AOC: "The Democratic Party is not a left party. They're a center, or center-right party." [READ OP]

[dabig2]

Probably, but basing your analysis on 2018, to demonstrate there's currently an aging trend is straight up false, and unproductive, in that it completely dismisses the main lever to actually move the needle left: people like AOC.

Click to shrink...

It's a data point towards explaining why the Democrat party of the last 30 years has been center-right. They've always been more interested in representing the older conservative vote that has money. It's a data point towards helping explain why AOC even has to put out this statement.

The issues we're talking about are generational, so it would be idiotic to dismiss what congress looked like just literally a year and a half ago. it will take at least another decade of AOCs to even tilt the Democratic party back towards its pre- 1970s Realignment ideals.

 

[pretzel]

In my humble opinion anyone who hands out $738 Billion to Trump for military spending, rising it by a whopping $22 Billion in the process, can not be called anything, not in the slightest, left.

'Atrocious': 188 Democrats Join GOP to Hand Trump $738 Billion Military Budget That Includes 'Space Force'

 

[alexiswrite]

It's a data point towards explaining why the Democrat party of the last 30 years has been center-right. They've always been more interested in representing the older conservative vote that has money. It's a data point towards helping explain why AOC even has to put out this statement.

The issues we're talking about are generational, so it would be idiotic to dismiss what congress looked like just literally a year and a half ago. it will take at least another decade of AOCs to even tilt the Democratic party back towards its pre- 1970s Realignment ideals.

Click to shrink...

You mean, "They've always been more interested in representing the older conservative vote that make up more of their voting constituents".
If you want the democratic party to be further left it's not about having more AOCs, it's about changing voting rules to encourage more young people to vote.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Yup. GOP is far right and dems are center right with some center left elements like AOC bernie talib omar and others in progressive circles. We arent radical leftist. Washington is just insanely corrupt and the right just keeps the overton window sliding in that direction due to the weakness of the supposed opposition

 

[Deleted member 23212]

Of course they're not a leftist party, that much is pretty evident.

 

[Chitown B]

Yep. The american democratic party isn't left, and Sanders isn't a socialist, in spite of what he may call himself.

(*from southeastern europe)

Click to shrink...

calls himself a democratic socialist, which is not socialist. it's its own thing.

 

[kubev]

Uh, so what exactly are the Republican party's "core values"?

Click to shrink...

The Republican Party is SUPPOSED to operate under the belief that the size of the government should be relatively small, and this is SUPPOSED to be facilitated by the fact that Republicans should only consider government intervention when the general populace is deemed incapable of running things on its own (or at a local level, as close to the individual as possible). The reason it doesn't work particularly well now is because of how corrupt so many Republicans are, not to mention the fact that they're attempting to regulate things that don't need to be regulated by a government body. Even this basic description of the party ends up being twisted, with Republicans framing the defunding or disbanding of various entities as a means of keeping the government small. The idea of a small government isn't bad, though it's probably unrealistic right now, but the idea is that the government should theoretically be smaller because most of this stuff shouldn't require regulation or oversight at the hands of the government, and that should in turn make for a more efficient government.

Anyone who distrusts the government or dislikes government intervention should totally be on board with the IDEA of what the Republican Party is SUPPOSED to stand for, but I can see why there're so many people feel no inclination to support it. It's rotten to the core, and I won't deny that. I'm just saying that the Republican Party could be totally relevant and deserving of support if it wasn't primarily populated by shitheads. And yes, I understand why people can't stomach the idea of helping the party to shift from its current vision, but I'm more so arguing in support of a hypothetical future in which the party was more open-minded about some of the issues while still holding true to its vision of placing more power in the hands of individuals. I just want better Republican candidates, and I think there're things a lot of people who dislike the current direction of the Republican Party could do to make the party better.

 

[Crimsonskies]

Norwegian here and the democratic platform is similar to the Norwegian Conservatives platform we could call democrats conservatives here.

Bernie is essentially turning a conservative party into a Social Democratic one and who knows it might work.

 

[Crimsonskies]

calls himself a democratic socialist, which is not socialist. it's its own thing.

Click to shrink...

He really needs to stop saying democratic socialist he is Social Democrat that's what we would call him in Norway.

He is essentially in favor of policies of the European Social Democratic parties such as universal health care.

 

[Deleted member 6230]

Looking at Democrats holding power in local municipalities like New York I'm in agreement with AOC

 

[pigeon]

The Republican Party is SUPPOSED to operate under the belief that the size of the government should be relatively small, and this is SUPPOSED to be facilitated by the fact that Republicans should only consider government intervention when the general populace is deemed incapable of running things on its own (or at a local level, as close to the individual as possible).

Click to shrink...

Supposed by whom?

This is a genuine question. What gives you the idea that this is the core and correct purpose of the Republican Party? It has never operated this way.

 

[Chitown B]

He really needs to stop saying democratic socialist he is Social Democrat that's what we would call him in Norway.

He is essentially in favor of policies of the European Social Democratic parties such as universal health care.

Click to shrink...

why? It's not Norway. The "liberal democrats" are a party in the UK but that's not the same thing as the US, for instance.

 

[Crimsonskies]

why? It's not Norway. The "liberal democrats" are a party in the UK but that's not the same thing as the US, for instance.

Click to shrink...

Liberal Democrats are not Social Democrats either in Britain that would be the Labour party.

Norways labour party is a Social Democratic party.

It's the policies that Bernie is proposing that makes him a social democrat it would be an easier sell to those Americans scared by the socialist label.

He just needs to find the right way to talk to those who may agree with him on his policies but are not sure because of the socialist word.

 

[kubev]

Supposed by whom?

This is a genuine question. What gives you the idea that this is the core and correct purpose of the Republican Party? It has never operated this way.

Click to shrink...

From Wikipedia:
"Republican party leaders strongly believe that free markets and individual achievement are the primary factors behind economic prosperity. To this end, they advocate in favor of laissez-faire economics, fiscal conservatism, and eliminating government run welfare programs in favor of private sector nonprofits and encouraging personal responsibility. Republican voters, however, do not hold these views as consistently as their party's leaders."

I'll leave the hyperlinks in place because the second one is especially relevant.

EDIT: Added hyperlink to specific Wikipedia article.

EDIT #2: Oh, you know, further down in that same article (in the States' Rights) section, it does indicate that they prefer a smaller FEDERAL government, probably as a means of retaining more power on the local/state level (which does seem scummy). That said, their approach to economics still facilitates the idea of keeping the government relatively small, since there's a push for things that COULD be handled by the government to instead be handled on a more local level by the private sector.

 

[ZealousD]

calls himself a democratic socialist, which is not socialist. it's its own thing.

Click to shrink...

Democratic socialism is a form of socialism. It is using the power of democracy to achieve socialism, as opposed to say, violent revolution or authoritarianism.

 

[Video Games Are Dumb]

I am American, and I agree because the political spectrum exists. When you break down exactly how the democrats approach problems, they simply add extra steps and a few extra taxes without solving the problem. The only solution to capitalism is real socialism. The rest of the world gets this. We got the receipts.

 

[XMonkey]

The Republican Party is SUPPOSED to operate under the belief that the size of the government should be relatively small, and this is SUPPOSED to be facilitated by the fact that Republicans should only consider government intervention when the general populace is deemed incapable of running things on its own (or at a local level, as close to the individual as possible). The reason it doesn't work particularly well now is because of how corrupt so many Republicans are, not to mention the fact that they're attempting to regulate things that don't need to be regulated by a government body. Even this basic description of the party ends up being twisted, with Republicans framing the defunding or disbanding of various entities as a means of keeping the government small. The idea of a small government isn't bad, though it's probably unrealistic right now, but the idea is that the government should theoretically be smaller because most of this stuff shouldn't require regulation or oversight at the hands of the government, and that should in turn make for a more efficient government.

Anyone who distrusts the government or dislikes government intervention should totally be on board with the IDEA of what the Republican Party is SUPPOSED to stand for, but I can see why there're so many people feel no inclination to support it. It's rotten to the core, and I won't deny that. I'm just saying that the Republican Party could be totally relevant and deserving of support if it wasn't primarily populated by shitheads. And yes, I understand why people can't stomach the idea of helping the party to shift from its current vision, but I'm more so arguing in support of a hypothetical future in which the party was more open-minded about some of the issues while still holding true to its vision of placing more power in the hands of individuals. I just want better Republican candidates, and I think there're things a lot of people who dislike the current direction of the Republican Party could do to make the party better.

Click to shrink...

Ok, but I mean, none of that has really been true about the way they've actually governed for decades and decades now. That kind of Republican Party is long dead and it's kind of useless to even entertain that they will get back there because any self-identified Republican politician who has tried to reel them in gets knifed and tossed out by the party. The vast majority of their voters don't care about that stuff anymore, either.

And none of this has a single thing to do with what Democrats or the Democratic Party have done or said about them. The current state of the GOP is all on them and their voters.

If you want them to have any hope of getting back to whatever ideal place you have in mind then the party as it currently exists needs to consistently lose elections and their political relevancy along with it. Only then will there be the conditions for a party schism to occur and reform be possible.

 

[kubev]

Ok, but I mean, none of that has really been true about the way they've actually governed for decades and decades now. That kind of Republican Party is long dead and it's kind of useless to even entertain that they will get back there because any self-identified Republican politician who has tried to reel them in gets knifed and tossed out by the party. The vast majority of their voters don't care about that stuff anymore, either.

And none of this has a single thing to do with what Democrats or the Democratic Party have done or said about them. The current state of the GOP is all on them and their voters.

If you want them to have any hope of getting back to whatever ideal place you have in mind then the party as it currently exists needs to consistently lose elections and their political relevancy along with it. Only then will there be the conditions for a party schism to occur and reform be possible.

Click to shrink...

The part in bold is what worries me. I don't think that'll ever happen, though I'd love to be proven wrong in that regard. That's why I'm more so arguing in favor of doing something that doesn't require them to continually lose elections when they always have a 50-50 chance of winning.

 

[pigeon]

From Wikipedia:
"Republican party leaders strongly believe that free markets and individual achievement are the primary factors behind economic prosperity. To this end, they advocate in favor of laissez-faire economics, fiscal conservatism, and eliminating government run welfare programs in favor of private sector nonprofits and encouraging personal responsibility. Republican voters, however, do not hold these views as consistently as their party's leaders."

I'll leave the hyperlinks in place because the second one is especially relevant.

EDIT: Added hyperlink to specific Wikipedia article.

EDIT #2: Oh, you know, further down in that same article (in the States' Rights) section, it does indicate that they prefer a smaller FEDERAL government, probably as a means of retaining more power on the local/state level (which does seem scummy). That said, their approach to economics still facilitates the idea of keeping the government relatively small, since there's a push for things that COULD be handled by the government to instead be handled on a more local level by the private sector.

Click to shrink...

Thanks! It is good to know that this Wikipedia post is factually inaccurate and contains unverifiable assertions about the mindstates of various public figures. Somebody should edit it!

Ok, but I mean, none of that has really been true about the way they've actually governed for decades and decades now.

Click to shrink...

It has never been true about the way the Republicans govern.

The part in bold is what worries me. I don't think that'll ever happen, though I'd love to be proven wrong in that regard. That's why I'm more so arguing in favor of doing something that doesn't require them to continually lose elections when they always have a 50-50 chance of winning.

Click to shrink...

Right, but the thing you are arguing for would have zero chance of accomplishing the goal you suggest you want. It would have a bunch of fringe benefits for you as a disaffected Republican, though.

 

[y2dvd]

The queen continues to be right.

 

[XMonkey]

The part in bold is what worries me. I don't think that'll ever happen, though I'd love to be proven wrong in that regard. That's why I'm more so arguing in favor of doing something that doesn't require them to continually lose elections when they always have a 50-50 chance of winning.

Click to shrink...

I don't see how it's possible for them to change without that happening, to be quite honest.

I'll leave one last thought on this topic: The GOP has clearly given up on trying to win broad public support by arguing for what they believe in. Instead they've resorted to breaking democracy and ignoring the rule of law to maintain power. It's important to reflect on why that is. When this is the place they choose to operate from we have no choice but to do everything we can as citizens to make sure they lose power or we risk losing our democratic republic entirely.

 

[EdibleKnife]

I agree with her. There's a reason why the disenfranchised are so frustrated and often see Presidential elections as simply trying to pick the lesser evil. It's all because of how shrunken the distance between the ideals of Democrats and Republicans has gotten. Democrats should be the party that's wildly different from the GOP but too often there are democratic politicians who publicly or behind closed doors act in ways or believe in ideals not too dissimilar to Republicans. Knowing what we know about the GOP, Democrats should be ashamed to share space with a party so disengenuous and destructive to citizens and democracy. Yet there are politicians who continue to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe those Republicans are acting in good faith. So many Democrats are eager to tolerate the intolerable and at that point where they continue to ignore or excuse GOP behavior they're pretty much allowing bad behavior to continue and Republican ideals to spread uncontested.

 

[kubev]

Thanks! It is good to know that this Wikipedia post is factually inaccurate and contains unverifiable assertions about the mindstates of various public figures. Somebody should edit it!

Click to shrink...

I'd more so argue that it's outdated when you consider the current Republican Party. Just do a simple search for 'Republican small government' or something similar, and you'll see that it's not a new idea. You'll actually come up with a lot of articles/post that support your feelings on the matter in that it's no longer reflective of the Republican Party, and that's my whole point. I'm not saying that we should vote for Republicans as they are now. Everything I've argued for is more so because of how the party was supposed to be and how its past principles have been twisted.

Right, but the thing you are arguing for would have zero chance of accomplishing the goal you suggest you want. It would have a bunch of fringe benefits for you as a disaffected Republican, though.

Click to shrink...

How so? I've never voted Republican, for the record. The benefit for me is to not end up with as much of a train wreck with the next Republican president.

I don't see how it's possible for them to change without that happening, to be quite honest.

I'll leave one last thought on this topic: The GOP has clearly given up on trying to win broad public support by arguing for what they believe in. Instead they've resorted to breaking democracy and ignoring the rule of law to maintain power. It's important to reflect on why that is. When this is the place they choose to operate from we have no choice but to do everything we can as citizens to make sure they lose power or we risk losing our democratic republic entirely.

Click to shrink...

I agree. I just don't like the odds. I don't think they're going to lose consistently enough for that to happen. Instead, they'll lose one or two elections, only to win one and just go ape-shit to do as much damage as possible while in control.

 

[Deleted member 31817]

calls himself a democratic socialist, which is not socialist. it's its own thing.

Click to shrink...

A democratic socialist is still a socialist, he's neither.