Leftists/socialists/radicals and the Democratic party.

[PETRUS]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the General Discussion forum).

For some folks (including myself), the election of people like Rashida Tlaib and AOC, and the strong showing of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, were exciting developments. Other Democrats have mixed feelings, and for some these were entirely unwelcome events. I want to share some thoughts and opinions about this, and direct a few of them at moderates, and a few at leftists.

In my view, some of the best political changes in US history were rooted in left-leaning people's movements. I believe that without the efforts of feminists, the labor movement, anti-racists, and LGBT activists (among others), the US would be a far less pleasant place. In many cases, meaningful results depended on support from elected officials. For at least several decades the politicians most responsive to leftist causes have been Democrats. That's a large part of the reason I vote the way I do.

I think we're at a critical moment in time. Various forms of bigotry are openly on display. Economic inequality has reached levels not seen for a century. Global tensions are running high. We are overshooting multiple ecological boundaries. The last two points are particularly terrifying. Bigotry and inequality can - at least theoretically - be corrected by future generations (although I think the time for action is always "now&quot . But given the world's armaments, a WWII level global conflagration could produce damage that would take centuries to recover from. Likewise with ecological overshoot.

In such circumstances, the people deemed "radicals" strike me as the voices of reason. That said, I understand doubts about the electoral prospects of the leftmost candidates, and delivering the levers of power to Republicans unquestionably makes things worse.

My message to moderate Democrats - which for these purposes I'm defining as people who are sympathetic to policies like "Medicare for all," or a "green new deal," or much more progressive taxes but hesitant to support them out of electoral calculus - is: Please don't make the defeat of these ideas a self-fulfilling prophecy. The truth is that when Democrats chose to side with the labor movement and the civil rights movement (for example), it delivered the party durable constituencies. Public support for some of the more "left" policies is surprisingly high considering that Republicans are firmly against them and Democrats are sending mixed messages. I believe if our party displayed a united front on such issues, their popularity would rise. In my opinion, not only are these kinds of policies the right thing to do, but they would deliver concrete material benefits to people, and we would be rewarded for them in future elections.

My message to leftists: Please don't withhold your vote if your preferred candidates don't clear the primary hurdle. And if you're far enough left that you loathe the idea of voting for "the world's second most enthusiastic capitalist party" (as the saying goes) even if it's Bernie Sanders on the ballot, please reconsider. On MLK day, I watched a livestream of Angela Davis speaking. She made the point that while electoral politics has its limits and won't necessarily deliver what you're after, the results have an impact on the space we have to work in. A Republican government narrows the space we have to work in, and we can't afford that. Also - as Noam Chomsky has noted - in a nation as big and powerful as the US, even very small differences in policy can make big differences in individual lives.

Thanks for reading.

[empedocles]

1. What may be a good future policy, i.e. 'single payer'; may be a bad policy before November.

[PETRUS]

5. Quite possibly.

I think it's something worth fighting for - it represents the moral high ground, and it would be more economically efficient - although I don't know what the best strategy is. No doubt buckets of money would be spent in an effort to scare people away from it and the Democratic party is currently divided on the issue, so there's a lot going against it.

[empedocles]

9. This year it would cost us Nov. votes. Not worth it. Win big in Nov.

and single payer can happen sooner.

[PETRUS]

12. You could be right.

Even so, I argue in favor of it every chance I get, and my primary vote will go to either Sanders or Warren in part because of this issue. Personally, I'd rather act according to my conscience, and not try to second-guess the rest of the electorate. In the long run, I don't think it's helpful to assume defeat - as I said in my OP, that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[empedocles]

13. that'd be great

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

2. A corollary to your advice: If a "leftist", Warren or Sanders, gets the nomination, ...

... please, vote for the Democrat, even if you (we) are more moderate in our views.

[PETRUS]

6. Fair enough.

It wasn't a deliberate omission. Thanks for the reply.

[Prosper]

3. I asked an attendee of a prominent Ivy League college a question about ethics.

I proposed that ethics and morals were lauded at his school as well across the nation. I asked him what was the singular overall guiding principle he got from his, probably top, business school in the country. He said “make a profit for the stockholder”. And they did and they still do. So when the richest most educated are in power they use that power to get more money. Getting more money is the ultimate prime mover. The people that develop ways for getting more money cheaper, faster and easier are the new gods. And are so rewarded. They protect that wealth with the biggest lie ever told. “Work hard enough and you can get anything you want”. That tells the people having a rough time or are in poverty they only have themselves to blame.
The country has moved so far to the right that is why Bernie’s revolution is taking hold. People, hourly working class people, understand there is nothing sinister or evil in what Bernie is campaigning. He simply wants to return to the real capitalism of making something to sell. Working for a living. As each year sees more people sinking into poverty more people are realizing that “better dead than red” is a meaningless fraud and that hoarding money out of the economy is not the American way. People will realize that “quantative easing“ was just a disguise to avoid fixing the economy from the way it would work, from the bottom up. QE put money where it would do the least amount of good. No help for the hourly working class.
Sanders‘ revoultion is really a returning. Returning to fair and equal opportunity. For over 50 years the right has tantalized the working class with the possibility of unlimited riches and wealth by simply getting the rules of government out of the way. They knew what they were talking about and it worked except for the wrong people. They knew it would only work for those already rich and powerful enough to take advantage of deregulation. Proof is that the top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 90%.

Sanders only wants opportunity for the working class. The worst he proposes is working for a living. Nobody has too worry. The top 1% will still own more than the rest. The only change will be getting the top 1% to own more jobs producing wealth, using their wealth to work instead of languishing in trusts.

The only danger to the wealth of the top 1% lies within their own ranks. The ones that want more can see that the easiest place to get more is in the top 1%.

[PETRUS]

7. Thanks for the reply.

I don't think that Sanders is the only candidate sincere about doing something for the working class, but I'm heartened by the way the conversation has shifted somewhat, and I think his voice has been a part of that.

[Prosper]

8. I can't find an exclusivity separating leftist from liberal. My own sense

is that leftist is a subset of liberal. The most remarkable comment on the entire subject is that Sanders announced in 2015, gained prominence and is now in 2020 a fixture. Democratic. I would never have thought that could be possible. I think that calling your premise false is a personal opinion. From the time I first read it until now I couldn’t find support for giving liberal exclusive credit for the accomplishment in advancing rights in those areas. Up to and including Trumps praised economy I can’t find any advancements in wages, the quality of life and standard of living from the peak of the New Deal. I think it is an awakening that it is not a right of the few to impose poverty contrary to the interests of the USA on the hourly working class of the USA. Proof of that is if we went to war with China there would have to be an in-volatile agreement for China to continue to sell us tires and batteries and other spare parts needed to support the Armed Services of the USA. This country is so large that an interruption of supplies to citizens would have drastic consequences.

[PETRUS]

11. Much has been written about the difference between liberals and leftists.

Not all authors say the same things about it. Also, the way the term "liberal" is understood today in the US is not the same as it was understood in the past, and not the same way it's understood elsewhere in the world. Honestly, I think there's a certain amount of overlap in general outlook between people who call themselves "liberal" and people who call themselves "leftist." But everyone I know who calls themselves leftist (as opposed to liberal) does so because they are opposed to capitalism. There are differences of opinion among leftists about what anti-capitalism means in practical terms. One tradition is the reform-oriented path, which produced what we call social democracy (mostly in Europe). That seems to be what a lot of people who are calling themselves "socialists" these days are attempting to achieve, at least in the short to medium term.

And yeah, whoever called my premise false is either confused about history, misread my post, or is just poking at me. Whatever...

[The Valley Below]

4. The entire premise is totally false.

The victories of labor the labor movements, women's right, and the civil rights movement were won by liberals.

It is pure gaslighting to ascribe these victories to the far-left, as if liberal Democrats were reluctantly along for the ride.

100% false.

[Blue_true]

10. Rampant revisionism by some on our side is why we lose elections that we should easily win.

You are right, progress through our history as a nation has been achieved by people that had a clearer vision, but not so far out that it scared large numbers of people and caused them to vote against their and the nation's best interests.

I would hope the people on the far left, instead of painting their viewpoints as sainted, think about how much better off we would be as a nation and world if Jimmy Carter in 80, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 04, the House in 10, and Hillary in 16 had been re-elected or elected because they were far better than the alternatives. But the far left won't admit that if it didn't sit on it's thumbs because it was not pleased with progress or the nominees that we would be far better off today, instead it continuously denies that it is part of the reason why the nation and they world are where they are. There is no self-reflection and as a consequence no realization of error.

[Omaha Steve]

14. After a review by forum hosts....LOCKING

This post belongs in Democratic Primaries.