• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Vox: Panic is setting in on the left.

Dyle

Member
Panic is the absolute wrong response to the Dems' current electoral anxiety. On the whole the Republican platform of policies is less popular, they've only gotten an edge by fearmongering and successfully demonizing, with the partial exception of Obama, every Democratic leader. The way things are going 2018 will be a bloodbath when it comes to Republican policies and the Democratic response should be to focus on promoting their policy responses emphasizing how Republican policies have directly hurt the American people. Those calling for the party to shift left are dead wrong, because we will always need to court moderate voters, and enthusiasm within the party base can be raised without alienating the key independents we need to shift to the left.

Is there reason to panic about the state of American government? Hell yeah there is, but not within the Democratic party itself. There are clear deficiencies that need to be taken care of and improvements to be made, but they will not succeed within an attitude of panic and intra-party warfare. Putting forth a unified and assertive platform from the top to the bottom of the ticket is the way forward, especially when the Republicans continue to show their true faces more with each passing day.
 

aeolist

Banned
that's not what you were saying the night of the election

i said that ossoff running as a centrist was a mistake because it's not going to win republicans away from a hard-right platform, which is true across the country. if you're going to run, run to the left and try to fire up the base.

in that particular district a leftist still probably would have lost because it's higher-income and very white, and i don't recall saying anything to the contrary. there are still good policies he could have run on that might appeal to those people (cheaper college for their kids, actually mentioning the incredibly unpopular AHCA at all) but the odds were always against him.
 

Mark L

Member
Yeesh. Looks like I picked the wrong time to join the Democrats. We are 100% fucked if this is at all exemplary of the Dem base. 8 years of Trump time.
 
You're simply deflecting from criticism of Obama by calling Republicans racist. Republicans in general can be racist, but that doesn't mean Obama can't have conservative political policies.

The Republican's election strategy is a separate entity from their economic policies.



Your criticism was to literally call him a Nixon Republican...

To which you haven't actually supported at all.

YOu claim I'm deflecting but Obama had tons of pro LGBT, anti-racist policies, his initial attempt at ACA had a public option too.

And I'd say election strategy ties into policies...

Also why are we pretending like only economic policies define who is left and right?
 
https://electjon.com/priorities/

The economy is the first priority in his list. Great. Lets see whats here.

fE5BJS6.jpg


That looks like Diet Republican to me. Dead last is a living wage. Note that "support" doesnt mean "fight for."

The fucking district he was fighting for is well of white people

They don't fucking care about living wages.

How is this so hard to fucking understand? This isn't rocket science! You need "diet republicans" in these districts in order to WIN these districts.

Some of you guys want to put a fucking square peg in a circle the size of a quarter, smashing into it and screaming for someone to change the shape of the hole.
 

TheMan

Member
So yes, changes are needed, but is what we're seeing now not part of the usual ebb and flow of red vs blue?
 
It isn't really a spectrum, was my point. Policies are not two dimensional. There are almost as many ways to do things right as there are to do things wrong.

And, what I was referring to was the fact that I had this very discussion played out in an earlier thread with a self-described lefty that described Obama as center-left. Other self-described leftys would say he's left, center, center-right. It's a waste of time having this conversation like it means something.

Sure, in general, I agree. As far as your first statement, you're also correct and that's the crux of my issue: Democrats solutions are not that different from Republican solutions.

But yeah, there isn't really a spectrum in the sense that there are those who want to fix problems in the market and capital by using the market and capital, and there are those who want to fix them outside of the construct of the market and capital. Democrats and Republicans are all operating within the construct of fixing market and capital problems with market and capital. You can be Left, Center, or Right of Capital, but you're still operating within that construct.

There's a movement within the "true left" to stop identifying yourselves as Leftists to avoid being harangued into the "Left/Right/Center of Capital" argument and argue from outside the perspective of Capital.

As far as the second, that's part of the problem. People who adopt their political identities as merely an opposition towards the position of the Right Wing. Opposition to the Right Wing doesn't necessarily make you a "Leftist".
 

kirblar

Member
So yes, changes are needed, but is what we're seeing now not part of the usual ebb and flow of red vs blue?
Younger Millenials literally don't remember the Bush years because they weren't paying attention and to many this is the first time they've seen the pendulum swing all the way to RRR. Also, many Americans across the political spectrum think only one vote (for pres) matters.
 

jmood88

Member
It's disappointing to watch centrist Democrats continue to condemn the LGBT and black communities by proving unable to win elections with such a milquetoast national party message. Even good candidates can't escape being dragged down by that millstone.
What's truly disappointing is seeing so many democrats who don't understand that, outside of raising money, making a message that appeals to people outside of the voting district rather than the constituents is not the answer. I want more liberal democrats but that particular district didn't vote for Karen Handel because Ossoff was just too centrist. People need to stop looking at every race through a national lens and let people who live in the area run the campaigns that are best for those districts.
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
You're simply deflecting from criticism of Obama by calling Republicans racist. Republicans in general can be racist, but that doesn't mean Obama can't have conservative political policies.

The Republican's election strategy is a separate entity from their economic policies.

Would a Nixon-era Republican have supported a Keynesian care package to solve an economical crisis like Obama did? Honest question, or else I'm not understanding your point, and I'll defer to excelsiorlef posts for my arguments.
 

KHarvey16

Member
So yes, changes are needed, but is what we're seeing now not part of the usual ebb and flow of red vs blue?

In fact indications are (right now at least) that the wave toward the blue side is bigger than usual this time around. The opposition party typically does well in midterms but the numbers this cycle look pretty good.

Part of me wonders if certain folks on the left need to paint a narrative of failure and panic in order to sell their vision for how things should change. It's the circular reasoning of "things must be bad because they haven't made these changes, and these changes must be made because things are so bad."
 
Your criticism was to literally call him a Nixon Republican...


Because Obama is a Nixonian Republican. Their economic and governing policies are incredibly similar.

Obama deciding to stop being publicly homophobic four years into his Presidency doesn't suddenly change what his political platform was prior to or after his "evolution".
 
Who precisely argued the party should "Drop" civil rights issues?

People need to learn the difference between ignoring an issue and rhetorical emphasis. Clinton had a broad agenda which covered a host of issues affecting the country but you cant be all things at all times, so sometimes her policies on say, the opiate epidemic were little known to the general population, or even her retraining and education initiatives for that matter.
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
Because Obama is a Nixonian Republican. Their economic and governing policies are incredibly similar.

Obama deciding to stop being publicly homophobic four years into his Presidency doesn't suddenly change what his political platform was prior to or after his "evolution".

I didn't know Obama used the War on Drugs to go after Mexicans and African-Americans.
 
Because Obama is a Nixonian Republican. Their economic and governing policies are incredibly similar.

Obama deciding to stop being publicly homophobic four years into his Presidency doesn't suddenly change what his political platform was prior to or after his "evolution".


Show your work

That said I'm probably wasting my time if you think Obama was homophobic.
 
So true. Just look at the lectures around here after Trump won about meeting in the middle with racists.

What about all the concessions Clinton gave Sander's camp during the end of the primary.

Does that not exist? Does the party getting a public option in the house just go "poof" because it doesn't fit your narrative?

$15 minimum wage vs a $12 minimum wage is just so far off that people don't compromise?

Or is that just the corporate democrats being so right wing by have a more nuanced position on issues?

Publicly homophobic?

Jesus.

Clinton hated gay people too, just look at her not fighting for gay marriage in the early 2000's!
 
Would a Nixon-era Republican have supported a Keynesian care package to solve an economical crisis like Obama did? Honest question, or else I'm not understanding your point, and I'll defer to excelsiorlef posts for my arguments.

Yes.

Nixon reformed Social Security on the National level in order to increase efficiency and increase the level of benefits available to all.

Nixon even supported a policy that was very similar to Universal Income, but it did not have enough support from either Party and it was dropped.
 
Show your work

That said I'm probably wasting my time if you think Obama was homophobic.

Dude (and Clinton!) was openly against gay marriage for the first four years of his Presidency and cited the very same reason the GOP does, his personal Christian religion.

This isn't a scandalous revelation, it's a well known issue within the gay community.


Publicly homophobic?

Jesus.


When asked if he believed in Gay Marriage Obama said no and cited the Bible as the reasoning behind it. He did this for years.


I didn't know Obama used the War on Drugs to go after Mexicans and African-Americans.



The War on Drugs didn't stop under Obama and deportations continued.
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
The War on Drugs didn't stop under Obama and deportations continued.

But then you're glossing over the fact that he ordered the DOJ to change their focus on drug-related offenses prosecution. It has been so relevant that producing countries like Colombia are beginning to take notice and try to take a less punitive aim in prosecution.

I'll give you the deportations part, considering he's the president with most deportations under his belt. EDIT: But thinking it well, you're gonna have to provide me with sources that state that the War on Drugs was a big part of the Obama's administration deportations.
 

Cruxist

Member
Dems keep talking about policy and how bad trump is.

Republicans do not care. Its a way of messaging that just does not resonate.

I think this is probably true. I'm not entirely sure how to combat it. I would assume the answer would be to encourage more political engagement/literacy, but so many people just shut it out and hear what's on their designated nightly news channel/radio show.

So yes, changes are needed, but is what we're seeing now not part of the usual ebb and flow of red vs blue?

Yeah. Lots of panic because there's a youth surge among Dems and they/we haven't seen this.

I do think there's some concerning stuff coming from the group that's about 10 years younger than millennials though. Reaction to those in power etc etc... but I think the culture of far right youtubers/influencers is something to watch. I have to assume this is dangerous, but there have been hard right swings in youth politics before, hell, young people were basically responsible for Barry Goldwater. Who knows.
 

Sianos

Member
I'm just glad to see we're no longer blaming the presidential election loss on supposed "identity politics" - a term that inexplicably includes women's health issues.

I think the road forward is to continue having our wonkishly specific policy proposals in the background, but instead of trying to communicate nuanced details with the average person we should instead be charismatic and passionate in a loud manner about the basic paradigm shifts.

Worked for the Republicans, and we still get the moral high ground by not literally hiding our bills in the physical sense.
 
But then you're glossing over the fact that he ordered the DOJ to change their focus on drug-related offenses prosecution. It has been so relevant that producing countries like Colombia are beginning to take notice and try to take a less punitive aim in prosecution.

I'll give you the deportations part, considering he's the president with most deportations under his belt.

Nah you can't even really give him that
That statistic was due in large part to a change in how "deportations" are defined rather than to an increase in the number of persons deported.

http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/
 

kirblar

Member
"Civil Unions" is a bullshit deflection adopted by the GOP to make their homophobia more acceptable.

"Civil Unions" was not an acceptable or pro LGBT platform.
To get Gay Marriage we had to go through the courts because we couldn't go through the court of public opinion!

If you don't think that the US population was virulently homophobic (and large parts of it still are) and that Dem politicians in the '90s/'00s had to be very fucking careful what they said on the topic, you are completely ignorant of history and don't understand just how quickly things changed over that time period.

Both Clinton and Obama's actual beliefs in '08 were clearly to the left of where they were wiling to admit publicly. But it still wasn't politically acceptable for them to get on board at the time!
 
I think this is probably true. I'm not entirely sure how to combat it. I would assume the answer would be to encourage more political engagement/literacy, but so many people just shut it out and hear what's on their designated nightly news channel/radio show.

Im with you man, i totally have zero suggestions on how to fix it. My brain wants policy and ideas and facts. Those facts are undisputedly not true to the other side right now and policy doesnt interest them, and neither does the morality or actions of their leader because he's "their guy"

I'm pretty much fairly convinced we are in a cold civil war right now, and the left is losing.
 

aeolist

Banned
This is a weird sentiment to me because so much of the rhetoric about "reclaiming the WWC" I see comes from people "further to the left". Like, that's not to say the current dems don't have racism problems, but uh...it looks like everyone does?

leftists who want to win the white working class vote push broad class-based economic policies

centrists who want them just get really quiet about civil rights
 
What's with this weird revisionist history that it was the Clinton branch of the Democrats that were talking about cutting back on "identity politics" and trying to move the party to be more racist?

Because those aren't the people I remember who were complaining about "identity politics" or the ones who wanted to drop everything and start appealing directly to white people.
 

KHarvey16

Member
"Civil Unions" is a bullshit deflection adopted by the GOP to make their homophobia more acceptable.

"Civil Unions" was not an acceptable or pro LGBT platform.

Such a black and white view of complicated social issues, especially in hindsight, does neither you nor your arguments any favors. This throw the baby out with the bath water strategy is a real problem on the edges of the political spectrum.
 

kirblar

Member
leftists who want to win the white working class vote push broad class-based economic policies

centrists who want them just get really quiet about civil rights
Leftists who declare that racial issues are just class issues in disguise are no better than your latter example.
What's with this weird revisionist history that it was the Clinton branch of the Democrats that were talking about cutting back on "identity politics" and trying to move the party to be more racist?

Because those aren't the people I remember who were complaining about "identity politics" or the ones who wanted to drop everything and start appealing directly to white people.
Bill Clinton '92/Hillary '08 and Hillary '16 were very different campaigns.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
leftists who want to win the white working class vote push broad class-based economic policies

centrists who want them just get really quiet about civil rights

No I see a lot of leftists who think that we need to downplay identity politics to run on economic populism. Like, everyone needs to clean house on this
 
Such a black and white view of complicated social issues, especially in hindsight, does neither you nor your arguments any favors. This throw the baby out with the bath water strategy is a real problem on the edges of the political spectrum.

no wonder their avatar is black and white!
 

aeolist

Banned
Leftists who declare that racial issues are just class issues in disguise are no better than your latter example.

there are people who do that but for the most part you're misrepresenting a complex argument

but it's you so that's not a surprise
 
Top Bottom