• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

Democrats to AOC "You aren't supposed to go after other Democrats" as they hope to get her to fall into line

Oct 28, 2017
6,536
The amount a house rep has to do with local gentrification is approximately 0.
This isn’t just about AOC, it’s aboit this whole idea that moderates are going to save us. I don’t see saving, I just see a status quo that continues to hurt minorities.
Like, unless you're trying to literally convey that you believe all white people are equally racist regardless of where they live, and thus the only thing that matters is class. Which would be completely wrong based on the data we have showing gigantic differences in how metropolitan white voters perceive the world as opposed to rural ones.
I don’t view them all as equally racist, just racist in different ways. And you know I don’t believe class is all that matters. You’ve heard me y’all about inersectionality before.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,536
Gentrification is not something that people do because they're racist. It's also not the sort of thing you can hold one individual responsible for
That’s why it’s systemically racist. White peoples still benefit from it and won’t do anything to really combat it.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
Gentrification is not something that people do because they're racist. It's also not the sort of thing you can hold one individual responsible for, it's only problematic when it reaches a tipping point. That's why the solution is collective protections, not just expecting people to stay in their "own" neighborhoods and reinforce traditional segregation of housing.

And I say this as someone whose home neighborhood was gentrified entirely out of existence. I lived through that, I know what it's like. We bought my childhood home for $11,000 because we couldn't afford anything better, and now it's worth a half million bevause they bulldozed the neighborhood and built a hipster paradise around it.
That gentrification is something that starts with the upper middle class being forced into middle class neighborhoods and trickles down due to a lack of new housing construction is generally not understood very well.

Software Devs making $150K a year would much rather live in a nice new apartment building, not paying $2K a month to split a studio.
 
Oct 27, 2017
281
A prominent GOP strategist recently wrote:

https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1082335485400412160

One rather important difference is that Ruffini’s "libertarian policy demands" are not broadly popular. Matt Yglesias wrote a pertinent piece recently, over at Vox:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...trump-populism-democracy-threat-minority-rule
...The attacks on democracy are consensus views in the institutional Republican Party and the larger conservative movement. The trouble comes not from a populist demagogue trampling on institutional constraint but from countermajoritarian institutions being deployed to stymie popular will... Because this process is being carried out in accordance with the law and the institutional order, the appropriate response is extra-institutional and extralegal appeals to the sovereign authority of the people. That, in turn, requires popular mobilization not just with appeals to abstract democratic norms” but in showing who benefits from minority rule (rich people) and why (to advance their material interests).

In a word, it needs to be defeated with populism. Not the populism of lawlessness and oppression of cultural minority groups, but a populism that is self-confident enough to proclaim that the will and interests of the majority has a special claim to political legitimacy. A claim over and above the formalism of what’s “allowed” in a world of gerrymandering and lifetime political appointments.
And as Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate economist) has noted:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/05/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-policy-dance.html
By Paul Krugman
...So AOC, far from showing her craziness, is fully in line with serious economic research. (I hear that she’s been talking to some very good economists.) Her critics, on the other hand, do indeed have crazy policy ideas — and tax policy is at the heart of the crazy...
See also:

(1) https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1083734487446491136

(2) https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1083049531518914562
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
955
Instead of her falling in line, the others need to shape the fuck up.
Pretty much.

AOC is what I would expect from Democrats as a whole. The problem is that Democrats are weak, and insist on continuing to play by the established gentleman agreements of a bunch of old white racist men.

If AOC represents the beginning of the end of the status quo, especially within democratic politics, that just makes me like her even more.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
This isn’t just about AOC, it’s aboit this whole idea that moderates are going to save us. I don’t see saving, I just see a status quo that continues to hurt minorities.

I don’t view them all as equally racist, just racist in different ways. And you know I don’t believe class is all that matters. You’ve heard me y’all about inersectionality before.
You mention it, bu I I don't think you've really synthesized how intersectionality affects behavior here. Having more-racist people in favor of a greater increase in redistribution results in less redistribution overall relative to less-racist people in favor of a smaller increase in redistribution because the social conservatism ends up overriding the economic beliefs because people aren't rational robots.
 
Oct 25, 2017
740
Pennsylvania
The conventional wisdom after 2016 was that Democrats needing younger leaders with bigger ideas. Now that they have a couple of potential ones in AOC and Beto, people are either trying to put them in their place or dig up dirt to discredit them. Maybe they need someone to shake things up and make waves. Being polite and quiet may have worked before 2016, but not anymore.
 
Oct 30, 2017
451
A prominent GOP strategist recently wrote: https://twitter.com/PatrickRuffini/status/1082335485400412160

One rather important difference is that Ruffini’s "libertarian policy demands" are not broadly popular. Matt Yglesias wrote a pertinent piece recently, over at Vox:

And as Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate economist) has noted:

See also:

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1083734487446491136

https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1083049531518914562

There's nothing I despise more than political economics

90% of economic policy espoused by American politicians and political media (pundits) is gibberish designed by incestuous partisan think-tank shitheels as a way to make money

If people actually bothered to engage with academically popular economic theory their goddamn heads would explode because of how left-wing some of it is.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,495
That gentrification is something that starts with the upper middle class being forced into middle class neighborhoods and trickles down due to a lack of new housing construction is generally not understood very well.

Software Devs making $150K a year would much rather live in a nice new apartment building, not paying $2K a month to split a studio.
It also goes the other way, with students and young people who can't afford to live anywhere else, so they move into low income neighborhoods, but worth young people com arts and music and eventually trendy businesses to serve them, and all of a sudden the place is hot and developers are buying up everything and pushing people out. But it isn't like the poor college kids did something wrong, they just couldn't afford to live anywhere else.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,536
You mention it, bu I I don't think you've really synthesized how intersectionality affects behavior here. Having more-racist people in favor of a greater increase in redistribution results in less redistribution overall relative to less-racist people in favor of a smaller increase in redistribution because the social conservatism ends up overriding the economic beliefs because people aren't rational robots.
I don’t want more-racist people in our coalition. I don’t see it as an either/or choice. I don’t want either. What I do want is for democrats to take a more economically left position on policies. All I see is tax credit moderation and austerity and capitulation to big businesses and the rich. Appealing to those suburban white moderates shifts the party to the right
 

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
It also goes the other way, with students and young people who can't afford to live anywhere else, so they move into low income neighborhoods, but worth young people com arts and music and eventually trendy businesses to serve them, and all of a sudden the place is hot and developers are buying up everything and pushing people out. But it isn't like the poor college kids did something wrong, they just couldn't afford to live anywhere else.
That's actually not going the other way, that's the trickle-down effect of gentrification. It's why people like teachers are going to be that first wave group getting pushed down from middle class to lower-middle because they got displaced by the software devs, and then the artists/students are the first wave group that show up in the poor neighborhoods because the teachers displaced them.

And then eventually it all gets insanely expensive because there's just simply not enough housing to go around.
I don’t want more-racist people in our coalition. I don’t see it as an either/or choice. I don’t want either. What I do want is for democrats to take a more economically left position on policies. All I see is tax credit moderation and austerity and capitulation to big businesses and the rich. Appealing to those suburban white moderates shifts the party to the right
But it doesn't. It just doesn't. Even the Democrats in '07-'09 had zero desire for Austerity bullshit. That's very much a conservative thing, and these areas just bounced their GOP reps.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,722
Pretty much.

AOC is what I would expect from Democrats as a whole. The problem is that Democrats are weak, and insist on continuing to play by the established gentleman agreements of a bunch of old white racist men.
That's whats so gross about tge way certain people are acting.

It's easy to pretend like you are being pragmatic when you push when you push for civility, compromise, and reaching across the aisle when you leave out that the other side of the aisle is putting children into prison camps.
 
Oct 27, 2017
497
Canada
"Don’t attack your own people "

The problem with American politics in a nutshell. Your people are the constituents that you represent not your blue or red baseball team.
 

Raging Spaniard

Artist at EA Star Wars
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,194
Nonsense, this bullshit is how we end up with the Republican party all pretending they love Trump.

Hold yourselves to higher standards.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,468
In the context of this thread, this politician, and the 2018/2020 elections...I'm not seeing your point.

AOC has been a lightning rod of Dem enthusiasm. Enthusiastic people vote. Dems who agree with AOC that the system is currently broken and needs a shakeup, will vote in 2020. Attempting to stifle that enthusiasm before it gets 'out of line' is a mistake.
I'm just remarking on the use of that phrase as that's how Trump voters thought. They think the chaos Trump causes is good as he's "shaking things up".

It's probably a stupid thing to mention but it's not about shaking things up, it's about curbing influence of money in politics, improving ethics and limiting corruption, single payer etc.

Vote for ideas and not just to shake things up. That's how Trump won. People wanted a change, didn't matter what the change was and now they're too deep to admit they fucked up.
 
Nov 14, 2017
5,418
I'm just remarking on the use of that phrase as that's how Trump voters thought. They think the chaos Trump causes is good as he's "shaking things up".

It's probably a stupid thing to mention but it's not about shaking things up, it's about curbing influence of money in politics, improving ethics and limiting corruption, single payer etc.

Vote for ideas and not just to shake things up. That's how Trump won. People wanted a change, didn't matter what the change was and now they're too deep to admit they fucked up.
She has specifically outlined her policy positions that intend to "shake things up". They aren't fascism, tax cuts, cronyism, and open racism.
 
Oct 27, 2017
281
There's nothing I despise more than political economics

90% of economic policy espoused by American politicians and political media (pundits) is gibberish designed by incestuous partisan think-tank shitheels as a way to make money

If people actually bothered to engage with academically popular economic theory their goddamn heads would explode because of how left-wing some of it is.
Krugman seems to make this observation (about political media/pundits) quite consistently, in the context of healthcare policy, tax policy, and beyond.

But of course, as others have observed, it's arguably a more delicate balance, when offering criticism of politicians within one's own party:

(1) https://twitter.com/DanteAtkins/status/1083743984336490496


(2) https://twitter.com/saikatc/status/1083748212484308998
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,087
This just shows how fucking shit the DNC is. To think it’s the only sane option in US elections, it is insane.

Edited: a letter
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
6,042
our fundamental disagreement here is the fact that saying =/= doing

you care about the former and conflate it with the latter; i mostly just care about the latter. If all you care about is the fact that she slags off democrats you're in for a bad time
Reading both of your posts your fundamental disagreement is that you like what the establishment is doing and while aoelist doesn't like their actions and doesn't like their explanations for why they do it.


ALSO you disagree on Cortez. You don't like her arguments against the establishment rhetoric while aeolist likes she is saying and believes she should be given more opportunities to formulate what she says into action.

You keep on arguing from the premise that the establishment is leading this country in the right direction and aoelist is either saying you're wrong or it isn't good enough and most people will suffer instead of prosper in long run.


If nothing else it'll teach her the realities of holding a political position. One would hope, anyway.

We're seeing it with Trump. Going out of your way to make everyone your enemy means nobody will work with you and you will not be able to accomplish anything you actually set out for.

Trump being stubborn isn't the only issue at play. The republican leadership aren't defying Trump because he is more in tune with their voters than they are. The establishment Dems are going to have to analyze and assess that most likely Ocasio isn't some outlier but simply the vanguard of a base that also increasingly disapproves of their leadership.


If they don't take the time to figure out in what ways they are out of touch in the future we might have an actual liberal demogagoue leading the party. Sanders and Ocasio is far from what you and the establishment fear could happen.
 
Last edited:

Kitsunelaine

My favorite cake is pie
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,302
You're defending the establishment. That alone isn't enough to qualify that you like them. But you don't come across as playing devil's advocate because you have zero clue what aoelist is arguing against. Your response right now is typical but disappointing.
you're free to believe that buddy
 
Nov 9, 2017
419
Keep fighting the good fight. These people placate on social issues but they still take the same money Republicans take. Fight for your people, not corporate donors.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,756
How many progressives primaried incumbent Dems before the midterms and then lost in the general?

And people need to stop acting like the Tea Party was some kind of grass roots, invincible force of nature. Their candidates were backed by a fuck ton of dark money and they lost races they should have won by running candidates that were too far to the right for their district. And they took a bunch of Ls in Congress by being too hard line.
The Tea Party has the presidency at the moment.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,474
This is why it's important to be a team player, kids. Months earlier I saw various articles about AOC alienating members before, so I'm not surprised. It sucks, but that's how it goes in any top down organisation. As a politician she needs to win over her compatriots to get access to leadership positions and votes on bills she's supporting. Being angry about the system is commended, but this ins't about being angry it's about doing her job in congress to help people with bills. If she can't manage that her career is going to fizzle out since the majority of the party won't work with her.
 
Oct 25, 2017
211
How is this different to Trump and Republicans. Both approaches are terrible for politics and society
Locking kids is cages and leaving immigrants to die is the same as... *checks notes* attacking people on twitter?

This both sides bullshit has got so fucking unhinged as it's become increasingly impossible to defend it's not even coherent anymore
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,474
This isn’t just about AOC, it’s aboit this whole idea that moderates are going to save us. I don’t see saving, I just see a status quo that continues to hurt minorities.
Until the day comes when socialists have the political numbers in the Democrats or congress to do that you don't really have a choice. Without the centrists and liberals we wouldn't be getting even this far in helping minorities since this is the only game in town who has the power to fight back against the GOP in congress and the presidency.

I don’t want more-racist people in our coalition. I don’t see it as an either/or choice. I don’t want either. What I do want is for democrats to take a more economically left position on policies. All I see is tax credit moderation and austerity and capitulation to big businesses and the rich. Appealing to those suburban white moderates shifts the party to the right
I don't like it any more than you do, but we need those seats to push legislation through congress. If you don't get X votes you'll be getting nothing done. It's a matter of have to, not want to. It's not like socialist organisations like the Democratic Socialist of America don't do the same thing to some degree or another. I presume they like people in their organisation to not butt heads with leadership too much.

"Don’t attack your own people "

The problem with American politics in a nutshell. Your people are the constituents that you represent not your blue or red baseball team.
Not entirely. She's not a lone politician in the wilderness, she joined the Democrats. She's on the blue team by choice. This occurs in political parties all across the world, she'd be getting shit for this in countries like UK Labor when she's rebelling against leadership, as well. The Democrats are her people, too.

The conventional wisdom after 2016 was that Democrats needing younger leaders with bigger ideas. Now that they have a couple of potential ones in AOC and Beto, people are either trying to put them in their place or dig up dirt to discredit them. Maybe they need someone to shake things up and make waves. Being polite and quiet may have worked before 2016, but not anymore.
Being a younger leader isn't not a sign she gets to do what she wants. She needs to earn their trust and work with them, otherwise she'll become another Bernie Sanders. Leading requires getting allies and working with people. The Bernie wing are going to find themselves irrelevant to the Dems if they don't get their shit together and be team players. This is the job they signed up for! It's not about what she believes, it's behaving professionally in a political organisation.

She's a Democrat, were you all expecting the party to bow down to a freshmen with no leadership rank? lol That's not what happens in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Dec 7, 2017
130
How is this different to Trump and Republicans. Both approaches are terrible for politics and society
It's different because one is a 72 year old white man trying to normalize racism and uphold a shifting status quo and the other is a 29 year old woman of color calling out that racism and hate while trying to create change. Like, seriously? Her "mean tweets" are just her calling people out for doing or saying awful things or supporting terrible policies. How you can't see the difference between the two is beyond me.

They not only run counter to each other, they're literally opposites.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,042
This is why it's important to be a team player, kids. Months earlier I saw various articles about AOC alienating members before, so I'm not surprised. It sucks, but that's how it goes in any top down organisation. As a politician she needs to win over her compatriots to get access to leadership positions and votes on bills she's supporting. Being angry about the system is commended, but this ins't about being angry it's about doing her job in congress to help people with bills. If she can't manage that her career is going to fizzle out since the majority of the party won't work with her.
Generally that's true but this argument is wrong if dealing with an insurgency. Instead of putting her in her place they would be coronating her as one of the leadership of their incoming replacements.

If they want a smooth transition they aren't making the right moves for it.
 
Dec 26, 2018
3,474
Generally that's true but this argument is wrong if dealing with an insurgency. Instead of putting her in her place they would be coronating her as one of the leadership of their incoming replacements.

If they want a smooth transition they aren't making the right moves for it.
That's never how those things go, it's a compromise and to do what you're saying requires she be on good terms with leadership. Which aren't all progressives like Pelosi. She's not being coronated because she's not a leader in the party yet, Pelosi didn't get where she is today by thinking everyone should do as she says she used carrots and sticks, and knew how to navigate the relationships in congress. AOC will never become someone like that by acting like this, since being elected a leader requires her to convince numerous people in congress to vote for her in that position.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,042
Locking kids is cages and leaving immigrants to die is the same as... *checks notes* attacking people on twitter?

This both sides bullshit has got so fucking unhinged as it's become increasingly impossible to defend it's not even coherent anymore

It's superficial reasoning too.


Trump expresses himself on Twitter unlike establishment republicans, Ocasio is just as dangerous.

With that logic they are saying progressive policies are equally dangerous as isolationism, fake news and corruption.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,833
Fostering white supremacy on twitter is no different from criticizing the failures of your colleagues to represent the interests of their constituents.

The absolute state of Dem-side anti-AOC sentiment.

It's not her policy choices that bothers them, but the fact that she's forcing them to be held accountable and telling them to do better.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,257
I love her but also think that some of the concern is valid.

Two quotes come to mind for me.

“Politics is the art of the possible”. - Ben Franklin

“Politics is the slow boring of hard boards. It takes passion and perspective”. - Max Weber.

I hope that AOC never loses her passion or idealism, but at the same time, being passionate and even straight up right isn’t enough to change the way democratic politics has been played going all the way back to Ancient Rome.

At some point, achieving her goals is going to require playing the game strategically and she is going to need allies and even some unlikely bedfellows. And sometimes you have to accept that you might need to use a chisel instead of a jackhammer, even if progress is excruciatingly slow.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
6,042
That's never how those things go, it's a compromise and to do what you're saying requires she be on good terms with leadership. Which aren't all progressives like Pelosi. She's not being coronated because she's not a leader in the party yet, Pelosi didn't get where she is today by thinking everyone should do as she says she used carrots and sticks, and knew how to navigate the relationships in congress. AOC will never become someone like that by acting like this, since being elected a leader requires her to convince numerous people in congress to vote for her in that position.

That's never how it goes as long as the majority holds. When the number of incoming members have a majority that is out of line with the prevailing rulers, either they usurp them in a decade or 2 or they get coopted by the rulers.


It is a little early because she is the first of a new crop of younger dems stepping up but if the majority of newly elected dems are like Ocasio in the next three congressional elections then it means they have to adapt or get replaced.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,518
Well she is totally new to this. She does have to work with her fellow Democrats if she wants to successfully enact any of her agenda.
This but this is also something one should know going in. It doesn't take a lot of experience to know you have to learn how to navigate the workings of any new job. You can not go in an bull your way through. That's not going to work in many or any place of employment, especially a place like Congress where many people have taken years to build up relationships and contacts. It's the old saying of it's not what you say but how you say it. It really makes me wonder how she would do in any other job.
 
Last edited: