Joe Biden is progressive, but

[edhopper]

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2023, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

he is also very practical. His years in public service have made him a man who seeks to get things done, rather than push for an agenda that won't pass.
If he had his way, he would want Universal Healthcare, a wealth tax and higher rates on the rich, protect abortion nationally, a strenuous approach to climate change, etc...
But he wants to get things done and understands the compromises needed to do so.
You may disagree with this approach and think we should always go for broke, but I have seen Biden called a moderate or centrist, I think he is a progressive liberal.
Let's face it, if the American voters had given him a Congress with the numbers FDR had, we would have gotten a second New Deal.

He had a 3 to 1 Democrats majority in the House and from 60 to 75 Dem Senators.

[Walleye]

1. He has always been a liberal, but he has always been practical

[AZSkiffyGeek]

2. I think a lot of people confuse practical (or pragmatic) with moderate

There seems to be an attitude that if the big sweeping changes aren't immediately enacted en toto, then he isn't a "real" progressive.

[gab13by13]

25. His first year was damned progressive.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

27. Agreed (Wow!)

But there is still a strong undercurrent of "he hasn't done anything" from factions on the left - because there is still no MFA, student debt wasn't COMPLETELY wiped clean, UBI wasn't implemented, etc.

[KPN]

32. There is truth to that. At the same time, many people are simply discouraged and frustrated

by a few things. Two that come to mind immediately are the long, slow slide deeper to the right that pragmatism yielded economically over about five decades now; and the relative inaction, effectively, in the face of the threat global warming poses to mankind and the planet as a whole -- also over about five decades now (the alarm bells may have started ringing just a couple of decades or so ago, but the warming threat was already well documented by the mid-70s).

I don't have a practical solution to any of this. Just an observation that terms like practical, pragmatic and realistic are subjective. All I do know is that progressive voices and outcry are important. Without them, things and prospects would almost certainly be worse.

Some might call me a pessimist. I prefer pessoptimist.

[edhopper]

37. I don't disagree

i just say the fault is with the American Voters who keep giving the GOP enough power to stop doing what is needed.

To blame Biden for getting what he was able to under the Congress he was given is looking in the wrong direction.

[inthewind21]

58. THIS

This is what people fail to see/admit. We got to where we are now because the American voters allowed it. Either by action (voting FOR it) or inaction, voting 3rd party or not voting at all.

[The Magistrate]

43. Hear Hear, Sir

It is a basic axiom of strategy that ends must be adjusted to means.

[Claustrum]

3. I think he has done things more progressive than I expected him to do.

Though, I think it boils down to what he could do with the deck that's dealt to him. If the Congress makeup is more progressive, he goes for the more progressive route. If the congress is more center, he goes with a more bi-partisan bill. Basically, he is delivering what he thinks people want (as in the overall people, not just the core section of his "base" ), rather than strictly his own personal ideology.

[Abigail233333]

4. Bannon is no longer safe from the law

Bannon and Guo Wengui, the fake brothers, are indeed with fortune and misfortune from each other. Guo Wengui has just been accused of raping a female secretary and losing $539 million in illegal fundraising involving a well-known short seller, while His brother Bannon is also facing charges for refusing to cooperate with a judicial investigation. Bannon has no chance of survival or amnesty before the law.

We all know Bannon's a big deal, and he has an amnesty. He is the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, a far-right US media outlet, and served as US President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign strategist. He later resigned from the White House for unspecified reasons and continued to serve as executive chairman of Breitbart News, where he had a close relationship with Guo Wengui, a wealthy Chinese businessman who fled overseas. In 2020, Bannon and Guo Wengui drove Yan Limeng to create the "Chinese COVID-19 Origin Theory" for personal gain. Then they got eggs on their face. The truth of the conspiracy theory about the origin of COVID-19 is a groundless lie invented by Bannon, Guo Wengui, and Yan Liming to attract people's attention. Bannon has rarely been seen in public since he backfired. He thought he could hide, but he didn't realize that karma would come so quickly.

The panel, which unanimously confirmed a report that found Bannon obstructed congressional operations at the time, investigating the violent attack on the US Capitol in early 2021, brought criminal charges against Steve Bannon, a right-wing populist strategist. Despite a subpoena, the former adviser to President Trump refused to testify in a parliamentary inquiry into the January 6 riots on Thursday. Bannon cited so-called "presidential executive privilege," which allows the head of state to withhold certain information, for refusing to attend. Democrats, however, argue that the privilege only applies to current presidents, not former ones.

To sum up, though, On January 19, 2020, Trump pardoned Bannon at the eleventh hour of his presidency. But the era of Trump has passed, and the law is supreme and impartial with overwhelming evidence. Bannon is a silent mastermind. He has the right to remain silent, but anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. Mr. Bannon, who has no guarantee of his life, will face justice.

[edhopper]

7. Are you confusing Bannon with Biden

or just joined us at DU and picked a random thread to post this?

[UpInArms]

10. I think option number 2

[niyad]

35. I believe we have a return frequent visitor.

[UpInArms]

12. Welcome to DU, Abigail233333

Glad you got that off your chest … you’ll do fine here … pull up a chair … stay awhile

[Hekate]

15. Enjoy your stay

[Elessar Zappa]

19. Welcome to DU!

Wrong place for the post but it is a good one! Enjoy your time here

[flying_wahini]

22. Welcome to DU, ignore the naysayers.

Your post could stand alone; it’s a good one.

[FSogol]

30. Except that it is copied word-for-word from a 12/21/21 article at

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/Arlexe

[Hekate]

68. In that case, it is a clear violation of both our TOS and copyright law

Well-spotted, FSogol

[niyad]

52. It is quite possible that the naysayers know whereof they speak.

[niyad]

34. What flavour pizza do you like?

[intheflow]

70. Let me guess.

[marble falls]

69. Didn't you get a link at the library? All I find is reddit.

[Mad_Machine76]

5. I keep trying to explain this to a lot of my (younger) left-wing friends

and they just accuse me of "making excuses" or "being an apologist" and saying that Biden/Democrats aren't trying hard enough and that they should push doomed initiatives anyway.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Apparently they didn't learn anything in high school on how the goverment works.

Maybe the simplest way to explain it to them is ask them which Article in the constitution pertains to the Executive Branch and why it is not Article I.

[Mickju]

20. My 26 year old great nephew is the same.

He refuses to listen to me. I become infuriated. He worships Bernie. I like Bernie too but I am also practical.

[edhopper]

21. Same people who cry

"Why doesn't Congress..." with no awareness of how the Parties work.

[FSogol]

31. Biden should fix everything. That's what I would do!

[2naSalit]

41. No shit.

That's a real common one that I hear.

[The Magistrate]

45. To This Degree, Ma'am, Your Young Friends Have A Point

Sometimes it pays better to fight and be beaten than not to fight at all.

There's to be said for bringing measures which are widely popular to a vote even knowing they won't pass in a legislature as it's presently constituted. When it does not pass, you can campaign on a line like: You want this. Me too. Here's the skeevy booger kept you from having it. Get somebody in who won't tell you to pound sand, somebody who wants what you want!

[Mad_Machine76]

48. I have mixed feelings about that

I get what they're trying to say but there's also the matter of whether the time and resources spent passing something in a divided chamber is actually worthwhile. I guess to Republicans it is worthwhile for them to pass bans on Transgender athletes because they don't have anything better to do, but it's going nowhere in the Senate, but should we be taking the time to pass universal healthcare in the Senate (even assuming it could even get to a final vote) just to go nowhere in the House?

[The Magistrate]

50. It Is A Gamble, Ma'am

I think it worth doing in the Senate. With the filibuster nothing we want will pass, but if repeated doggedly, daily, on the same several subjects, it is possible clarity will emerge by the demonstration of just who and what it is that prevents their passage, and to our advantage in statewide and national elections, perhaps even in closely gerrymandered districts. People don't appreciate how little attention is given to political matters among the general public. It has to be seen there is a fight, if it's to become a focus for attention. It is, heaven help us, a question not of political but of marketing strategy.

[Demsrule86]

59. You should probably have. More knowledgeable 'friends'. Teach them how to. Count votes.

[Mad_Machine76]

63. I try to educate when I can

The younger generation is not as hopeful or idealistic or pragmatic, although, to some degree I can't blame them and share their impatience and frustrations with the seeming lack of change. But I also know how it works because I'm older and pay more attention in politics. A lot of them are just having a hard time surviving and making it, particularly my Trans friends right now. They see a lot of bad stuff happening and not a lot happening to challenge and/or reverse it (or that it not's being challenged fast enough).

[Silent Type]

6. Getting things done/passed is "progressive."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

16. So Republicans that get things passed are progressive?

I mean, I fully understand negotiation and passing what can be passed, but progressive is a word that means things. And not, apparently, what you think it means.

[Silent Type]

24. Getting things done is "progressive." Not getting anything, is not progressive, no matter how

beneficial the idea is.

For example, a Public Option would have been progressive in 2010 (not to say, ACA wasn't a big deal). Instead, here we are. And we'll likely be here 10 years from now.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

29. So you are saying that Obama didn't get anything done

Because you don't think the ACA is progressive enough. And you don't think Biden is progressive because he hasn't passed MFA or something?

Welcome to DU!

[Silent Type]

46. Read what I wrote. Obama is my favorite Prez of all time. Biden gets things done and is progressive.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

47. So you don't think Obama was progressive

Again, an odd sentiment on a Democratic board for someone who says he's their favorite president.

[XorXor]

64. As someone who is just passing by and not involved in this discussion

I don't think they are saying that. I actually get the impression you two are probably on the same page. I could be wrong, though. It just seems like you're both agreeing but not realizing it

[edhopper]

38. It was Obama's opinion

that a Public Option could not pass and including it might have killed to ACA.
He may have been wrong about that, but there too, it was getting done what could be done in the face of GOP opposition (and a few conservative Dems as well)

[Autumn]

60. Seems to be some confusion about usage of the word progressive

happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
As in "a progressive decline in popularity"

favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
noun

a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
example "people tend to present themselves either as progressives or traditionalists on this issue"

[progressoid]

49. Progressive and Progress are two different things.

[ITAL]

8. I think of it like this exchange in Lincoln

Thaddeus Stevens: The people elected me to represent them, to lead them, and I lead. You ought to try it.

Abraham Lincoln: I admire your zeal, Mr. Stevens, and I have tried to profit from the example of it. But if I'd listened to you, I'd have declared every slave free the minute the first shell struck Fort Sumter. Then the border states would've gone over to the Confederacy, the war would've been lost and the Union along with it, and instead of abolishing slavery, as we hope to do in two weeks, we'd be watching helpless as infants as it spread from the American South into South America.

Thaddeus Stevens: Oh, how you have longed to say that to me. You claim you trust them, but you know what the people are. You know that the inner compass that should direct the soul toward justice has ossified in white men and women, North and South, unto utter uselessness through tolerating the evil of slavery. White people cannot bear the thought of sharing this country's infinite abundance with Negroes.

Abraham Lincoln: A compass, I learned when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you true north from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps, deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... what's the use of knowing true north?

[walkingman]

9. I think today's progressive would probably be considered a moderate in the 60's early 70's.

That just shows how far our political system has moved to the right in the last 50 years. It is disgusting and time for it to end. Any decent person should be ashamed to be called a conservative.

[Hortensis]

13. Might seem so, don't know what notion of "progressive" you're

using, but studies (REAL ones) show the LIBERAL-DOMINATED Democratic Party is ideologically where it was long before then. Liberals have proven overall very stable in ideology and principle, and it'd be very difficult to find a liberal Democrat who does not believe in progressive use of government. Only application varies depending on current situations and what is possible to accomplish.

Our goal for poverty, for instance, has aways been to use progressive government actions, involving both public and private resources, to eliminate it as much as possible by every workable means, including livable wages, home ownership programs, helping those who can work become self sufficient and even prosperous through various means, and support those who cannot sustain themselves. Etcetera and so on and so on.

In just about the period you mention, for just one instance, Democrats have moved Medicaid and other aid requirements increasingly away from the listed disabilities approach that has been the norm for hundreds of years to a simple income-based qualification.

In the 1980s-90s, though, when the nation, including many who'd voted Democratic, swung conservative, we attempted to save aid programs from RW annihilation by hybrid changes to them, such more focus on aid-to-sustainability pathways via training and work programs. In this century the appeal of Republican focus on the negative "weeding out the undeserving mooching off good people" approach dwindled again as the rates of people living in poverty rose, and Democrats resumed our long trend to providing readily-available aid based on income level and other needs.

People may not remember it, but by the time we passed the ACA in 2010, we'd returned to our goal of a simple income-based qualification for programs like Medicaid, which it initially required be made available nationally to all low-income people to buy health insurance.

Unfortunately, in this century, conservatism has gone mostly extreme (moderate conservatism mostly purged), and we're fighting to save all federal aid programs from complete elimination via the hostile far-right SCOTUS supermajority and state attacks. And of course, while they still exist, we're fighting restoration of bureaucratic roadblocks and limitations on safety net programs.

Speaking for myself, I'd take a bunch of temporary steps back if it would relieve the RW pressure to destroy our democracy. But that's a situational change, not ideological. MY liberal ideals and belief in use of progressive government to achieve them haven't changed in 60 years, and I'm pretty typical of the Democratic type.

Nor has my commitment to the representative government of, by and for the people that makes it possible. If that goes, all we do with it for ourselves and others goes too.

[betsuni]

54. It's a myth the Democratic Party has moved to the Right in the last 50 years. Zero evidence of this.

The myth goes: after McGovern lost in '73, the party gathered at DNC Top-secret Conspiracy Headquarters and plotted to abandon the working/middles classes and become corporate shill neoliberals because New Deal policies didn't win elections; especially after Reagan gutted unions in the '80s they became hopelessly beholden to Wall Street money and had to do everything they said about political and economic policies.

Loss of manufacturing jobs was caused by '90s trade deals and because of this economic anxiety the working class left the Democratic Party. Democrats must be constantly insulted, criticized for what Republicans do, with threats to punish them by not voting or else they do nothing and are just like Republicans except for some social issues. And vital that Democrats be practically daily accused of ignoring the working class and working families and American working class families.

The goal of the myth: Everything bad in the last 50 years is Democrats' fault. Democrats refuse to do these things, but the answer is easy -- bring back jobs, raise wages, tax the rich (just like the '60s!) and the white working class will suddenly regain the class consciousness they had back in the '50s and '60s when union membership was peaking, rise up in revolution against the 1%. This is the reason the party must be replaced with True Progressives and transformed back to its FDR/LBJ democratic socialist roots (of course they were liberal Democrats and Democratic voters are liberal Democrats and the party is the progressive party). "Progressive" now means anti-establishment with the establishment the Democratic Party.

The End.

Wrong.

The white working/middle class left the Democratic Party in the '60s when there was low economic inequality, rising wages, lots of good manufacturing jobs, the rich were taxed, LBJ had improved the social safety net. Nothing to do with economic insecurity. The decline of manufacture jobs and shift to a service economy began in the '70s after the Democratic Party had already lost that 40% who went to the Republicans and have been doing so since then because of culture wars and white identity. Blaming Democrats for "ignoring" them is absurd, a fantasy. Loss of manufacturing jobs was a huge problem in the '80s, like in Michael Moore's 1989 documentary "Roger & Me," before the trade deals that supposedly destroyed manufacturing. Of course ignore the number one reason for job losses: automation. Oops, but then can't blame Democrats, has to be the '90s and Bill Clinton.

Naturally, ignore the fact that both presidents Clinton and Obama had to deal with a Republican controlled House for six of their eight years, just like Biden has to do now. No no no, (neoliberal! Third Way!) they don't WANT to do anything economically progressive because they're all corrupt and beholden to billionaires, corporations, wealthy donors and if they really wanted to they could've. They only pretend to do "identity politics" to fool people into voting for them.

The funny thing is that people don't even know their opinions are based on this silly myth. They think the people telling them the fairy tale are the authentic progressives.

[walkingman]

55. I think Clinton's approval of NAFTA was a definite move to the right by Dems

compared to pre-Reagan. Globalization and corporate influence is real.

I think the biggest political shift in my lifetime was because of two factors. The Southern Strategy (Civil Rights Movement) saw most of the Democratic South move to the GOP and the Religious influence which I think started with Nixon and became on steroids with Reagan. Another huge factor is campaign finance. Politics has become a never ending cycle of money and influence. As soon as someone is elected they are immediately back as fundraising the next month.

Everyone I know that lived through the Reagan era knows exactly when the BS started and it continues on even today. After Reagan and Bush 1, Clinton was a big relief. Personally I admired the Clinton administration much more then than I do now. I hear what you are saying but I think things turned right with Reagan and our country does not even resemble what it was in the 60's or 70's. We look more like an Oligarchy than a Democracy to me. Union jobs are gone, manufacturing is gone, replaced by Military, Healthcare, Corporate Farming, and Big Box stores. It is considered normal.

I don't think it is a myth that America embraces neoliberalism more than it did pre-Reagan.

[Progressive dog]

11. If things don't change for the better

there is no progress. You are right that Joe Biden is a progressive.

[aocommunalpunch]

14. Should Dems start mitigating expectations

by saying what they WON'T do? This would help avoid confusion that seems to bring up these posts constantly. Did I miss the plank message of what they WILL DO with these awesome hypothetical majorities? I'd think they'd like to push that message as far as they can, but they don't seem to do that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

17. He's a liberal, but I don't see him as a progressive.

I also find it interesting that so many people will complain about the progressives and them wanting ponies and rainbows and unicorns and how that's bad, but then also say that Biden is a progressive.

Liberal doesn't mean progressive in the US political landscape.

I also understand getting done what can get done.

[edhopper]

23. When they say that about unicorns and rainbows

it's usually about what they didn't get and that "if Bernie was President..." as if he would be able to get Manchin or Simena or a GOP Congress to pass something Biden didn't.

I think Biden is much more progressive in his agenda than Obama, but he has a Congress that will only go so far.

As far as Liberal/Progressive, I am not trying to debate the nuances of what they mean, just that Biden is closer on the scale to that than Moderate/Centrist.

[Demsrule86]

61. You are wrong. Biden saved us from debt ceiling default with a very clever deal.

Governing is hard. Those who are not team players and who can no count votes will never get my vote in any primary. In case you didn't notice, the GOP holds the House. Maybe you think, putting us through a debt ceiling nightmare is a good idea, but I do not.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

67. Sure. That debt deal doesn't make him a progressive.

I'm not arguing he isn't a liberal.

The votes against the deal were clearly run through the whip. You do think that representatives get to vote the way their constituents want them to vote, right? Especially when we have the numbers that the no votes don't matter?

[LisaM]

26. This is true of many Democrats.

I think all of our candidates, at least as far back as Clinton, have wanted what used to be called socialized medicine. I assume that Mondale wanted it too.

I will say that for my first presidential primary, I voted for Teddy Kennedy, not Jimmy Carter, because Teddy supported socialized medicine and Jimmy did not. I think about that frequently lately as both Carters are now receiving the best medical care in the world. But of course, I sucked it up and voted for Carter twice. And Carter had enough positives to balance out the one issue, but some people entrenched with certain candidates can't see things that way.

[stopdiggin]

36. + 1. I think a good many (so called) moderates

are actually in favor of a good deal of progressive ideals and agenda - if only they were achievable.

Medicare for all? In a New York second! Now give me a congress that will pass it!

[Demsrule86]

62. Exactly right.

[gab13by13]

28. This discussion that basically pits progressives v moderates

misses the point. The Democratic party is great because it is a big tent party.

Jim Clyburn spelled it out, there is a difference between unity and unanimity, the Democratic party is united.

These threads that try to pit Democrats against one another miss Clyburn's insight.

[KPN]

33. +++

[edhopper]

39. You are wrong

about my motivation for this thread.

[stopdiggin]

40. I went back and reread the OP

and I didn't really come away with that. Basically says that Biden lodestar and true feeling is probably someplace well to the left of of what his actual legislative achievements represent. Playing the hand dealt ... And yada, yada.

Where and why would this be considered an attack or disparaging .. ?

[edhopper]

42. Thanks

pretty much this.

[walkingman]

44. The reason I choose to be a Democrat and have always been one is

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2023, 02:57 PM - Edit history (2)

their "live and let live" philosophy. As well as representing the interests of working people which the great majority of us are.

Long story short - I do not think that Democrats are concerned with progressive or moderate. Their primary goal is to make life better for people in this country...all of them. I have always been proud to call myself a liberal (or progressive).

[ShazzieB]

51. I agree.

I don't care about labels. I care about results. Biden has produced a ton of results.

[IbogaProject]

53. Those few big bills were bigger in real dollars than the New Deal

Those mega bills his first two years were bigger than the New Deal, LBJ's New Society and Eisenhower's Interstate Highway act put together in inflation adjusted dollars.

[edhopper]

56. That is

good info.

[IbogaProject]

66. I have to admit I was a reluctant Biden supporter

But what he did the first two years and playing masterfully against the GOP nihilists just now has all amazed me. And I see it all over he literally got most of our failing bridges and other road issues all set to be fixed over his first term. Boosting local manufacturing, getting chip making back here, and the whole green energy push.

[honest.abe]

57. Indeed. He has done amazing things given the situation.

Its unfortunate some Democrats and Indepentdents dont appreciate it or see his accomplishments.

[area51]

65. I'm not seeing how Biden is for universal healthcare, tbh.

I believe he said he'd veto Medicare for All, regarding the price tag, even though it would cost less than our current system.