Good thing you and your allies don't have anything to do with who gets to be a leftist or what people define themselves as.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Ocasio-Cortez Currently Backs Pelosi, ‘Most Progressive Candidate,’ For Speaker
- Thread starter Pet
- Start date
Good thing you and your allies don't have anything to do with who gets to be a leftist or what people define themselves as.
I'm not sure the point of your response when I said verbatim in my response "it isn't about criticism of the Democratic party." Is there a point to communicating when it's clear you aren't even taking my reasons for my response sincerely?
As far as purity tests, Helios tends to take one thing about a politician and bash them repeatedly over the head about it while ignoring other things they've done or the context of where they're doing it. That is exactly what a purity test is and why I used it correctly. The Joe Donnelly thread is a perfect example of such. The fundamental misunderstanding of candidates running different campaigns based on local electorate isn't about progress. It's obstinance.
If I should note anything about the pattern of your own responses to me, it is the level of hostility, antagonism and defensiveness.
If you want to point the finger at the reason for shitty candidates, perhaps the politicians shouldn't take all the blame. Perhaps the American people with the proclivity of reelecting shitty candidates and overall conservatism are at fault.
Because it's clear you're using purity test as a slur when it doesn't even apply under your own definition of it.
Helio has brought up numerous things. Not one thing. Their arguments are wide in scope. Again, are you even reading their posts? This is an earnest question.
Haha, you're the one being aggressive with me so, *shrug* If you want to project, it's whatever. You aren't going to gotcha me despite your numerous attempts to do so for some reason.
There's a multitude of issues at play. Not just one when it comes to how right-wing this country is.
Distinguishing the two isn't dumb. Liberals are progressive socially, but aren't economically. Liberals still like capitalism despite its inherently exploitative features which veers into social areas because capitalism loves racism. You have many liberals who support Israel despite its fascist status which we both agree isn't progressive at all. I want to make a distinction between them and those who want to get rid of the system that divides us and makes us fight among ourselves. I don't want to use the awkward Progressive Except for Palestine.
Talking about the problem is the first step in solving it. We see what's wrong and then try things to alleviate the problems. Shutting down the conversation because you don't like it only help those in power. How else are we to move the party left without discussing it? How are we to progress without complaining when our Democratic representatives do something that isn't inline with out ideals? Should we just sit here in an unquestioning stupor?
Oh, it's definitely a purity test. I just don't see anything wrong with having one. It just means I have standards and you don't. I understand that politicians have to tailor the message for certain groups, I just don't like it when they use bigotry to do it.
well we kinda do but the definition of leftism vs. liberalism isn't actually what I was alluding to there
I'm irritated that Pelosi started walking back the "transitional leadership" thing.
However, it is good that she committed to putting progressives in committee roles.
I'd like to see the rumored new leadership position created. We need long term planning. The world doesn't hinge on the weird personal vendetta between Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.
I described it actually and it does.
Yes? Why would I remark on their posts without reading them? Again it's clear that you don't have much in terms of actual substance so implying that I'm insincere I guess is a way to go.
"No u" Seriously?
P.S. Stop being a monster and adding a million spaces after each sentence.
It doesn't under your definition so. *shrug*
You said they only have one argument to make regarding why they don't like someone being in power and therefore it's a purity test because it's one thing. It's multiple things. Plenty of people have remarked on posts without reading them in this thread. Hell, there's endless accusations of sexism when it makes no sense. You're the one arguing without substance but sure, keep insulting me. *shrug*
You're the one insulting me when you're the one being aggressive. So *shrug*
Not much else for me to say when you're the one throwing this out of nowhere. You automatically want to put me on the defensive, it seems.
Last edited:
Hey so I asked you yesterday and didn't hear from you. Let me ask you again:
Do you think that the LGBT rights we have now came all at once or do you think that they happened over time?
I didn't care to respond when I'm dogpiled for having criticism of the Democratic party and accused of things I never even came close to saying. Being overwhelmed and attacked on a subject that drives my depression up a wall does wonders for my desire to respond to 10+ posts all saying different inflammatory things. You got lost in that shuffle, I guess.
Anyway.
Overtime. But I don't like incremental progress. It only harms. Especially when people argue that we've made enough progress when some still don't have equal rights/their rights are in danger. Or when we constantly concede to the center/right-wing and help to drive the country rightward as a result. Or etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Democrats embraced the "progressive" label in the 90s after Republicans succeeded in dragging the "liberal" label through the mud.
I consider myself progressive and liberal and consider those labels to be one and the same.
Your thesis is completely incorrect though, unless you feel that incremental progress on LGBT issues (just using that as an example because it's convenient) actively harmed the cause.
For the record I disagree - would it have been nice if say, Clinton had gone to the mat for LGBT rights in the 90s? Sure, but the country was in a very different place back then. If Clinton had vetoed DOMA, something that like 80ish% of the country supported at the time, that may very well have cost him the 96 election and given Republicans the mandate to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, making it impossible for the Supreme Court to legalize it in 2015.
The people who stood up for gay marriage even when it was unpopular deserve credit and our support. But on many issues, especially cultural ones, you need to get the people on your side in order to withstand whatever reactionary backlash comes your way. A gay friend of mine even told me after Obama announced his support of gay marriage that while he was happy Obama supported it, he feared it would cost him the election and that it'd be better if he kept his mouth shut. That was six years ago.
Here's the secret, no one likes incremental progress. Even the people here aren't touting it because it's ideal, we're doing so because it works. And there is allowed to be disagreement and dissent as to how far we should be able to go at once. But ultimately helping someone partway is better than not helping them at all. Everything is progress. Bernie Sanders could be president tomorrow and enact single-payer everywhere, and there'd still be kinks in the system that need to be worked out and progress to be made.
Last edited:
In the end, it's going to come down to what you consider it to be and what I consider it to be.
Anyway
Productive conversation depends on agreement on language to take place, but that isn't everybody's goal
This all seems correct
Yep no one left of Pelosi stepped up, so what AOC originally stated is techinically true I suppose.
All I can say is I disagree and wish it weren't that way. I see where you're coming from. I just don't like or want incremental progress. We're only helping to make the right-wing stronger in the process. There's a lot to that mind you, just, it's a factor.
And there are people who are getting lost to the wayside as a result of incremental change. People suffer while we make tiny steps. And some are fine with stopping these tiny steps. I don't want that.
And the agreement is at an impasse. However, I think we can still have a productive conversation without quibbling over the definition of progressive. We can still talk about how certain people are affected by the systems in our country and possibly how to alleviate them.
As an addendum to this: An ideal system would force those with power towards the poverty line and force those wealth out of power. Unfortunately a system like this would have to be established early and, even then, someone would find a way.
This thread:
"There is no reason for anyone on the left to disagree with anything Pelosi has ever done."
"I'm an anarcho-Maoist 3rd world syndicalist and disagree with the following..."
"What is wrong with you. That's stupid. Shut up."
It's honestly baffling how politically engaged people on this site get indignant at the mere notion that left wing politics is a broader tent than their own personal views. It's not something I've seen anywhere else.
"There is no reason for anyone on the left to disagree with anything Pelosi has ever done."
"I'm an anarcho-Maoist 3rd world syndicalist and disagree with the following..."
"What is wrong with you. That's stupid. Shut up."
It's honestly baffling how politically engaged people on this site get indignant at the mere notion that left wing politics is a broader tent than their own personal views. It's not something I've seen anywhere else.
Yup. If Barbara Lee was running for it, AOC would be voting for her. Unfortunately, she isn't and Pelosi is the best that we've got.
We should also remember that most of these movements don't start off with the desire to compromise or to enact incremental change, those are the results of hard fought battles. No one is really laying out the groundwork for increased rights by saying this is what we'll go after first and decades later, we'll fight for this. Gay marriage proponents fought for gay marriage, they didn't fight for compromises.
They still think leftists are on the fringe and therefore not worth paying attention to.
There are more actual libertarians in America than actual Marxist's or even communists.
I really believe that socialism and communism are recipes for those selfish people being able to get away with gross abuse of power. I mean...just look at China.
Again in theory I really push for a socialist country but that is contingent on all the actors being hardworking, honest, and fair. I simply don't think that psychopaths or sociopaths will be good simply because everyone else is. I also think misguided and overly enthusiastic collective thinking results in persecution of anyone that wants to be an individual outside of whatever narrow boundaries are deemed acceptable.
Even good people who want to work hard and live fairly aren't immune from mob/herd behavior, and all it will take is one or two cunning people to incite a mob for a supposedly righteous cause.
Honestly, I just look at what happened with Mao, Stalin, and all these countries that attempted communism and socialism...and yeah it's not good for people.
Capitalism encourages individuality while communism/socialism encourage collectivism. When you grow up in a collective society there's more pressure to shut up and obey for the common good. That's not inherently a bad thing, until bad things happen but everyone is convinced it's necessary for the common peace.
I don't think that capitalism engenders the best kinds of government either, but so far at least most of the countries that are decent places to live ARE capitalist in their economies (to a certain degree). I realize I'm mixing economic and government systems but I think it's hard to bifurcate the two because some types of socialism or communism seem to mix the two anyway. We already have socialist policies in capitalist societies.
Alternately, look at America.
It's intensely bizarre that anybody would argue that capitalism leads to men of virtue controlling the levers of state.
Is that it? Just a numbers game? I'm Australian and the more anti-capitalist left is probably only marginally less fringe here (speaking broadly, and groups like the DSA might be changing that), but have had encounters with moderate capital L Liberals and members of the Labor Right who, despite looking like they want to call an exorcist the second someone mentions a "scary" policy or thinker, have no problem with basically saying "I'm to the right of that" (I guess the name Labor Right says it all).
Left-right is an arbitrary and reductive heuristic; unless someone is using it to actively mislead (e.g. "the Nazis were far left, vote Trump!") I dont see why it should be taken as anything but a signpost of context.
That's some of it. Another part of it is that, post-2016, the Democratic establishment has lost a lot of its power to define and police the leftmost boundary of what's deemed to constitute "acceptable" political discourse in the United States. This means that a lot of people who previously defined themselves as being unimpeachably progressive now have people to their left exerting actual influence on the national political discourse, without being dismissed as a lunatic fringe as they would have been just a few years ago, and those in the former camp don't much like having their political self-identity challenged.
Shockingly, you can be a supporter of national health care, a repeal of Taft Hartley, a 100% inheritance tax, etc. like I am and still think the Left is dumb to oppose Pelosi.
The problem with dumb leftists who have no political knowledge before the 2016 primary is the dumb part, not the leftist part.
This is not unique to the Democrats, political parties have weakened substantially in this regard, which is why you have dumb ideas popping up on both the left and right fringes in the era of YouTube and Choose Your Own Reality. This is distinct from the US's national politics moving leftward overall as Generation X/Millenials/Gen Z age up and the Boomers/Silents start to age out.
Literally not the same thing and you know it.
You can disagree with things Pelosi has done and still want her to be Speaker. AOC said as much by calling her out on PayGo and the tax increase rule.
There's no such thing as anarcho-Maoist 3rd world syndicalism.
And I agree with your second point, which is why I find many of the posts in this thread so confusing.
Why is it dumb to oppose Pelosi from the left? Obviously, there are reasons to oppose her such as not wanting PAYGO or that tax increase rule.
I'm curious to know what programs they have for house freshman etc, I know it's only a two year position and can be prone to higher turnover so really would like to see how it would work.
Because there's effectively nowhere for you to go by opposing her except to the right even if you're opposing her from the left. Try productive activism instead of destructive.
Hmm, well first of all, you're not a victim here. We're having a conversation.
Secondly, I like having more rights than when I started doing activism decades ago. You know, at that time, something like marriage equality wasn't even on people's radar. And now we have it... that's incremental change in action! I would say your "it only harms statement" is patently false. I mean, if we'd insisted on marriage equality right now or nothing then we'd have nothing. And as unsavory as civil unions were as a substitute, they lead to marriage equality-- that's incremental change!
I want the US to be about 5000% more left than it is right now. But I don't want to shoot myself in the foot for giving up on achievable goals while I keep my eye on the prize of greater progressive change.
I think the PAYGO and tax increase rules are dumb too, but you don't stop them by getting rid of Pelosi.
Because if you know the political landscape of the Democratic Party in 2018, you understand among the only dozen or so Congresspeople who are actually to Pelosi's left, there's nobody else who can get any discipline from the moderate wing of the party to get anything done. If you somehow get Barabara Lee or AOC in as Speaker, three dozen moderate just ignore House leadership and if you try to primary them, they laugh and love the idea of running as a moderate whose against both "crazy lefties and righties" in their rural R+2 district in the Midwest.
In an age of extreme polarization (and hence wild swings from cycle-to-cycle in the House), effective leadership means wrangling votes and instilling obedience and unity within fractious ranks. The Democrats under Pelosi have been nearly unparalleled at this, the GOP...well, let's talk to Paul Ryan as he looks to exit Congress. A progressive Speaker of the House who has no credibility with the moderates leads to the same issues the GOP currently has.
I mean, Pelosi got a 1/3rd of her caucus to commit hara-kiri in 2010--that wasn't O's doing, that was hers. Hell, Rahm Emanuel, who is the actual centrist SOB that leftists think Pelosi is wanted to drop the ACA and do even less.
She basically told them: you will eat this electoral bullet for the greater good. They did. They're gone. The result is the greatest expansion of Fed gov't since the Great Society. This history is lost on too many - Nancy Pelosi looked her caucus in the eye, and told them - point blank - you're going to vote for Obamacare, you'll lose your seat for it, and you will be fucking heroes. One of most remarkable acts of political leadership in U.S. history.
Pelosi is old (and the grey-haired nature of Dem House leadership is a real problem - the GOP is legitimately better about promoting youth through the ranks), but the fact that she didn't deliver you a pony for Christmas doesn't mean that she's not extremely good at her job. If there's one thing that can save our republic, it's politicians who are willing to do the right thing, especially when voters are too focused on short-term/narrow self-interest to see the big picture.
We need more Nancy Pelosis in the world.
I can oppose her from the left without doing it from the right. Obviously, Pelosi is all we have right now, but I can still not like her as speaker; it's just that I have to put up with it for now. I can live with it.
lots of useless condescension here to only say that you really like Nancy Pelosi. That's fine if you do, but many leftists do not for legit reasons.
We definitely do not need more politicians who support fascist states, though.
I feel like LGBT rights is the best shorthand for this because it's the area we've made the most visible progress in, but this holds true with other issues as well. Ted Kennedy could have gotten universal healthcare done in the 70s if he'd set his ego aside while working with Carter, but instead he shitcanned the whole thing so he could run for president, and then Reagan won and shifted the overton window right almost permanently.
Kennedy learned from his mistake ("politics is the art of the possible"), but Democrats never had that kind of grip on Congress and the presidency again until Obama came along and did what he could with healthcare. But the Affordable Care Act still pales in comparison to what Kennedy and Carter's plans were. Had the foundation of a universal system already been in place by that point, Obama could have focused on improving it further, but instead he had to start from scratch.
Sure you can, but you're so far on the left nobody in their right mind could possibly take you seriously.
Well, one of the reasons why there is a growing schism in the Dem party is that leftists are being taken seriously now. The Overton window is shifting favorably.
Well, I mean there are legit reasons in such that, "we want the Democrats to move to the far left and as a result, lose elections" just like many hard-right people are upset the GOP are still too liberal.
I agree, we need less supporters of the regimes in Venezuela and Cuba and who defend the authoritarian regimes that ruled the Soviet Union for years.
Not to THAT degree, but hey there are advantages to living with your head in the clouds. More power to you.