All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Jim Kelly]

With the temperature in France reaching an all time high of 45.9 C (114.6 F), I wonder at what point do people realize we're living in a new normal and if we don't do something now, we're going to be in a world of misery. Maybe we can't trust individual nations and governments to do the right thing, because they won't save us. How many millions have to die before we take drastic action?

[numberthirty]

Except if there were no problems with the policies ''Moderate Democrats'' put forward, then Trump would not be President.

The economic project Bill Clinton put forward in the 90s, deregulation, trade agreements that benefit corporations, etc is what Trump ran against and he won. When Trump railed against NAFTA, what did Hillary Clinton do? Did she defend NAFTA? Did she criticize it and offer her own way to improve things? Or did she just ceed that ground to Trump?

Can you answer me this question, why would the policies of a moderate like Joe Biden be better than those of a left winger like Warren or Sanders? Can you defend these ''moderates'' on a policy level?

To me saying these moderate democrat policies, seems to ignore the damage they have caused in terms of growing the wage gap. Its easier for Trump to rail against immigrants when neoliberal economic policies have weakened the middle class, it would be harder to do that if we had actual left-wing policies designed to lessen that gap, not widen it. Heck guys like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are ones who brought us the 1994 crime bill that saw a massive increase in terms of incarceration rates for African Americans, is that a policy that has aged well?




Except is someone like Joe Biden going to move things forward or is he going to try to recreate the Democratic party of the 90s? I think it's fair to ask who in this race wants to move things forward and who wants to stay in the past (I would say Biden does not want to move things forward).

On that...

I'm not even entirely comfortable with "Caused...". That said, HRC did run on her husband's economy without really addressing how it had played into things like income inequality since then.

It's not like it's role in the bigger picture ended when Bill left office.

Feels like we can have an up front discussion about automation(and it's role), but not have the same one about those polices you mentioned.

[aja_christopher]

The aspirations of moving can take hold and make meaningful movement over time, but while you're in that process it may be wise to win along the way too. Sometimes that means you can't move the needle as much as you'd personally want, but you take the advances and do the smart thing. (Read: vote in whatever way gets Republicans defeated)

You don't see me here criticizing Sanders for example but let's be real -- he's going to be painted as a "crazy socialist" come election time and he's already admitted he would raise taxes which is going to be an issue to many voters.

Still, I won't bash him for his politics (or looks) and I'll vote for him in the general election if it comes to that, so I don't see the point in attacking him since he might be the eventual nominee.

All of the candidates have issues but ultimately all of them are better than Trump so I'm not going to sit here and fight over the "best" candidate -- all of them likewise have their merits and we've already seen how destructive infighting can be to the Democratic party as a whole.

[Theleviathan]

You don't see me here criticizing Sanders for example but let's be real -- he's going to be painted as a "crazy socialist" come election time and he's already admitted he would raise taxes which is going to be an issue to many voters.

Still, I won't bash him for his politics (or looks) and I'll vote for him in the general election if it comes to that, so I don't see the point in attacking him since he might be the eventual nominee.

All of the candidates have issues but ultimately all of them are better than Trump so I'm not going to sit here and fight over the "best" candidate -- all of them likewise have their merits and we've already seen how destructive infighting can be to the Democratic party as a whole.

I just like to point out weaknesses and strengths as I see them. They all have them too.

The idea there is a perfect candidate is part of the myth I think hurts the left.

[The Overlord]

On that...

I'm not even entirely comfortable with "Caused...". That said, HRC did run on her husband's economy without really addressing how it had played into things like income inequality since then.

It's not like it's role in the bigger picture ended when Bill left office.

I think the 90s brought in a lot of deregulation and neoliberal economic, does that make them the sole contributors of this neoliberal decline of the middle class? No, this started in the 70s, ramped up under Reagan and was continued by Bush Sr. Bill Clinton just furthered that project, but that is what cements ''moderate Democrats'' as just moderate Republicans when it comes to economic issues.

I think the differences between the Dems and GOP should be heightened, let the GOP be the small government party, the deregulation party, the pro-war party and let the Democrats be the party that actually tries to make government work for people.

[Theleviathan]

Except is someone like Joe Biden going to move things forward or is he going to try to recreate the Democratic party of the 90s? I think it's fair to ask who in this race wants to move things forward and who wants to stay in the past (I would say Biden does not want to move things forward).

Well, he'll move them less backwards than Trump right?

Biden's had issues, but he's been forward leaning on some things and less forward on others. Every single person on that stage is forward compared to Trump. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's ok to fight for perfect for as long as you can, but when it's time to abandon that for "good" - everyone needs to get on board.

[aja_christopher]

Except if there were no problems with the policies ''Moderate Democrats'' put forward, then Trump would not be President.

Like I said before, I'm not going to bother repeating myself since this is exactly the kind of "both sides" argumentation that fractured the party before.

"Moderate" democrats didn't even get to enact most of their policies due to Republican obstructionism -- that's my focus whether it's yours or not -- and most "progressive" democrats don't even make it to general election, much less the White House.

I'm 100% fine with voting for any of the top five Democratic candidates, especially if they have the majority of popular support.

[Kirby101]

There is no perfect candidate. But we have one as President that is totally imperfect. Possessing no redeeming characteristics.

[numberthirty]

Well, he'll move them less backwards than Trump right?

Biden's had issues, but he's been forward leaning on some things and less forward on others. Every single person on that stage is forward compared to Trump. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's ok to fight for perfect for as long as you can, but when it's time to abandon that for "good" - everyone needs to get on board.

If you want forward movement, that's not exactly a brilliant pitch.

(Saying that as a guy who likes a few things about Biden's record and would vote for him.)

[Theleviathan]

If you want forward movement, that's not exactly a brilliant pitch.

Sometimes holding your ground is better than going backward. It's not ideal, but you're not always going to get your ideal world.

Forward movement within the populace can take time and the primary season is a great place to plant those seeds. But if you're so hell bent on your forward that you allow us to go backward (not you personally, the larger sense).....by the time we get going forward again we are even farther from our destination than last time.

[numberthirty]

Sometimes holding your ground is better than going backward. It's not ideal, but you're not always going to get your ideal world.

Forward movement within the populace can take time and the primary season is a great place to plant those seeds. But if you're so hell bent on your forward that you allow us to go backward (not you personally, the larger sense).....by the time we get going forward again we are even farther from our destination than last time.

Don't completely disagree.

That said, the pitch you just laid out isn't exactly going to set the electorate on fire. If you can't do that, "Holding Your Ground..." gets a lot harder to do.

[The Overlord]

Well, he'll move them less backwards than Trump right?

Biden's had issues, but he's been forward leaning on some things and less forward on others. Every single person on that stage is forward compared to Trump. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's ok to fight for perfect for as long as you can, but when it's time to abandon that for "good" - everyone needs to get on board.

Except what do we want to accomplish, just defeating Trump or defeating the conditions that created Trumpism? Maybe Biden can defeat Trump, but if he wins and does not change conditions on the ground, we will see someone as bad or worse then Trump become President in pretty short order.

We cannot go back to the supposed normalcy of the pre-Trump era, that normalcy was an illusion, problems were brewing under the surface that created Trumpism, just pretending those problems do not exist after Trump is defeated is a good way to win a battle, but lose the war. There is no more normalcy, this battle against Trumpism is the new normal, it will not go away any time soon.

Like I said before, I'm not going to bother repeating myself since this is exactly the kind of "both sides" argumentation that fractured the party before.

"Moderate" democrats didn't even get to enact most of their policies due to Republican obstructionism -- that's my focus whether it's yours or not -- and most "progressive" democrats don't even make it to general election, much less the White House.

I'm 100% fine with voting for any of the top five Democratic candidates, especially if they have the majority of popular support.

I think it's a big mistake not to see how past economic policies created Trumpism.

But do think Joe Biden will have the spine to take on the GOP? He seems totally naive, thinking the GOP will love to work with him after he wins, I think other candidates are more realistic.

Being better then Trump is a pretty low bar to clear, yes Biden is better than Trump, but who can change the conditions that created Trumpism: Biden, Warren, Sanders or someone else?

If you do not change conditions on the ground, you win a battle, but you will lose the war.

[numberthirty]

Except what do we want to accomplish, just defeating Trump or defeating the conditions that created Trumpism? Maybe Biden can defeat Trump, but if he wins and does not change conditions on the ground, we will see someone as bad or worse then Trump become President in pretty short order.

We cannot go back to the supposed normalcy of the pre-Trump era, that normalcy was an illusion, problems were brewing under the surface that created Trumpism, just pretending those problems do not exist after Trump is defeated is a good way to win a battle, but lose the war. There is no more normalcy, this battle against Trumpism is the new normal, it will not go away any time soon.

If nothing else, it make not being able to hold ground in the future all the more likely. On the off chance that you can, doing so has been made even more difficult.

[Theleviathan]

Except what do we want to accomplish, just defeating Trump or defeating the conditions that created Trumpism? Maybe Biden can defeat Trump, but if he wins and does not change conditions on the ground, we will see someone as bad or worse then Trump become President in pretty short order.

We cannot go back to the supposed normalcy of the pre-Trump era, that normalcy was an illusion, problems were brewing under the surface that created Trumpism, just pretending those problems do not exist after Trump is defeated is a good way to win a battle, but lose the war. There is no more normalcy, this battle against Trumpism is the new normal, it will not go away any time soon.

Well....we sorta have to do one first don't we? I mean, I'd like to do both at the same time, but what if the lay of the land is that we can't? At least not yet? I agree this struggle will be ongoing, but four more years of Trump could be guaranteed in the name of maybe moving the conditions forward. I guess I don't feel comfortable betting on the maybe at the expense of the guarantee.

I agree, it's not inspirational, but one of the things the right does that keeps kicking us down this road is their voting base is willing to throw themselves behind anyone (or anything in the case of the ghoul in office now) in the name of not giving an inch. There is something to be learned from that, even if it is unseemly.

[aja_christopher]

Except what do we want to accomplish, just defeating Trump or defeating the conditions that created Trumpism? Maybe Biden can defeat Trump, but if he wins and does not change conditions on the ground, we will see someone as bad or worse then Trump become President in pretty short order.

We cannot go back to the supposed normalcy of the pre-Trump era, that normalcy was an illusion, problems were brewing under the surface that created Trumpism, just pretending those problems do not exist after Trump is defeated is a good way to win a battle, but lose the war. There is no more normalcy, this battle against Trumpism is the new normal, it will not go away any time soon.



I think it's a big mistake not to see how past economic policies created Trumpism.

I think it's a bigger mistake not to recognize that the Republicans are the ones responsible for Trump -- not the Democrats, whether "moderate" or "liberal".

Again -- even moderate Republicans like Obama couldn't pass legislation with Republicans in control of Congress so place the blame where it lies -- on the Republican party and those on the "left" who like to complain but don't like to show up to vote.

Talk is cheap -- votes are what matter in the political world, and if people from the "left" had showed up in prior midterms neither the Supreme Court or the ACA would be in jeopardy today.

We'll see if things have changed (post-midterms) but the infighting is an early sign that some people still haven't learned their lesson.