|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
I mean if you're afraid that politicians might give you lip service and then immediately stab you in the back for power, then supporting pragmatic centrists is the worst thing you can do short of voting for actual bigots, because sacrificing anything and anyone necessary to grab onto power is the basis of pragmatism as an ideology.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
The number of people willing to let 'their people' continue suffering rather than make common cause with people they regard as distasteful is frankly mind blowing. I suspect a lot of people would rather be correct than make progress. Also, if you keep hearing dog whistles everywhere maybe you should get yourself checked for tinnitus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Pragmatic centrism basically created the bathroom panic and turned LGBT activism into a single issue push for gay marriage because homeless queer youth isn't a sexy issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:It's amazing how so many people who point to LGBT rights as an immutable core principle of the Democratic platform have shoved the party's adversarial-at-best relationship to LGBT activists prior to 2012(ish) down the memory hole. The liberal "allies" who spent a decade arguing for separate-but-equal civil unions in lieu of same-sex marriage loved to claim that nationally legalizing gay marriage was a political impossibility and would remain so for the foreseeable future. Theres a vast difference between 'civil unions are the best I can give you now, but I will keep pressing for full marriage equality' and 'civil unions are the best you will ever get, full equality will never ever happen'. E: not disagreeing with your post in any way, just clarifying that incrementalism can be cool and good so long as everyone remembers theres supposed to be a goal beyond the increment
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Theres a vast difference between 'civil unions are the best I can give you now, but I will keep pressing for full marriage equality' and 'civil unions are the best you will ever get, full equality will never ever happen'. Even when the votes were entirely symbolic (like after the 2006 dem wave) they were basically self-sabotaging entirely symbolic bills with the impulse to compromise on poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean if you're afraid that politicians might give you lip service and then immediately stab you in the back for power, then supporting pragmatic centrists is the worst thing you can do short of voting for actual bigots, because sacrificing anything and anyone necessary to grab onto power is the basis of pragmatism as an ideology. No dispute here! People who call giving you so much as lip service a morally and strategically suspect act, though? Even less appealing ally material!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
I feel like R L Stephens has a great take on this issue of representation versus economic inequality: http://www.orchestratedpulse.com/2016/02/beyonce-slays-black-people/ And by the way, if you haven't, make sure you read Stephens and listen to his podcast, because the guy is loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Theres a vast difference between 'civil unions are the best I can give you now, but I will keep pressing for full marriage equality'
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is there example of a national politician who publically held this position prior to marriage equality being broadly popular? Not that I can recall, but Im not super knowledgeable about it. My point was more to say that I would understand a candidate who offered me a half measure because they couldnt get the whole thing, but promised to keep pressing, while I would be considerably less enthusiastic about a candidate who offered a lovely half measure as a means to placate with no intention of ever pressing forward. The Democrats seem rather short on one and overflowing with the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Not that I can recall, but Im not super knowledgeable about it. My point was more to say that I would understand a candidate who offered me a half measure because they couldnt get the whole thing, but promised to keep pressing, while I would be considerably less enthusiastic about a candidate who offered a lovely half measure as a means to placate with no intention of ever pressing forward. The Democrats seem rather short on one and overflowing with the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think we can all agree that it is hypothetically possible for a politician to be good, but it doesn't seem very much relevant to the discussion unless we have actual examples. Sometimes I like thinking about good things and holding a tiny, tiny ember of hope in my heart for just a moment
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Theres a vast difference between 'civil unions are the best I can give you now, but I will keep pressing for full marriage equality' and 'civil unions are the best you will ever get, full equality will never ever happen'. "Pragmatic" Democrats love shifting over from "this is the best we can do right now" to "this is the best we can do, period, and saying otherwise is an attack on our accomplishments" the first time they run into any significant pushback. See for instance, the ACA, which was sold as the first step towards real health care reform while it was being drafted, but once it passed, any suggestion that it could be improved upon in any way was treated as a betrayal of the Democrats' values and leadership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Not that I can recall, but Im not super knowledgeable about it. My point was more to say that I would understand a candidate who offered me a half measure because they couldnt get the whole thing, but promised to keep pressing, while I would be considerably less enthusiastic about a candidate who offered a lovely half measure as a means to placate with no intention of ever pressing forward. The Democrats seem rather short on one and overflowing with the other. What if in order to get the half measure, your negotiating posture has to be that you won't ask for the full measure because the other side fears the slippery slope?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What if in order to get the half measure, your negotiating posture has to be that you won't ask for the full measure because the other side fears the slippery slope? Because "start the negotiation with an intractable opponent by offering our compromise position and then work forward from there" has worked out so well for the Democrats thus far, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What if in order to get the half measure, your negotiating posture has to be that you won't ask for the full measure because the other side fears the slippery slope? lol at the idea Obamacare is "half" of anything resembling decent healthcare reform. or that the Democrats are "half" way to anywhere it was a bailout for the insurance companies and most of their "progress" over the past 30 years has been continued corporate bailouts. what actually have they passed that's good again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:It's amazing how so many people who point to LGBT rights as an immutable core principle of the Democratic platform have shoved the party's adversarial-at-best relationship to LGBT activists prior to 2012(ish) down the memory hole. The liberal "allies" who spent a decade arguing for separate-but-equal civil unions in lieu of same-sex marriage loved to claim that nationally legalizing gay marriage was a political impossibility and would remain so for the foreseeable future. Yeah, I remember how it took the Log Cabin Republicans to get rid of DADT. And somehow this hasn't been a mark of shame for the Democratic Party, that it took their political enemies to undo a major piece of their own bigoted legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:No dispute here! People who call giving you so much as lip service a morally and strategically suspect act, though? Even less appealing ally material! So pragmatic centrist Democrats like Hillary and Obama who campaigned against marriage equality, citing their religious belief that marriage is a biblical institution between a man and a woman, now sit down and be quiet gays you're hurting your own cause? I assume that's who you're referring to, because my questions of "which politicians on the left actually said this" have gone unanswered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:What if in order to get the half measure, your negotiating posture has to be that you won't ask for the full measure because the other side fears the slippery slope? Right because the Republicans didn't immediately start yelling about the slippery slope to communism once Democrats passed Romneycare and let Republicans poo poo it up with terrible amendments. Lol at "if we meet them halfway, Republicans will be grateful and return our good faith" in 2017
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Centrists are centrists because that's what they believe in, they're not secret communists. You may as well join the tea party if that's what you think. The half-baked pre-compromised answers are not 'the means to and end', they are 'the end'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
then why the evolution in public statements
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
My state, ladies and gentleman.quote:There is truly no defeat the Florida Democratic Party will avoid snatching from the hands of victory. Donald Trump has turned the Republican Party radioactive. His polling numbers are plummeting right alongside the GOP as a whole. And the nation is seeing a groundswell of progressive activism at levels not witnessed since the 1960s. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-democratic-party-president-poor-voters-dont-care-about-issues-vote-based-on-emotions-9358887 (and, admittedly, this is the perfect example why you should pay attention to your state/local politics outside of election time. I've been out of the loop on that level and had no idea that the FDP put this idiot in charge or the past history of the party which explains the absolutely terrible candidates we always get stuck with) (and and, before anybody tries to jump on me, i vote in every election including primaries. but i normally do my homework for state/local once i get my sample ballot in the mail.) WhiskeyJuvenile posted:then why the evolution in public statements Because they're opportunists. Either in the sense that they've never believed their 'new' stance but were willing to take it (note: taking a position doesn't mean they'd actually act on it once they're in power) due to public demand (let's say Hillary Clinton on mass incarceration/the drug war) or that they've always believed in their 'new' stance but they were never willing to publically stand behind it because the optics weren't right or they couldn't figure out a way to properly deceive their more moderate base (giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt, gay marriage) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
I guess that's why you voted for Trump in Florida
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I guess that's why you voted for Trump in Florida The irony of that statement coming from a noted contrarian troll that admitted to voting for Trump 'for the lulz'. All people have to do to figure out how full of poo poo you are is to hit the '?' by your post. You switched your gimmick in this very thread. Your early posts run completely counter to your later ones. (And even if people don't agree with my actions or conclusions, I hope they can see there was thought behind it) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
It's pretty fascinating to see people like CmC rationalize their vote for Trump after the election. It's one thing to stay at home during election day out of disgust of the globalist party but another to actively go out and vote for Trump, especially in a state like Florida. People like him are reasons why the left in the US can be easily painted as white racists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Pragmatic centrism basically created the bathroom panic and turned LGBT activism into a single issue push for gay marriage because homeless queer youth isn't a sexy issue. The gay marriage fight was actually a good one to pick. You can't really legislate "gay people good/bad" in court so instead you generally pick a smaller proxy fight that when won grants you the larger set of rights that you desire. In this case we not only won the right to marry but also the idea that gay people are covered by the same civil rights protections that cover black people, women, etc. That's loving huge and will have positive legal ramifications for decades. The trans bathroom issue is the same thing. It's kind of petty in and of itself, but the consequences of winning will mean vastly increased legal protections for trans people beyond just bathroom privileges. But yeah, we really do need to address the homeless issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
*Call me Charlie post* What the gently caress kind of idiots are putting people like Brown in charge of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Negotiating as a Democrat, a play in three acts ACT I: An OFFICE in WASHINGTON D.C. A DEMOCRAT: My constituency is deeply worried about their access to healthcare. I will push for healthcare for all! Other, lesser nations than grand America have achieved it! So shall we! ANOTHER DEMOCRAT: Careful as you go! The Republicans will never stand for services for all! You must reign in your idealism and prepare to negotiate for half of what you want, lest you get nothing! ACT II: The FLOOR of CONGRESS DEMOCRAT: I propose a bill providing for healthcare for all! ENTER A REPUBLICAN REPUBLICAN: Healthcare for all is but the first step on the path to dreaded Communism! If you push for health care I will fight you tooth and nail and have your name dragged through the dirt! My constituents will never vote for you! DEMOCRAT: The votes of your constituents are very important to me, because I find my own voters very fickle! I am prepared to settle for market based insurance available to all. What do you say to my generous compromise? REPUBLICAN: Market based insurance available to all is but the first step on the path to dreaded Communism! If you push for market based insurance available to all I will fight you tooth and nail and have your name dragged through the dirt! My constituents will never vote for you! DEMOCRAT: The votes of your constituents are very important to me, because I find my own voters very fickle! I am prepared to settle for market based private insurance at inflated rates required of all, with penalties for those who refuse. What do you say to my generous compromise? REPUBLICAN: Market based private insurance at inflated rates required of all, with penalties for those who refuse, is but the first step on the path to dreaded Communism! (fade out as REPUBLICAN continues) ACT III: An OFFICE. A group of LOBBYISTS are just leaving DEMOCRAT: Well, I have passed a bill today in the Congress to make all Americans purchase health care from a private insurer for minimal coverage at high rates on pain of tax penalty! Lets see what my constituents have to say about this grand victory! ENTER A CONSTITUENT CONSTITUENT: You have sold us out to lobbyists and Republicans! This new law is awful! DEMOCRAT: I had to be pragmatic to get anything done at all! You just don't understand the art of negotiation! CONSTITUENT: If I had any other choice I would vote for them instead! Perhaps next election I shall just stay at home! CONSTITUENT storms out DEMOCRAT: Why are my voters so fickle? If only I had the Republican's voters instead! That gives me an idea! END
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
That's actually a pretty good illustration nas.WhiskeyJuvenile posted:then why the evolution in public statements Also, they only ever 'evolve' on issues that don't threaten their corporate donors. Public option has a lot of support now, but we're told 'it's never going to happen'. Why? Because they don't want it to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:DEMOCRAT: Why are my voters so fickle? If only I had the Republican's voters instead! That gives me an idea! Next week: how I cut social security in exchange for a balanced budget, a play in 3 acts
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
Reading this thread makes me feel hosed over and hopeless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Join the dsa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The gay marriage fight was actually a good one to pick. You can't really legislate "gay people good/bad" in court so instead you generally pick a smaller proxy fight that when won grants you the larger set of rights that you desire. In this case we not only won the right to marry but also the idea that gay people are covered by the same civil rights protections that cover black people, women, etc. That's loving huge and will have positive legal ramifications for decades. The trans bathroom issue is the same thing. It's kind of petty in and of itself, but the consequences of winning will mean vastly increased legal protections for trans people beyond just bathroom privileges. The fight for gay marriage wasn't one that the Democrats picked in the first place. The legal precedents that might be applied as a result of the relevant Supreme Court decisions can be attributed to the Democratic Party, they came about because gay rights activists backed the relevant cases. And the case that brought down DOMA was specifically a suit seeking the marriage exemption from estate taxes for a multi-million-dollar inheritance. Even when the result is expanded civil rights for all, moneyed professionals are the ones who actually get the squeaky wheel greased, which is why disproportionately bougie civil rights issues like marriage inevitably take priority over housing and employment protections. By contrast, the only money that's at stake by allowing (or, for that matter, denying) bathroom access to transgender people is money that stands to be lost by cities and states that are boycotted as a result of those bans. For example, if the ban passes in Texas, it's estimated to cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year in lost revenues from businesses pulling out of the state in protest. Centrists and other fiscal conservatives might not be willing to support trans rights, but they'd be less inclined to cave in and oppose them if it'd cost their state a billion-plus dollars by the time they're up for reelection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Reading this thread makes me feel hosed over and hopeless. "hosed over" has some truth to it, but I don't think you need to feel hopeless. I think there's a good chance that progressives can force the Dems to at least get on the road to reform by 2018, and I think that Labour's unexpectedly good showing yesterday strengthens our case. Also, rudatron posted:Join the dsa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:So what is the modern rhetoric of social justice? Has the definition changed recently? Here's the common perception: Centrists are developing social justice into a wedge-issue for getting the base to vote against their economic self-interest. You're hobbled if you treat economic justice and social justice as mutually exclusive. Centrists are cultivating this problem. The solution is not accepting their new version of social justice from which the economic dimension is surgically excised. We shouldn't jettison recognition of the integral nature of poverty, labor protections, the justice system's unaffordability, etc. to issues of oppression. The right's pushing nativist populism? The left's pushing emancipatory populism, and centrists used to. Now they don't. Now they say, "[would breaking up the banks] end racism? Nooo!" Accretionist fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
^^ I hadn't thought about it until this post but separating out elements of an ideology could be seen as a straight up symptom of triangulation itself. I always thought it was a result of opposing economic justice but needing to pay lip service to justice in order to get votes. I mean, I still think it's also that, but thinking about it a universal concept of justice is completely impossible to triangulate on. You need to break things down into tiny little pieces if your only navigating principle is what polls/focus groups well. And if your entire job, your entire worth as a political actor, relies on things being split into tiny pieces you're going to react very poorly to anyone suggesting there's an underlying principle in play. Plus, since you only view things as little pieces your default position is going to assume other people are doing the same thing and view their actions through that lens and distrust them when their actions seem odd through that lens. Could be a source of the "ideological purity" charge centrists throw out. Yeah I still think it's often a cynical ploy to undermine the left. But, maybe some do it because they don't get having an ideology that underpins all your views and positions. And so to them it appears that the left is arbitrarily picking a bunch of tiny little pieces and pretending they indicate a virtuous person in order to undermine other people's chosen pieces. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Join the dsa. dick sucking alliance? but im already a member
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:^^ I hadn't thought about it until this post but separating out elements of an ideology could be seen as a straight up symptom of triangulation itself. I always thought it was a result of opposing economic justice but needing to pay lip service to justice in order to get votes. I mean, I still think it's also that, but thinking about it a universal concept of justice is completely impossible to triangulate on. You need to break things down into tiny little pieces if your only navigating principle is what polls/focus groups well. What's crazy about triangulation is that it's constantly undermining the civil rights of the people that people are claiming to be triangulating to protect. Remember, North Carolina dems twice undermined the fight against anti-trans legislation in North Carolina out of attempts to triangulate and ended up not only losing that fight, but also losing LGBT employment protections and wage protections. Triangulation said to bring out the Khans to earn some pro-Muslim cred, but also, in the same convention, bring out Bloomberg who tore apart the civil rights of New York Muslims so traumatically that for years many Masjids were scared to let new people attend prayers. Triangulation said to have a private meeting with BLM, while also bringing in the guy who defended Stop and Frisk overwhelmingly targeting black and Hispanic people with "well they matched the description of troublemakers." As long as triangulation is the main policy of the Democrat party, no one can trust them to have your back. People still defending the DNC are just people who haven't realized that in the current atmosphere their rights are also available for sale the moment it becomes politically expedient to do so. "The Democrats have protected us for years" - well these are the new Democrats, and you are valuable to them only until they can get some "political capital" for selling you out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:holy poo poo It also, not incidentally, why we desperately need folks who were excited about Sanders but lukewarm about Hillary to sharpen their focus on local elections and leadership positions. edit: that being said, if you think it was the superior strategic or moral choice to let the proposed ACA die because it didn't go far enough (it didn't), you've got no loving standing denouncing others as out-of-touch elitists. I don't fault anyone for complaining about the places where it falls short--join the loving club--but passing it was better than not passing it, full stop. Rangpur fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Dems only supported gay marriage because it cost them $0 to do so
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Dems only supported gay marriage because it cost them $0 to do so If anything, getting the gay market into the wedding industry was a major boon to the economy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 14:10
|
|
