it should be. But the administrative offices for the agency need to be in DC like everything else. The leaders of the agency need to talk with and testify before Congress, interact with the President and the rest of the cabinet, etc. There is no purpose to having an office park with the offices of the Secretary of the Interior sitting just outside, like, Yellowstone Park or something. You are proposing something purely symbolic that will have no real significance to anyone and cause a lot of wasteful inefficiency for no reason.
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,745
Let's not overthink this... Occam's razor
Kamala Harris was a black woman. They didn't vote against their economic self interests; they voted for their cultural "values"
Kamala Harris was a black woman. They didn't vote against their economic self interests; they voted for their cultural "values"
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,831
I'd like to explore this further. I really disagree with it, but it depends on how you define "working class" - economically or culturally. If by "working class" you mean people with no college education working blue-collar jobs - more of a "cultural" definition - then OK. But if you mean purely based on economic strata, I really disagree. There are millions of people across the US making $40k, $50k, $75k, etc who have student loan debt. Low-level white-collar office workers, small business employees, teachers, government employees, people who work at nonprofits, etc.
42 million people in the US have student debt. Only about 14 million are in unions. (There's probably a decent bit of overlap there too.) Why is appealing to unions considered core working-class populist messaging, while advocating for student-loan debt isn't?
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,369
Because tons of people with student loans have been working hard to pay them off and don't have much interest in subsidizing those who cannot. It's not even that popular among Democrats -- Views toward student loan relief are tied to partisanship and experience with debt - AP-NORC
I wouldn't be opposed to some very limited form of student loan forgiveness as a purely economic/moral matter. But it's absolutely TERRIBLE politics, and of all the "good" things Dems should consider jettisoning to get back in the game, this one is at the top of the list.
At the risk of derailing the thread, I've been saying on these boards for years that student loan forgiveness is a terrible policy. Not defund the police terrible, but still pretty bad. Most people in the country didn't go to college and of those that did a decent percentage didn't take on debt and of those that did another percentage paid theirs off and doesn't like the idea of it getting forgiven after they sacrificed and repaid it.
It also never came with any kind of solution to the college affordability issue, so forgiving debt without that just means we'll be back in the same place in another decade. Democrats also never explained why college debt should be different than mortgage debt or credit card debt, which is more ubiquitous as well. There are lots of other reasons it makes no sense, but I'll stop there.
It also never came with any kind of solution to the college affordability issue, so forgiving debt without that just means we'll be back in the same place in another decade. Democrats also never explained why college debt should be different than mortgage debt or credit card debt, which is more ubiquitous as well. There are lots of other reasons it makes no sense, but I'll stop there.
4thgenheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,236
it's both. definitely the two leading causes.
dems ran a black woman + too many voters blamed the biden admin for inflation despite the fact that they handled it better than any other country on the planet. perfect storm.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,870
This is an important point to make. Part of it is on me because the emphasis of the conversations I try to lead are on the economic side of things. This doesn’t mean it’s all one or the other. We all know there are voters who are driven by misogyny and racism. That doesn’t mean everyone who voted for Trump was driven by those things.
I just simply cannot accept the notion that there were so many people voting off pure racism and sexism that the election was impossible for the Democrats to win. If you believe that is what happened, as I’ve said before, then there is no point to politics.
- Messages
- 5,245
Everyone i heard talk about it had a first person answer; no one paid my loans off or what about us not fortunate enough to go to college.
They also believed the advertising that it was money for rich doctors and lawyers.
I was against it at first, until I read more.
First economist equate this to tax cuts from an economic stand point.
Second it wasn't unlimited, there is a cap.
Third, the loan companies actively work to make more money and extend these loans.
Finally reading of people who's total payments paid in were 1.5 to 2 times the original loan value. Yet due to administrative cost during hard times, deferment, etc., they still owed a significant percentage of the original loan, i changed my position.
This goes back to voters not being willing to put the time into understanding what is actually happening since it's easier to believe the advertising starting that lawyers and doctors were getting hundreds of thousands of dollars.
4thgenheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,236
yeah, maybe i'm wrong but i just don't believe that the united states is more misogynistic than the multitude of countries that have elected women to their highest office.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,870
Right. Look at Mexico. All these machismo men that people are talking about just elected a woman president and she has what, an 80% approval rating? She also just dog walked Trump.
She is popular because her party implemented policies that affected people’s immediate, material circumstances. This is how you cut through the noise.