Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

Your assignment of risk is misplaced. There is a catastrophic risk of continuing using fossil fuels every minute beyond...right now. That risk is already becoming realized as of this very moment. Localized contamination which may be rehabilitated in a superfund type manner is much more manageable than the upcoming climate wide crisis we face.

Also, if you have time this weekend, I would suggest reading up on the age and design of the relevant reactors at Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island and Fukushima and then look into how current reactor design (which is what we are looking to implement) has addressed those concerns with more passive safety systems.

How do you address the long lead times for any new nuclear project, say entering pre-planning today? We're long past 2 *C when the first new plants come fully online. Even China, which has had a nuclear boom in the past 30 years, appears to be putting on the brakes (despite contemporaneously - IIRC cited years ago in a different thread here - also pulling back on coal). Is talking about nuclear helpful without long-term planning placing it as the centerpiece of a climate strategy, and can nuclear-first (or nuclear-anything) be advanced without a top-down, even authoritarian control?

Then again, the longer we put off any decisive action, history says the more drastic the ultimate response is going to be - so maybe we'll meet the authoritarian prerequisite for one.

While we're thinking, what's the word on restrictive scarcity of rare metals available on the planet for renewable?

In short, Sanders is too old and is at risk of becoming another cult of personality within the democratic party. His advancement of himself over what is prudent for his own ideas to succeed shows a more dangerous side of him.

That wasn't quite what I was saying, but it's a possible interpretation. Like I said, we'll see.

I don't like some of the ideas from Warren. I think she belongs in the Cabinet watching wall street but not in the Oval Office.

Such as? Anyway, voters don't care about policy minutiae. "I have a plan" could be a workable slogan.

For any substantive disagreements, remember that either none of her proposals will be on the agenda due to lack of Senate control, or the kinks will be hashed out in legislative process. The more relevant criteria for the election will be the candidate's character, executive managerial skill, and your affinity to the overall shape of their platform and ideology.

I have a big chip on my shoulder when it comes to Senate reform.

That's silly. What's good about a supermajority requirement for all regulatory changes? I've pointed out that this is very much against the Founders' intent, if one cares about that sort of thing. It's against the intent of Congress for most of the filibuster's history. More importantly there is literally no possibility of passing any meaningful legislation without removing it, which is not just bad for the Democratic Party's electoral prospects - it's bad for the country. No can has suicide pact, plz.

There is no good argument for defending the contemporary filibuster on the merits.

Funnily enough, the only major Dem candidate you align with on this issue is Sanders, though his alternative (having the Vice President ignore Senate rules unilaterally) is arguably far more extreme.

Just because rules have been abused by bad actors doesn't mean the rules themselves are bad.

Speaking as generally as possible, that is ABSOLUTELY what it means. Rules have no value in themselves, only in the outcomes they promote and the processes they scaffold.

Example: The rule is "don't do or generate muscular, mental, mechanical, or electrical work on Saturday." I don't follow the rule. ACIN does. I ask why.
"Just because you're violating the halacha doesn't mean I should give it up."
"But you're not Jewish, bro. What is this doing for you?"
"In-stitutions!"

As of this moment progressives seem to apply this logic on an inconsistent and erroneous behavior. McConnell abused the filibuster. so it must go. McConnell has deferred all policy to the discretion of the president, so we must drastically reform the Senate as an institution or abolish it completely. Paul Ryan and Boehner did the same in the house...oh but we have the House now, so let's not focus too much on that chamber.

The filibuster as Republicans have used it benefits Republicans more than it does Democrats. To pass progressive legislation the filibuster must be neutralized. What more do you need?

What do you have in mind for the House? The only thing I can think of is PAYGO, but this is underwritten by legislation, and is waive-as-you-go anyway.

I believe that the two chamber set up is still critical to maintaining a stable Union and I do not wish for us to go the path of the UK of having a sham chamber that rarely gets a say while the "commons" gets to decide everything.

Recently, 'liberal lion' and old-school New Dealer John Dingell (longest-serving Congressperson in history, died 3 months ago) published a piece on reforming Congress. One of his suggestions was the abolition of the Senate. Permanent minority rule is bad; whether the Senate is reformed or abolished constitutionally, permanent minority rule is bad. A framework that encourages permanent minority rule is a diseased one.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How do you address the long lead times for any new nuclear project, say entering pre-planning today? We're long past 2 *C when the first new plants come fully online. Even China, which has had a nuclear boom in the past 30 years, appears to be putting on the brakes (despite contemporaneously - IIRC cited years ago in a different thread here - also pulling back on coal). Is talking about nuclear helpful without long-term planning placing it as the centerpiece of a climate strategy, and can nuclear-first (or nuclear-anything) be advanced without a top-down, even authoritarian control?

Best time to plant a tree is yesterday, next best time is today. But it is a good point you bring up, I never really say this out loud but nuclear is not really for reducing emissions. Solar, wind, and other technologies that can be implemented faster will serve that role.

No, we have an issue even if we stopped all emissions today. When the Unites States was founded, our CO2 concentrations were 280ppb, now they are above 400 and climbing rapidly. Our coal and oil comes from millions of years of dead trees exposed to high pressure and heat in the crust breaking down complex structures into more basic elemental compounds. In order to replicate this through various means of carbon sequestration will take massive amounts of energy. Think of the energy released over 200 years of burning fossil fuels and now we must put it back in. The nuclear planets will be needed to support our ongoing efforts to actively scrub our atmosphere back down to pre-industrial levels, in a manner that is manageable on a large energy scale, over long time spans (most nuclear plants have been active for several decades and still running) and with a small footprint physically. Otherwise, we may need to cover all of Wyoming with solar panels to generate the extra energy needed to be re-directed sufficient for de-carbonization of the climate.

It's not first, it's actually nuclear last. But they would still need to be in the pipeline today to come online when needed.

While we're thinking, what's the word on restrictive scarcity of rare metals available on the planet for renewable?

Rare earth metals are badly named. They are not that rare in the crust, and we have sufficient supply. Only issues are the geopolitics where these elements are currently mined in.
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/crit...-energy-future
Funny enough, there was a worry about peak oil due regarding scarcity. But as it turns out, when an element becomes rarer and more expensive it becomes cost effective to exploit more difficult locations. The physical absence is not an issue, only the price at which it can be obtained.

Such as? Anyway, voters don't care about policy minutiae. "I have a plan" could be a workable slogan.

For any substantive disagreements, remember that either none of her proposals will be on the agenda due to lack of Senate control, or the kinks will be hashed out in legislative process. The more relevant criteria for the election will be the candidate's character, executive managerial skill, and your affinity to the overall shape of their platform and ideology.

That's silly. What's good about a supermajority requirement for all regulatory changes? I've pointed out that this is very much against the Founders' intent, if one cares about that sort of thing. It's against the intent of Congress for most of the filibuster's history. More importantly there is literally no possibility of passing any meaningful legislation without removing it, which is not just bad for the Democratic Party's electoral prospects - it's bad for the country. No can has suicide pact, plz.

There is no good argument for defending the contemporary filibuster on the merits.

Funnily enough, the only major Dem candidate you align with on this issue is Sanders, though his alternative (having the Vice President ignore Senate rules unilaterally) is arguably far more extreme.

Politically at heart I am a Federalist, although paradoxically in American terms I would say I am influenced by the Anti-Federalists. I think the United States has a better future with states that experiment under a Federal government that polices behavior and compliance with Constitutional values and clauses vs a unitary system that tries to apply policies that fit neither myself the Californian nor the Texan nor the Jerseyan. The latter I think just sows further discontent and dysfunction.

Note I am not necessarily saying keep the filibuster in its current form, only that the logic behind its removal goes no further than short term strategic thinking. If you wish to remove it, then leave aside "but removing it would help us win right now" and convince me that in the long-run this would be a valuable structural change that wouldn't cause further destabilization. I think we have had this conversation before on outcomes, stability and continuity.

Speaking as generally as possible, that is ABSOLUTELY what it means. Rules have no value in themselves, only in the outcomes they promote and the processes they scaffold.

Example: The rule is "don't do or generate muscular, mental, mechanical, or electrical work on Saturday." I don't follow the rule. ACIN does. I ask why.
"Just because you're violating the halacha doesn't mean I should give it up."
"But you're not Jewish, bro. What is this doing for you?"
"In-stitutions!"

If maintaining shomer shabbos reinforces the adherence of other rules that promote the public good, then there is a value in assessing whether the dissolution of this particular rule won't create backlash against other rules.
This isn't some hypothetical here Monty, and in practicality yes we could probably lose the filibuster and move on as usual. BUT, as with any politically polarized time, large public acts/reforms have repercussions which cannot be predicted.
The French revolution originally started over reforming the Ancien Regime financials, the Mexican revolution started over mismanagement of Porfirio Diaz succession. Both instances saw the focus go tangentially into reforms for anti-authoritarian, representative government. My worry is this isn't limited to just authoritarian -> enlightment, but is a reversible course.

Institutions quite frankly have a value in and of themselves. Radical reform spurs counter reform and escalation is quite frankly unmanageable unless you mean to tell me that we can safely ignore or even embrace the known unknowns in the hopes that whatever comes out in the end is statistically more likely to align with our political views. Again this may be true with removing the filibuster (an accidental rule to begin with) but eliminating the senate? Undoing one of the biggest compromises that allowed the US to form to begin with? I just don't know about that.

The filibuster as Republicans have used it benefits Republicans more than it does Democrats. To pass progressive legislation the filibuster must be neutralized. What more do you need?
What do you have in mind for the House? The only thing I can think of is PAYGO, but this is underwritten by legislation, and is waive-as-you-go anyway.

And when Democrats controlled the Senate there was plenty of conservative legislation denied then, which benefited us. As I said above, this is short term thinking. Even if we accept the Senate as forever off limits to Democrats because of population and demographic trends, then the argument comes back that the nature of the House means demographically it is increasingly off limits to Republicans. At this point we are admitting the removal of an entire institution for the goal of complete and permanent control of the Federal government. I am sure that will work itself out peacefully.

Recently, 'liberal lion' and old-school New Dealer John Dingell (longest-serving Congressperson in history, died 3 months ago) published a piece on reforming Congress. One of his suggestions was the abolition of the Senate. Permanent minority rule is bad; whether the Senate is reformed or abolished constitutionally, permanent minority rule is bad. A framework that encourages permanent minority rule is a diseased one.

And what is the cost in order to achieve such a large goal?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In this very intelligent reference, Thanos represents the left and child Gamora represents the Founding Fathers, the snap at the beginning is half of the United States killing the other half in order to determine the future structure of the Federal government. Obviously.

[Montmorency]

It's not first, it's actually nuclear last. But they would still need to be in the pipeline today to come online when needed.

Nuclear as fuel of geoengineering - sounds plausible.

Politically at heart I am a Federalist, although paradoxically in American terms I would say I am influenced by the Anti-Federalists. I think the United States has a better future with states that experiment under a Federal government that polices behavior and compliance with Constitutional values and clauses vs a unitary system that tries to apply policies that fit neither myself the Californian nor the Texan nor the Jerseyan. The latter I think just sows further discontent and dysfunction.

Well - sure? We are currently about as close to a unitary union here as humans have gotten, a bar beneath the Soviet Union. Devolution is a strong current in leftist ideology; many would prefer it at a lower level than the states. But muscular (political) unionism is exactly what is necessary to begin addressing the complex political, technological, and ecological problems of our time. The whole point of unionism is that it creates value and capacity that could not exist otherwise, and the federal government of the United States is not an actor that can dissolve global problems. It is not big enough. It's too captured by ossified bureaucracies and special interests. Indeed, our very smallness, fractiousness, and risk-aversion is one more factor mitigating against governments having the will and orientation to face the epochal challenges. So what does this have to do with Warren? I'm not aware of any Dem candidate promoting communalism or local self-management. Or transnational union. Look, we're going to know a candidate is serious if they're running on full federalization of the US with Canada within 10 years, of the resultant (Canusa?) and Mexico within 25, and a bespoke Constitution for the new polity. That isn't on the table yet.

Note I am not necessarily saying keep the filibuster in its current form, only that the logic behind its removal goes no further than short term strategic thinking. If you wish to remove it, then leave aside "but removing it would help us win right now" and convince me that in the long-run this would be a valuable structural change that wouldn't cause further destabilization. I think we have had this conversation before on outcomes, stability and continuity.

Radical reform spurs counter reform and escalation is quite frankly unmanageable unless you mean to tell me that we can safely ignore or even embrace the known unknowns in the hopes that whatever comes out in the end is statistically more likely to align with our political views.

Think about what you're saying here: that instability and polarization impede action, which degrades stability further, but we can't advocate forceful action because it might provoke further destabilization. By your premises you are imposing a Catch-22 on us. But in reality, when has conservatism ever forestalled vicious civilizational trends? Small mammal freeze, but small mammal tend to die, filling the gap through fecundity. Not the paradigm humans can mirror any longer.

The Republican Party currently fits on the political spectrum somewhere between Pinochet and Franco, and it is rapidly sliding. The apocalyptic terms are the most accurate: the Republican Party is a criminal junta and a fascist conspiracy to seize power. Their survival in their degenerating form will be testament to the collapse of our civilization, and their extinction will reliably (though not assuredly) signal the opposite. The more votes they neutralize, the more communities they immiserate, the more wealth they transfer upwards, the crueler they bend the repressive instruments of the state - the nearer the doom of your "stability and continuity", if we've not in fact exhausted it already. To say nothing of the external disasters they have not directly caused but will do nothing (or worse) to avert.

Your reasoning, though perhaps you don't realize it, is on the level of outright acquiescing to an imposition of slavery throughout the territories and the right of Southern masters to maintain slaves in the North, in the hope of sustaining Southern tranquility. Spoiler: It's not enough, never enough appeasement. The simple fact of the matter is that escalation is guaranteed. Which is precisely how I came to understand why I was misguided in feeling trepidation about court packing, that the T-Rex still sees you even when you're not in motion.

The Democrats need to reverse this agenda and build a durable coalition that enables a minimum level of governance, which involves passing legislation. It is not sufficient alone, but there is no substitute.

So you've got it completely backwards. You think the core concept of the filibuster is good, and fret that abolishing the filibuster (which has not played a very significant role in American politics until our lifetimes) will contribute to even more upheaval than exists or otherwise will. In fact there has been no good argument presented for a simultaneous liberum/party veto in a legislature or ours, and the current trend of instability will deepen - it is before our very eyes - and we cannot hope to reverse it unless the filibuster is overcome. Throwing out the filibuster is a precondition to the long-term integrity of the country. Yes, there will be hard times. Hard times are the best-case scenario. That's why identifying the issues and taking the appropriate steps is especially important now, not a mere puzzle of utilitarian optimization.

Institutions quite frankly have a value in and of themselves.

I agree. That's why I'm saying we need to build them. The existing institutions are failures, they have already been swept away. Donald Trump is just America's portrait of Dorian Grey under the light. Don't lie there in the temple genuflecting before the Pharaoh's mummy, the people are in need. The people don't give a care for your Petersonian-pragmatist vision of keeping them in line by voiceless mouthing the catechism of the pharaoh's divinity, the storm will scatter them all the same.

Again this may be true with removing the filibuster (an accidental rule to begin with) but eliminating the senate? Undoing one of the biggest compromises that allowed the US to form to begin with? I just don't know about that.

Assuming the Constitutional mechanism for Constitutional amendment is triggered (itself an process difficult to justify in its complexity) then I think we're on the path to obviating some of your qualms. With a design such as this one, you would have a point (read the article, I like the concept but it will make you guffaw).

Something for others to worry about later, if us two are not up to the drafting. More important right now is to conceive of ways to diminish the effects of the malapportionment of the Senate, such as through statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. As long as we agree on the bottom line that up to half the people in the country having representation through a superminority (infra-minority?) of a quarter, fifth, or less of the Senate cannot stand, as pure a Hegelian contradiction as any.

And when Democrats controlled the Senate there was plenty of conservative legislation denied then, which benefited us. As I said above, this is short term thinking.

Do you mean when Republicans controlled the Senate? Assuming so, I'm glad you raised this point because giving it scrutiny further undermines your position, which as I'm trying to explain is exactly the aversion to accounting for any long-term view.

1. The filibuster has never prevented Republicans from doing something they both wanted and could do. The filibuster did not stop the Bush privatization of Social Security, lack of support in the House did. The filibuster did not stop the Obamacare repeal, John McCain did. The filibuster never stopped any Republican President from wielding executive power. It is not even apparent that the filibuster conditions the electoral choices of the parties in any way, except maybe enabling a Republican focus on culture-war signalling in the vacuum of legislative feasibility. EDIT: Need I mention the perverse effect of government ineptitude and paralysis on public confidence in government, which further only redounds to the benefit of reactionaries who want to destroy the state, loot the remnants, and hold the jagged steel refuse to the necks of the subaltern?
2. Republicans have no positive agenda other than tax cuts (and in the future more naked ethnonationalism probably). They can only destroy what Democrats build. There is little chance of Republicans developing any kind of plank that can benefit from simple-majority rules in the Senate, and they don't need 60 votes to cut taxes anyway (see: budget reconciliation, 2017 tax overhaul).
3. It's a fatal flaw in the Republican Party that they have to lie about what their platform on social spending is, namely its elimination; refer to them rallying voters in 2018 with the claim that they were going to save Medicare and the ACA from Democrats, lol. Tell many Republican voters what the Republican Party platform is as officially printed, and they will literally refuse to believe it. This Orwellian epistemology is how the Republicans maintain their vote share, and to the extent it can be broken it will be broken only by an extraordinary shock that reaches into the daily lives of the (white) electorate. If Republicans openly campaigned on abolishing Medicare in ideological terms, the Republican base would punish them for it. Let alone the cost off succeeding, to which I would apply your Thanos quote*. Bush was less extreme than this hypothetical with Social Security privatization, which was upholstered in velvet and counterbalanced by Medicare Part D, and even so the Republicans received a drubbing in 2006.

So what is the appropriate long-term view? That the possibility of Republicans gaining the Senate, the House, and the White House with sufficient numbers, resolve, and public apathy to dismantle the major Democratic accomplishments on the level of Social Security is NOT in excess of the probability and value of Democrats gaining the Senate, House, and White House with sufficient numbers, resolve, and public engagement to submit and entrench accomplishments on the level of Social Security (including reconstituting it in $6 million form, in the more absurdist hypothetical). And also all the other stuff about the country not dissolving into brutal anarchy or neofeudalism, and the world with it.

then the argument comes back that the nature of the House means demographically it is increasingly off limits to Republicans.

Sweet summer child...

I am sure that will work itself out peacefully.

Speaking more generally than weighing these, but peace is a luxury in the 21st century. "Triage" and "breakthrough" are the watchwords, or if you prefer, "synthesis."

What do you think of this post?


*I hope I'm deploying Thanos correctly, I only know Marvel stuff through Internet osmosis.

[Strike For The South]

Monty has a very "damn the torpedos" vibe right now. I like that.

I have drifted very leftward but could never quite put into words with same vim and vigor.

[Montmorency]

Monty has a very "damn the torpedos" vibe right now. I like that.

I have drifted very leftward but could never quite put into words with same vim and vigor.

You want to hear something funny? Everyone likes to call politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez "radical" - not least among those the selfsame and their supporters. Right? Well, yesterday AOC announced the following:

New policy proposal dropping tomorrow with a special Senate co-lead ��

It’s radical, which I always love, and we’re keeping more coins in your pocket, which I also love.

The proposal, announced today in conjunction with Bernie Sanders in the Senate, was to lower the federal cap on interest rates on consumer credit card debts and loans from 18% to 15%.

There is no reason a person should pay more than 15% interest in the United States.

It’s common sense - in fact, we had these Usury laws until the 70s.

(Max interest rates are record-high for ppl with excellent credit, too.)

It’s a debt trap for working people + it has to end.

Hmm. Sounds like 'technocratic incrementalism' to me!

This isn't a criticism of anyone in particular, it's just continually surreal to me how everyone's messaging about who is and isn't "radical" is so distorted in this country, in discourse and in substance.

When are Dem politicians going to call Republicans "lower than vermin" yet, as prominent Labour politicians referred to Conservatives in the mid-century? The populace certainly deserves to hear the worst about Republicans. Meanwhile, mainstream Republican pundits and politicians poke at the need for the abolition of our liberal order of living memory and the physical neutralization of the 'dangerous and un-American' Democratic party and its constituencies (the just-as-popular but less prestigious pundits, bloggers, and radio hosts say so outright and have been for decades).


*There was one recent incident of an Alabama Democratic state legislator calling Trump Jr. retarded, for which he was roundly condemned, which further goes to show the disparity in standards. This incident "hijacked" a "debate" in the Alabama state legislature where Republicans want to - as yet unconstitutionally - ban abortion outright, is the context. *sigh*

[Husar]

I would assume that changing such an interest cap from 18 to 15% is quite a radical step in your oligarchy. The Republicans may even want to increase the cap to 25% to promote personal responsibility and because the Bible is pro-interest or something.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would assume that changing such an interest cap from 18 to 15% is quite a radical step in your oligarchy. The Republicans may even want to increase the cap to 25% to promote personal responsibility and because the Bible is pro-interest or something.

The purist capitalist sort would want the regulation of interest abolished, so that the market could set the interest rate through competition in the market.

[Strike For The South]

You want to hear something funny? Everyone likes to call politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez "radical" - not least among those the selfsame and their supporters. Right? Well, yesterday AOC announced the following:



The proposal, announced today in conjunction with Bernie Sanders in the Senate, was to lower the federal cap on interest rates on consumer credit card debts and loans from 18% to 15%.



Hmm. Sounds like 'technocratic incrementalism' to me!

Radical in the US is democratic socialism. This is a silly place.

It also shows how this country has slipped further rightward under the guise of defending the free market. 15% was the cap 40 years ago.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You want to hear something funny? Everyone likes to call politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez "radical" - not least among those the selfsame and their supporters. Right? Well, yesterday AOC announced the following:



The proposal, announced today in conjunction with Bernie Sanders in the Senate, was to lower the federal cap on interest rates on consumer credit card debts and loans from 18% to 15%.



Hmm. Sounds like 'technocratic incrementalism' to me!

This isn't a criticism of anyone in particular, it's just continually surreal to me how everyone's messaging about who is and isn't "radical" is so distorted in this country, in discourse and in substance.

When are Dem politicians going to call Republicans "lower than vermin" yet, as prominent Labour politicians referred to Conservatives in the mid-century? The populace certainly deserves to hear the worst about Republicans. Meanwhile, mainstream Republican pundits and politicians poke at the need for the abolition of our liberal order of living memory and the physical neutralization of the 'dangerous and un-American' Democratic party and its constituencies (the just-as-popular but less prestigious pundits, bloggers, and radio hosts say so outright and have been for decades).


*There was one recent incident of an Alabama Democratic state legislator calling Trump Jr. retarded, for which he was roundly condemned, which further goes to show the disparity in standards. This incident "hijacked" a "debate" in the Alabama state legislature where Republicans want to - as yet unconstitutionally - ban abortion outright, is the context. *sigh*

I have always thought that the Euros on the thread chuckle whenever they hear folks labeling pols like Sanders or AOC 'radicals.' It is my understanding that they would all be in the "just a notch left of pure centrist" by Euro standards.

[Montmorency]

I have always thought that the Euros on the thread chuckle whenever they hear folks labeling pols like Sanders or AOC 'radicals.' It is my understanding that they would all be in the "just a notch left of pure centrist" by Euro standards.

Rhetorically they are more leftist because they talk of overturning, not accommodating or moderating, the establishment and the economic power of corporate elites. They criticize capitalism directly as a system. And of course they use the word "socialist" - but then again plenty of social-democratic mainstream parties in Europe use that word, such as the old and new-old UK Labour Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party that returned to power in the Spanish general election a few weeks ago.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Speaking of Spain, it's interesting the parallel to America in comparative extremism. This was the country of Franco of course, and their post-Franco centre-right Popular Party has actually always been a home to the hardliners and former Falangists integrated into the democratic system. The party suffered IIRC its worst-ever defeat in the recent election, losing half its seats and voters - but something like half the votes it lost just migrated to more hardline new neo-Francoist parties like Vox, which entered the lower chamber of Parliament with 24 seats on the back of 2.5 million more votes (the PP lost 69 seats and 3.5 million votes, and the other major center-right party gained 25 seats and 1 million votes for reference*). IOW the socialists are social democrats and the conservatives are crypto-fascists in Spain as well. When I said the Republican Party sits on the spectrum between Franco and Pinochet now, I was being perfectly serious.

*You might notice these numbers are not very proportional. This is because Spain uses a regional division of constituencies and the d'Hondt method of apportionment, as the European Parliament does (see Brexit thread)

I think the solid American lefties who actually enter politics are quite self-conscious and don't play all the cards they might like to. For example, when AOC was rolling out the Green New Deal resolution, she or the other people working on it improperly put out an internal FAQ that included extras over the official version such as welfare for people unwilling to work, which of course the right-wing media made hay out of and AOC awkwardly tried to deny and walk back - because "people unwilling to work" is a category most Americans hold on par with 'convicted of capital murder for braining my mother.' See also AOC taking questions from constituents (or whatever the context was, I can't find the clip) where one of them was a RWNJ ranting to her how our most sacred freedom is the "freedom to hate" and how criticizing Trump for encouraging racism and violence is "fascist" (i.e. not the man, the criticism of the man); in a soft voice she gave a very accommodating, lukewarm PC answer about how it's OK to have disagreements but we should be aware of the potential impact of our speech.

Then there's the Green New Deal resolution itself, which was an aspirational document designed to influence public discourse (it succeeded). It provided a diagnosis of a dire situation and further offered a few conditions that would likely have to be met to successfully treat it, of course modeled in line with left-wing ideals (in that it's obviously possible to respond to a climate crisis in an oppressive way or by abandoning swathes of the population to their own devices). But no one, not AOC or Sanders, when talking about "environmental justice" would address the practicalities directly. They like to keep it very positive, talking about "good green jobs" and technological progress, making all the favorable sounds about living standards and the values of the little guy. They wouldn't say out loud something heartwrenching like, 'We must immediately expropriate without compensation the capital of the extractive and energy industries, so that the government may directly operate the transition from fossil fuels on the appropriate timescale. If the people do not mandate our action promptly, even more drastic contingencies will need to be undertaken in the future as the crisis worsens, such as rationing of food and electricity and forced relocation from devastated areas.'

[a completely inoffensive name]

Monty has a very "damn the torpedos" vibe right now. I like that.

I have drifted very leftward but could never quite put into words with same vim and vigor.

It's very spirited, but at the same time in the back of my mind I believe the trend rightward in the US has been a deliberate slow burn. Jerking left suddenly wont likely return the same kind of returns that the right has gained from 30 years of drip irrigation style propaganda.

[Montmorency]

It's very spirited, but at the same time in the back of my mind I believe the trend rightward in the US has been a deliberate slow burn. Jerking left suddenly wont likely return the same kind of returns that the right has gained from 30 years of drip irrigation style propaganda.

Just a couple things to keep in mind parallel to the main discussion:

1. Right-wing propaganda has systematized and ordered the thinking of their base, but their ideas remain wildly unpopular if baldly stated. Ultimately it is still a corporatist (e.g. tax cuts)-theocrat (e.g. abortion) -fascist (e.g. Neoconfederatism) coalition; while each faction may tolerate the evils of the other in order to secure their own priorities, and the factions have bled into each other with the ordering of the Republican mind over 2 generations, there is such a thing as going too far. For example with the current abortion bans in some states, only a minority of the Republican core base supports total bans - despite the vanguardism of their elected politicians, which they'll probably continue to swallow... but the point I'm making is that even ruthless Orwellian brainwashing can't take you all the way to conscripting the minds of millions. Just most of the way.

2. Tactics that work for reactionaries probably won't also work for liberals/progressives/socialists. They can't be implemented properly by the politicians, media figures, and intellectuals who make up our side, strategically even if they could be implemented the Democratic base would react with virulent opposition, and morally it's just a bad idea.


On the tax rule in the other thread, I would disagree somewhat but I don't want to open another sub-thread where we're at.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just a couple things to keep in mind parallel to the main discussion:

1. Right-wing propaganda has systematized and ordered the thinking of their base, but their ideas remain wildly unpopular if baldly stated. Ultimately it is still a corporatist (e.g. tax cuts)-theocrat (e.g. abortion) -fascist (e.g. Neoconfederatism) coalition; while each faction may tolerate the evils of the other in order to secure their own priorities, and the factions have bled into each other with the ordering of the Republican mind over 2 generations, there is such a thing as going too far. For example with the current abortion bans in some states, only a minority of the Republican core base supports total bans - despite the vanguardism of their elected politicians, which they'll probably continue to swallow... but the point I'm making is that even ruthless Orwellian brainwashing can't take you all the way to conscripting the minds of millions. Just most of the way.

2. Tactics that work for reactionaries probably won't also work for liberals/progressives/socialists. They can't be implemented properly by the politicians, media figures, and intellectuals who make up our side, strategically even if they could be implemented the Democratic base would react with virulent opposition, and morally it's just a bad idea.


On the tax rule in the other thread, I would disagree somewhat but I don't want to open another sub-thread where we're at.

1. Check the 2020 election results and tell me how many of those state legislature seats flip Dem because of distaste over total abortion bans. Just because a small minority of Republicans say they support them to pollsters means jack shit. This is the shy Tory phenomenon that leftists forget every damn election. For immediate evidence, see the recent results in Australia for Liberal coalition vs what the pollsters were projecting. These people are very much in favor of the bald statements and outright fascism, they just don't admit it to anyone other than other Republicans.

2. Democrats fall victim to propaganda just as much as Republicans. Don't fall into the trap that somehow we are naturally educated/resistant against such tactics. Liberals have been fed self-deprecating propaganda by the DNC for 20 years to great success. Gore wasn't a weak candidate, it's all Nader's fault. Hillary wasn't a weak candidate, Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate. Hillary wasn't a weak candidate, progressives betrayed the party, NO WAIT, Russians forced 40,000 people in swing states to vote for Trump. What's next, Joe Biden wasn't a weak candidate, progressives betrayed the party?

How long have the third wave neoliberals controlled the party for and mismanaged it with the sole exception of Obama? Even now when Dems are faced with the choice of picking a loser candidate and risk ending the era of New Deal Federal protections or supporting someone that wants free access to healthcare they ask the question, 'but how do we pay for it?' THAT right there is successful propaganda, and they ain't getting it from Fox News.