Where do we go from here?

[Paine]

As left-wing as they get. Socialist.

Brother, I’ve got some bad news for you.

 

[wmheel1287]

Brother, I’ve got some bad news for you.

It's interesting that you think it would be bad news in that direction. I think it's the other way around. I know you believe the path to reach those who have thus far been unmotivated is to lurch to the left on policy, but you have a real blind spot with how many that will completely alienate who are high propensity voters and have been solidly Dem for a while now.

 

[Paine]

It's interesting that you think it would be bad news in that direction. I think it's the other way around. I know you believe the path to reach those who have thus far been unmotivated is to lurch to the left on policy, but you have a real blind spot with how many that will completely alienate who are high propensity voters and have been solidly Dem for a while now.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.

 

[BlueSmoke]

Gallego didn’t run away from his progressive roots. He actually ran hard on the issues of corporate price gouging and antitrust. He had the same message on the border as the Harris campaign.

I don’t think the issues with Biden were

If you say Dems need to get back to a message that is more in line with the majority of the population, then I agree with that. That message isn’t necessarily a “centrist” message. Instead of left vs right, we need to think on lines of system vs anti-s

Gallego didn’t run away from his progressive roots. He actually ran hard on the issues of corporate price gouging and antitrust. He had the same message on the border as the Harris campaign.
.....
I just thinking saying Democrats need to run a more centrist campaign needs to be fleshed out when people say that. It means different things to different people.

If you say Dems need to get back to a message that is more in line with the majority of the population, then I agree with that. That message isn’t necessarily a “centrist” message. Instead of left vs right, we need to think on lines of system vs anti-system.

From what I have read, Gallego has made some considerable pivots but ok.

Actually, your last paragraph I completely agree. Dovetailing your comment: Its obvious many voters feel the system is not working for them. So let's offer a system changing proposal or two. But must be something easily grasped by voters which is where messaging comes in with a good messenger.

I predict in four years we will see a candidate or two go that route.

 

[Paine]

From what I have read, Gallego has made some considerable pivots but ok.

Actually, your last paragraph I completely agree. Dovetailing your comment: Its obvious many voters feel the system is not working for them. So let's offer a system changing proposal or two. But must be something easily grasped by voters which is where messaging comes in with a good messenger.

I predict in four years we will see a candidate or two go that route.

To be clear, Gallego did make some pivots in his campaign compared to his time in Congress. I’m not disputing that. I just disagree that he ran away from his progressive roots, as you phrased it.

We didn’t see him outright disavow positions he had taken in the past like Harris did. His message was still authentically connected to his identity and credentials as a progressive.

I don’t think we should be ideologically pure socialists, despite what some people want to make the left’s position out to be. Progressive populist economic policy is widely popular. That’s why Trump embraces it to some degree as well. A calculated turn to the center on economic issues isn’t the answer, IMO.

We need to get away from the hyper specific culture issues and back to universal programs. That codes as “centrist” to a lot of voters who consider themselves centrist but actually have quite progressive economic views.

 

[Zoo_View]

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying.

You usually aren’t hesitant to say what you mean……so, what do you mean?

 

[Paine]

You usually aren’t hesitant to say what you mean……so, what do you mean?

Just that socialists aren’t “as left-wing as they come” by any definition.

 

[Zoo_View]

Just that socialists aren’t “as left-wing as they come” by any definition.

They’re no where close to being centrists or even Liberals.

Who is to the Left of socialists? Communists? Bolsheviks? Marxists? Stalinists? Maoists?

Socialists are pretty damn Left and would get buried in an American general election.

 

[Paine]

They’re no where close to being centrists or even Liberals.

Who is to the Left of socialists? Communists? Bolsheviks? Marxists? Stalinists? Maoists?

Socialists are pretty damn Left and would get buried in an American general election.

Not arguing that. It would be news to a lot of communists and anarchists that socialism is the furthest left you can go.

 

[superrific]

We need to get away from the hyper specific culture issues and back to universal programs. That codes as “centrist” to a lot of voters who consider themselves centrist but actually have quite progressive economic views.

You know, this universal program issue popped into my head the other day. It was after some intense marital fun, so I don't remember all of it. A pity, because I'm quite sure I had it all figured out. Alas, I'll have to make do with what I do remember:

What's the most popular universal program in our history? People say SS or Medicare, and those are good answers. But was anything quite as popular and quite as universal as the interstate highway system? As you know, I'm concerned that drained-pool politics have sapped universal programs of their appeal; plenty of white voters have shown that they would rather do without than let the black people have any. But what about disguised universal programs, like interstates? People think of them as roads. People know they benefit from them. I've never known anyone who was upset at the racial implications, nobody who has complained about minorities suckling off the state teat, etc.

And this gets us back to Ezra's point about a liberalism that builds. The problem, of course, is that building things is -- well, the same interstate system that produced great roads and faith in our system also created urban sprawl. Liberals rightly resist more road construction, because down that path lies more global warming, more gasoline expenses for people, and more road construction for when the new roads get clogged up.

So if building roads isn't going to be the plan, what is? Mass transit? Nah, half the country or more is poisoned against the idea, mostly because it's been done poorly where it's been tried in the past 50 years. Housing? Sure, but that's not really universal.

And this brings me back to thinking about the Apollo program, which I have always considered highly overrated. I've never thought of that as a particularly noteworthy accomplishment of the Dems in the 60s, at least when it comes to policy. But I suppose there is something to be said -- and perhaps a lot more than I have thought -- for its role in creating faith in the system. The value of picking a goal, and then delivering -- it tells people that the government isn't an inept pile of shit institution. When was the last time the US government was ahead of schedule on any really big project?

So maybe we just need to pick some area of public investment and say, "this is our goal. We're going to do it." That was something of the premise of the Green New Deal, which bombed for all the usual reasons (resistance to change, people who refuse to admit carbon is a problem, an eye-popping top-line, headline cost figure, etc.). But it's also not a great candidate for what I have in mind because it's non-experiential. You might find yourself cruising on a highway and thinking, "wow, it's so great that we have this road that goes just where I need it to go." Nobody ever thinks that way about zero carbon emissions.

No more space stuff, for a variety of reasons. We really could do with a revamped electric grid, but again, that doesn't make people happy. The American public will always underinvest in safety and reliability because you can't see them, or experience them, or know they exist. Stadiums would be a possibility, but we already have way too many of them and anyway, they tend to benefit wealthy interests.

We need to find something that is a) big enough to have a major impact and high visibility; b) worth doing; and c) will improve people's lives in a tangible way. Any ideas? I don't have any.

 

[Paine]

You know, this universal program issue popped into my head the other day. It was after some intense marital fun, so I don't remember all of it. A pity, because I'm quite sure I had it all figured out. Alas, I'll have to make do with what I do remember:

What's the most popular universal program in our history? People say SS or Medicare, and those are good answers. But was anything quite as popular and quite as universal as the interstate highway system? As you know, I'm concerned that drained-pool politics have sapped universal programs of their appeal; plenty of white voters have shown that they would rather do without than let the black people have any. But what about disguised universal programs, like interstates? People think of them as roads. People know they benefit from them. I've never known anyone who was upset at the racial implications, nobody who has complained about minorities suckling off the state teat, etc.

And this gets us back to Ezra's point about a liberalism that builds. The problem, of course, is that building things is -- well, the same interstate system that produced great roads and faith in our system also created urban sprawl. Liberals rightly resist more road construction, because down that path lies more global warming, more gasoline expenses for people, and more road construction for when the new roads get clogged up.

So if building roads isn't going to be the plan, what is? Mass transit? Nah, half the country or more is poisoned against the idea, mostly because it's been done poorly where it's been tried in the past 50 years. Housing? Sure, but that's not really universal.

And this brings me back to thinking about the Apollo program, which I have always considered highly overrated. I've never thought of that as a particularly noteworthy accomplishment of the Dems in the 60s, at least when it comes to policy. But I suppose there is something to be said -- and perhaps a lot more than I have thought -- for its role in creating faith in the system. The value of picking a goal, and then delivering -- it tells people that the government isn't an inept pile of shit institution. When was the last time the US government was ahead of schedule on any really big project?

So maybe we just need to pick some area of public investment and say, "this is our goal. We're going to do it." That was something of the premise of the Green New Deal, which bombed for all the usual reasons (resistance to change, people who refuse to admit carbon is a problem, an eye-popping top-line, headline cost figure, etc.). But it's also not a great candidate for what I have in mind because it's non-experiential. You might find yourself cruising on a highway and thinking, "wow, it's so great that we have this road that goes just where I need it to go." Nobody ever thinks that way about zero carbon emissions.

No more space stuff, for a variety of reasons. We really could do with a revamped electric grid, but again, that doesn't make people happy. The American public will always underinvest in safety and reliability because you can't see them, or experience them, or know they exist. Stadiums would be a possibility, but we already have way too many of them and anyway, they tend to benefit wealthy interests.

We need to find something that is a) big enough to have a major impact and high visibility; b) worth doing; and c) will improve people's lives in a tangible way. Any ideas? I don't have any.

I think I’ve mentioned it before, but some sort of national service program would fit the bill and, if structured correctly, could get bipartisan approval. Very hard to pull off for several reasons though.

That’s kind of what the GND was supposed to be.

 

[superrific]

I think I’ve mentioned it before, but some sort of national service program would fit the bill and, if structured correctly, could get bipartisan approval. Very hard to pull off for several reasons though.

Yeah, I'm skeptical. Maybe back in the "ask not what your country can do for you" days. Not in an age when it's hard enough to pry people away from their computers and internet even for fun things, let alone service. I think we need to be thinking more along the lines of "we might be able to get people to plant trees in their backyards if we can make them grow steak."

Or, failing that, public infrastructure. Like I said, though, I'm out of ideas.

What about flying cars? I'm only partly kidding.

 

[Paine]

Yeah, I'm skeptical. Maybe back in the "ask not what your country can do for you" days. Not in an age when it's hard enough to pry people away from their computers and internet even for fun things, let alone service. I think we need to be thinking more along the lines of "we might be able to get people to plant trees in their backyards if we can make them grow steak."

Or, failing that, public infrastructure. Like I said, though, I'm out of ideas.

What about flying cars? I'm only partly kidding.

I can’t speak for other young men, but personally I would’ve jumped at the idea right out of high school.

Some sort of service program where you are trained and then go out and build things like you say. It could be houses, roads, trails. Weatherproofing, greening, whatever.

Pay them a decent wage and give them good healthcare. Give them college credit or free CC for completing a two year service term.

I did trail work for AmeriCorps and it changed my perspective of life. Issue is that you don’t get paid enough, the healthcare is awful, and the stipend you get afterwards is also bad. Not enough of an incentive to get average people to do it.

People want to feel like they’re making a difference. Would be a good way to build solidarity among Americans from all across the country and of all walks of life.

 

[superrific]

I can’t speak for other young men, but personally I would’ve jumped at the idea right out of high school.

Some sort of service program where you are trained and then go out and build things like you say. It could be houses, roads, trails. Weatherproofing, greening, whatever.

Pay them a decent wage and give them good healthcare. Give them college credit or free CC for completing a two year service term.

I did trail work for AmeriCorps and it changed my perspective of life. Issue is that you don’t get paid enough, the healthcare is awful, and the stipend you get afterwards is also bad. Not enough of an incentive to get average people to do it.

People want to feel like they’re making a difference. Would be a good way to build solidarity among Americans from all across the country and of all walks of life.

Well, I definitely can't say you are wrong. I'm just skeptical. I don't think you are necessarily representative of the average American. I know I'm not.

 

[BlueSmoke]

To be clear, Gallego did make some pivots in his campaign compared to his time in Congress. I’m not disputing that. I just disagree that he ran away from his progressive roots, as you phrased it.

We didn’t see him outright disavow positions he had taken in the past like Harris did. His message was still authentically connected to his identity and credentials as a progressive.

I don’t think we should be ideologically pure socialists, despite what some people want to make the left’s position out to be. Progressive populist economic policy is widely popular. That’s why Trump embraces it to some degree as well. A calculated turn to the center on economic issues isn’t the answer, IMO.

We need to get away from the hyper specific culture issues and back to universal programs. That codes as “centrist” to a lot of voters who consider themselves centrist but actually have quite progressive economic views.

As you describe what Gallego did, then that's cool. That's messaging on voters perceptions I would think.

To be clear, I don't care whether a position is centrist or to the left or even the old fashion conservative. If it fixes stuff and is better then great. But what I predict or see coming is that there will be a battle in the Democratic Party and it will be FRAMED as a battle between the Left and Center. Whether in actual terms there is much of a dividing line or not. A public battle would aid the voter's perception as to where Democrats are and in the end that helps messaging.

Really, a point that Super made about the coming Trump screw up, will most likely be the starting point in all this. Inflation & National Debt out of control. Those may be the issues that Democrats will be expected by the voters to have a plan to fix. He may be right, that if the screw up is big enough than Democrats win anyway. But once in power then got to fix it. All other plans may have to be subservient to the fix on those two.

 

[TitanNC]

The Administration From Hell

Yesterday, Simon Heffer’s piece in The Telegraph nailed it: Milton’s Paradise Lost reads like a grim prophecy for our current era of authoritarianism and right-wing spectacle.

therickwilson.substack.com

 

[Paine]

In Wikler DNC bid, allies see chance to nationalize Wisconsin-style campaigning

Ben Wikler announced Sunday he hopes to lead the national Democratic party by running for chair of the Democratic National Committee.

www.wpr.org

Not sure if there’s enough interest for a DNC chair race thread.

 

[korgguy1971]

Not sure if this is the correct thread for something like this, but at the same time, it seems as good a place as any:



Senate Republicans defeated a last-minute effort by outgoing Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) to ensure a Democratic majority on the National Labor Relations Board for the first two years of Trump's presidency.

Why it matters: It was a dramatic and consequential defeat for Schumer and the labor movement.

Schumer gambled that he had the votes without knowing how Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) would vote on the nomination for Lauren McFerran.

Both voted "No" on a crucial procedural vote that would clear the way for confirmation.

Republicans had nearly perfect attendance on the roll call, with only Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), who has strong union ties, not voting.

Driving the news: Democrats thought they could install McFerran, the current chair, for another five-year term.

That would ensure Democrats had a 3-2 majority on the board, which helps referee disputes between employers of workers across the economy, from Amazon to Starbucks.

"It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee — with a proven track record of protecting worker rights — did not have the votes," Schumer said.

Zoom in: Schumer was under pressure from progressives to use valuable floor time to force a vote. But he never received firm assurances from either Manchin or Sinema how they would ultimately vote.

With Manchin apparently off-campus, Sinema was the first of the two to vote "No."

That left the vote tied at 49-49, with the possibility that Vice President Harris could break the tie, but then word began to circulate that Manchin was en route back to the Capitol.

Manchin arrived after the vote had been open for more than 90 minutes, and voted "No."

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I can’t speak for other young men, but personally I would’ve jumped at the idea right out of high school.

Some sort of service program where you are trained and then go out and build things like you say. It could be houses, roads, trails. Weatherproofing, greening, whatever.

Pay them a decent wage and give them good healthcare. Give them college credit or free CC for completing a two year service term.

I did trail work for AmeriCorps and it changed my perspective of life. Issue is that you don’t get paid enough, the healthcare is awful, and the stipend you get afterwards is also bad. Not enough of an incentive to get average people to do it.

People want to feel like they’re making a difference. Would be a good way to build solidarity among Americans from all across the country and of all walks of life.

That's still not going to change the racists, bigots and Christian nationalists. I think a lot of people don't realize how deep it is within the soul of the MAGA crowd to make America white, straight and Christian again. Yeah, they might even act nice or at least cordial to others. But deep in their heart is pure hate and a fear of anything different than them, and a feeling of superiority over those others.

 

[Paine]

That's still not going to change the racists, bigots and Christian nationalists. I think a lot of people don't realize how deep it is within the soul of the MAGA crowd to make America white, straight and Christian again. Yeah, they might even act nice or at least cordial to others. But deep in their heart is pure hate and a fear of anything different than them, and a feeling of superiority over those others.

Maybe, maybe not. I tend to think you can bring some back, but at the end of the day, we aren’t talking about winning back the MAGA crowd. We’re talking about bringing people into the fold who currently sit out or voted for Trump due to other reasons.