Re: Democrat 2020
Not sure if serious.Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What is the concept of authenticity as a particularly valuable trait compared to character, executive ability, and experience? You don't elect a leader merely for things they believe, or else you would maybe vote for me and that would be a silly idea. A lot of people think Trump is "authentic" too, and the way to make this coherent despite Trump being one of the most prodigious liars and eminence fronters in human history is if many of his supporters like the idea of someone letting loose and acting like a slovenly piece of shit with no repercussions. All that, and research finds that politicians usually try to effect the promises they make and positions they stake while campaigning; Trump has certainly done so, he knows his stakeholders. So what exactly is the independent value of "authenticity?"
I would say Warren has developed the ideas Sanders subscribes to more comprehensively than he has; while he keeps repeating the same lines about how billionaires and corporations have too much power, Warren identifies concrete social problems derived from that fact and offers a map to address them, while connecting them all to a comprehensive narrative of economic freedom.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
First we should revisit some history. To simplify, the Democratic mainstream was pushing many of these "democratic socialist" (admittedly New Deal liberal) ideas in the 1970s, and some of them, like universal healthcare and a job guarantee, appeared to be close to fruition (just like union militancy seemed to be reaching new heights in the 1970s). Democrats continued to maintain strong majorities in both chambers of Congress. This is why Nixon's record of signing progressive legislation can be confusing at first glance. You have to understand that these emerged from the Democratic Congress and Nixon only signed them because he felt he had little choice but to pay lip service to Keynesianism. Unfortunately this was a very bad moment for left-wing politics because economic stagflation, social upheaval (e.g. the reaction of white Americans to the civil rights movement), the beginnings of capital flight and globalization as we know it severely weakened the position of the radical left and of labor movements after Nixon. The Republicans pivoted to become the party of neoliberal business and social reaction. Because the Republicans won resounding victories throughout the 1980s in the White House and states, the Democratic establishment moved right to a degree and also accepted neoliberalism. This paid off to some extent with the Clintonian Third Way victories of the 1990s, but it also meant that a lot of the major legislation they managed to pass under Clinton had a poisonous element of being too assimilated to Republican principles (e.g. welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall). The fruit of this was in 2000 when the 5 Republican justices awarded Bush Jr. the presidency even though the Dem candidate Gore probably won Florida narrowly. As you know Bush Jr. proceeded to have a Top 3 Worst Presidency, and while the Congressional Republicans still struggled to achieve their goals of undermining Medicare and Social Security, the Democratic politicians elected by now tended to be conservative in the sense of very cautious and there was little appetite to stick out their collective necks in advancing bold new programs. (Though some good ones, like CHIP, did maintain the party's pro-worker agenda on the margins).It's not wrong to change your mind, but the Democrats have always had the great ideas and delivered very little in the past decades. Perhaps in part because they couldn't, but somehow the Republicans often can do a lot more, or so it appears. I'm not sure I buy that they're all serious, plus they mostly seem to have picked one or two of his ideas to differentiate themselves instead of going with the whole package. You'd have to go through 3-4 presidencies to get all of it. (you might have to anyway of course)
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The short story of the Obama admin is that, while he was mistaken in trying so hard to appeal to Republicans, and he was too influenced by neoliberal advice on topics like stimulating economic recovery, retraining, and school choice, his record of left legislation is the most extensive and dramatic since the 1960s, the ACA being only one of his accomplishments. What you have to understand is that the Congressional Dems didn't have the numbers (e.g. 60+ solid Senators) to pass more sweeping changes, and after 2010 of course we saw increasing Republican majorities that foreclosed any possibility of progress. Just to use the ACA as an example, the window of time where there were 60 Senators to pass it lasted a couple of months, and conservative Senators like Joe Lieberman (who was retiring anyway) held it hostage until it shed major provisions like the public option; Obama couldn't do anything about the intransigence of conservative Dems or Independents. To speak directly then, the Congress was the limiting factor on Democratic ideas and policies.
Now, part of the reason the Democrats lost the House and so many state offices during the Obama admin is that Democratic voters themselves tend to place too much emphasis on the Presidency at the expense of all other offices, including legislative offices generally. This is a serious weakness in mindset because the history I told should impress on you the lesson of how important an active legislature is to policy success. (As an aside I would remind you that the legislature possesses all the regulatory powers the executive lacks; though Trump seems to be very active in using what executive power he does have, he uses it mostly to wreck and sabotage, which is of course easier than building something.) The Republican base has more discipline IMO.
Though I skipped over Jimmy Carter, you should mark the legislative-executive relationship between his and Nixon's terms. Despite having a somewhat stronger Dem Congress than there was under Nixon, Carter was a muddled executive who did not understand how to prioritize policy and work with Congress to get it passed. That's why he personally couldn't get progress on his legislative wishlist (though Congress was still legislating its own priorities, including where they overlapped). Some accused Carter of being so enamored of his good ideas that he thought he could simply dictate them and they would just become reality. A lesson with respect to Sanders and his weak record as a Rep/Senator, or his murky record as a manager, I would say. Though of course a Republican president would never cooperate with a Democratic Congress today, the derived principle remains that a strong Dem Congress with an active left flank (e.g. AOC) combined even with a conservative Democratic President like Joe Biden is worth more than a weak Democratic or even a Republican Congress combined with a radical President who makes Sanders look like Margaret Thatcher. If a progressive Congress wants to pass progressive legislation, it will get it done - all the President needs to do is sign it.
Bookmarks