United States Politics Thread 46

[zompist]

or is kamala not substantially somewhat to the left of joe ?

As a senator, she certainly was to his left.

That doesn't say much about what she'd do as President. A president doesn't magically turn everyone in Congress into the same political position as themselves... especially if they have a narrow majority, which they normally do these days. It can be argued that a Democratic administration is only as leftist as its most conservative Senator, and a Republican one is only as rightist as its most liberal Senator.

[Raphael]

or is kamala not substantially somewhat to the left of joe ?

As a senator, she certainly was to his left.

That doesn't say much about what she'd do as President. A president doesn't magically turn everyone in Congress into the same political position as themselves... especially if they have a narrow majority, which they normally do these days. It can be argued that a Democratic administration is only as leftist as its most conservative Senator, and a Republican one is only as rightist as its most liberal Senator.

I probably don't have to tell you this, one minor complication with this is that the Republicans are a lot more solidly right-wing these days than the Democrats are liberal, making it generally easier for Republican presidents to do what they want than for Democratic ones. The Republican Party is, by now, a Trump cult of personality; the Democratic Party is by no means a Harris cult of personality.

[keenir]

incidentally, isn't it kinda sexist that everyone calls dudes by last name, but chicks so often are just firstnamed?

I asked that back in the early days of Stargate SG1 (yes, before it was syndicated), and I think one person said they were trying to be more respectful to the women by lumping them in with everyone else with their name or rank (ie General West, Colonel O'Neill), but rather to show a willingness to be their friend or at least not their enemy by taking the time to learn their given name (ie Janet, aka Dr Fraiser)

yeah a bunch of us went "wha?"

though at least the enlisted personnel referred to the women by their titles and surnames (Dr Fraiser, Doc Fraiser; Major Carter)

...whereas the Jaffa tried to do the fullname addressing at all times (ie Major Carter, Daniel Jackson)

[Linguoboy]

incidentally, isn't it kinda sexist that everyone calls dudes by last name, but chicks so often are just firstnamed?

I really noticed this in 2016 and it stuck in my craw. I mean, I suppose you could have argued that "Clinton" was ambiguous given that her husband was also a politician, but that really doesn't wash given that anyone who knows anything about US presidential politics knew full well he wasn't eligible to run again. There's also the complication that "Trump" is not just a surname but a brand name (and the counterpoint that "the Donald" is a long-running nickname that I virtually never hear applied to him as a candidate).

In any case, I made of point of using "Clinton" consistently to refer to the Democratic nominee and no one ever seemed confused by it. This time around, I'm trying to be equal consistent about using "Harris". I'll feel differently once she's in office and familiarity can't be construed as disrespect.

[alice]

Time for my irregular panic post: if Trump does win the presidency, how much of Project 2025 is likely to be implementable or implemented?

[Karch]

Time for my irregular panic post: if Trump does win the presidency, how much of Project 2025 is likely to be implementable or implemented?

Not much, if anything. Trump has himself distanced from Project 2025.

[keenir]

Time for my irregular panic post: if Trump does win the presidency, how much of Project 2025 is likely to be implementable or implemented?

Not much, if anything. Trump has himself distanced from Project 2025.

he distances himself from a lot of things - that doesn't mean he stays away from those things.

[Nortaneous]

Time for my irregular panic post: if Trump does win the presidency, how much of Project 2025 is likely to be implementable or implemented?

Not much, if anything. Trump has himself distanced from Project 2025.

It's not for Trump. It's for his bank of potential staffers. When you elect a president, you also elect the party coalition that the executive will depend on to govern - there are a lot of positions that have to be filled. Not only is it impractical to believe Trump could filter his hires for opposition to Project 2025, there's no reason to believe he would: his administration appointed Adrian Vermeule, a Catholic theocrat who has written extensively on the subject of organizing a Catholic takeover of the administrative state to replace the American republic with something he calls "the Empire of Our Lady of Guadeloupe", to the Administrative Conference of the United States.

[jcb]

Coal miners, seriously? There are 44,000 coal miners in the US. FWIW there are 10 million NYT subscribers.

This literalism is a common trope I've encountered with liberals before. I worked in a factory for 5 years. Even though the people there weren't coal miners, when Trump talked about coal miners, they still felt like he was talking to/about people like them, because of their sense of class solidarity with fellow blue-collar workers. Dismissing coal miners because there's so few of them is unwise for a leftist party that wants to build class consciousness. (Hence why I don't think that the Democrats are a left party at all...)

On the other hand, there are 4.3 mlllion auto workers. I'll wager you that not one single solitary "liberal", or whatever your stupid straw man is, believes that the vote of those auto workers is unimportant.

Why did Clinton pass NAFTA then?

BTW, in the actual world, seven labor leaders were featured speakers last night at the Dem convention.

Great! But are the Dems actually gonna deliver for labor this time?, or betray them like Obama did? ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-la ... s_b_922576 )

It's possible that it does, actually, at least for some definitions of 'better person' morally...and ones that i suscribe to! still, even if it was the case, to force people to get college degrees simply because it will make their values more aligned with one's own values is, you know, p r o b l e m a t i c

This is a common trope in liberal media: https://youtu.be/jYa1eI1hpDE?si=MrCcbbHMhPki-w6R&t=213 (Note the college degree on the wall, and the lyrics of the song.)
Another: https://imgur.com/gallery/billy-wait-WKhpOQ2
(Note also that at the same time, Trump is saying "I love the poorly educated.": https://youtu.be/O9F6EAMPky4?si=9NPPHo7mJQj6J0se&t=32 )
(Note also the comments: "He said he loves the poorly educated and they applauded lol". My grandfather never graduated high school. Am I not supposed to love him or think that he is worthy of a good life or think that he should be allowed to vote? According to liberals, apparently not.)

How are non-college degree havers supposed to interpret these messages? I think that liberals think that people will feel ashamed that they don't have a college degree, and then servily sign up for college to try to get one, but in reality it just alienates people from liberals.

after we establish universal right to work and to obtain a minimum of the social product in order to survive, housing food water basic healthcare, when education is genuinely a matter of curiosity and self-improvement as opposed to most people's only chance not to be poor... yeah, then we can talk about morally educating the masses or whatever as a matter of state mandate. and

Yes, exactly.

I have to chip in on the idea that NYT readers are "Republicans that don't want to admit that they're Republicans." That's a pretty odd take. Not a surprising one—I've certainly seen it before—but it's odd, insofar as it just isn't ... true.

What I mean by that is that they're often the kind of people that put up signs like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nNRJ1Sq0bA As Thomas Frank mentions in the video, the problem isn't that he (or I) disagrees with anything on the signs, it's what is not on the sign: anything to do with labor. They're true libertarians: liberal on social issues, but conservative on economic issues.

With this in mind, it's no surprise that they pull the shenanigans that zompist describes, because they don't actually want the economic system in this country to change, and the safest way to get that is by simply voting republican, but pretend they're "independent" (or "democrat" but change their mind at the last moment) so the democrats spend all their time trying to win their vote (Chuck Schumer plan, yada yada).

[Raphael]

I worked in a factory for 5 years. Even though the people there weren't coal miners, when Trump talked about coal miners, they still felt like he was talking to/about people like them, because of their sense of class solidarity with fellow blue-collar workers.

At his rallies, Trump brags about how anti-union and anti-strike he is. Don't lecture us about how much blue collar class solidarity people who cheer for that kind of thing supposedly have.

Why did Clinton pass NAFTA then?

Why did the Democrats nominate someone with Bill Clinton's policies in the first place? Because, three times in a row, large parts of the working class had voted for either Ronald Reagan or Ronald Reagan's VP in a presidential election, and as a result, many Democrats had come to the conclusion that the only way for them to avoid losing every future presidential election in a landslide was to move to the right.

Your story about how Democrats, for no reason, just betrayed the working class ignores the actual timeline of what happened.

[Travis B.]

jcb, anyone who supports the Republicans is either stupid or evil, and any working class people who thinks that the Republicans are on their side probably falls in the first category (as if they understood their actual self-interest they would not be supporting them). Complaining about teh "liberal elite" and whatnot is just vomiting Republican talking points designed to delude the working class into thinking that the Republicans are on their side, despite there being so much evidence to the contrary.

[Torco]

It's possible that it does, actually, at least for some definitions of 'better person' morally...and ones that i suscribe to! still, even if it was the case, to force people to get college degrees simply because it will make their values more aligned with one's own values is, you know, p r o b l e m a t i c

This is a common trope in liberal media: https://youtu.be/jYa1eI1hpDE?si=MrCcbbHMhPki-w6R&t=213 (Note the college degree on the wall, and the lyrics of the song.)
Another: https://imgur.com/gallery/billy-wait-WKhpOQ2
(Note also that at the same time, Trump is saying "I love the poorly educated.": https://youtu.be/O9F6EAMPky4?si=9NPPHo7mJQj6J0se&t=32 )
(Note also the comments: "He said he loves the poorly educated and they applauded lol". My grandfather never graduated high school. Am I not supposed to love him or think that he is worthy of a good life or think that he should be allowed to vote?

oh, no, of course not. he can always go to a community college, retrain himself on his own dime, and l e a r n t o p r o g r a m or something. until then, yeah, he's doomed to vote for the wrong neoliberal, warhawkish, genocide-supporting party that serves the 1% . as opposed to the right neoliberal, warhawkish, genocide-supporting party that serves the 1% .

honestly we have the same problem here in my third world neck of the woods we don't have a populist left: just neoliberal technocratic progressives and, well, fascists.... big surprise, I guess, we're all living in amerika cocacola wonderbra.

[Travis B.]

It's possible that it does, actually, at least for some definitions of 'better person' morally...and ones that i suscribe to! still, even if it was the case, to force people to get college degrees simply because it will make their values more aligned with one's own values is, you know, p r o b l e m a t i c

This is a common trope in liberal media: https://youtu.be/jYa1eI1hpDE?si=MrCcbbHMhPki-w6R&t=213 (Note the college degree on the wall, and the lyrics of the song.)
Another: https://imgur.com/gallery/billy-wait-WKhpOQ2
(Note also that at the same time, Trump is saying "I love the poorly educated.": https://youtu.be/O9F6EAMPky4?si=9NPPHo7mJQj6J0se&t=32 )
(Note also the comments: "He said he loves the poorly educated and they applauded lol". My grandfather never graduated high school. Am I not supposed to love him or think that he is worthy of a good life or think that he should be allowed to vote?

oh, no, of course not. he can always go to a community college, retrain himself on his own dime, and l e a r n t o p r o g r a m or something. until then, yeah, he's doomed to vote for the wrong neoliberal, warhawkish, genocide-supporting party that serves the 1% . as opposed to the right neoliberal, warhawkish, genocide-supporting party that serves the 1% .

honestly we have the same problem here in my third world neck of the woods we don't have a populist left: just neoliberal technocratic progressives and, well, fascists.... big surprise, I guess, we're all living in amerika cocacola wonderbra.

The problem with this kind of both-sides-ism is that it glosses over the very real differences between the parties -- one party aims to turn the US into a fascist dictatorship, one party does not -- that alone should determine how one votes.

[Torco]

but bad people can tell the truth. the dems did betray the first world working class in jumping to internal neoliberalism (they had been exporting it before) immediately as soon as the soviet union fell, and keeping the rudder steady. yes, yes, the other guys are worse, but it doesn't make the first thing not so.

[jcb]

At his rallies, Trump brags about how anti-union and anti-strike he is. Don't lecture us about how much blue collar class solidarity people who cheer for that kind of thing supposedly have.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Why did the Democrats nominate someone with Bill Clinton's policies in the first place? Because, three times in a row, large parts of the working class had voted for either Ronald Reagan or Ronald Reagan's VP in a presidential election, and as a result, many Democrats had come to the conclusion that the only way for them to avoid losing every future presidential election in a landslide was to move to the right.

https://youtu.be/Ua_YJTykP_A?si=v7XoSapdk71Hlczy&t=272

Your story about how Democrats, for no reason, just betrayed the working class ignores the actual timeline of what happened.

There is indeed a reason! It benefited them! They own the stocks! They get to give speeches at fancy balls full of billionaires instead of simple union halls full of blue collar workers! They're the managers that get to sit in the board room meeting and report that they made a bajillion dollars in profit by moving the factory to Mexico!

Edit: Rephrased a sentence to not be clunky.

[Travis B.]

but bad people can tell the truth. the dems did betray the first world working class in jumping to internal neoliberalism (they had been exporting it before) immediately as soon as the soviet union fell, and keeping the rudder steady. yes, yes, the other guys are worse, but it doesn't make the first thing not so.

You specifically strongly implied that there is no difference between the two parties. And anyways, "truth" does not necessarily matter -- consequences (such as the US turning into a fascist dictatorship) do -- and when emphasizing "truth" has negative consequences (e.g. through helping the fascists win) then "truth" must be dispensed with.

(Anyways, said "truth" belies the real truth which is that the Republicans do everything they can to screw over the working class in a way that even the most neoliberal Democrats barely do, and then turn around and rely on faux populism in an effort to delude the working class into thinking that they are on their side.)

[Ares Land]

Again, as far as I understand, there are reasons behind Democrats being, roughly speaking 'neoliberal' (obligatory disclaimer that I don't like the work but haven't found a better one) -- there just isn't any interest in socialism, social-democracy, or even old-style American liberalism among American voters.

Again, this is from a distant perspective, so perhaps wrong, but you're not getting a socialist alternative in America as long as most Americans are centrists at best.

And socialism is never going to be seriously discussed as long as Trump or Project 2025 are in the equation. Saying this from a country this close to outright fascism: as long as the far right is there, there will be no political debate about anything but fascist themes.

So yeah, the first order of business should be try, by whatever feasible means, to shift the debate left, and that means getting rid of Trump. (No matter how much the Democrats may suck.)

[rotting bones]

There are several problems with this:

1. Interest in ideologies is not a fully subjective, first order property of voters. It's a consequence of the social system that's in place to begin with.

2. Fascism is often a consequence of failed promises of socialist transformation. Many Trump supporters used to be Bernie supporters who decided they needed a strongman instead. Why? They decided the Democratic Party will never let Bernie Sanders contest the election, so the right thing to do is to let Trump annihilate it along with other enemies of the people. Seeing Trump get away with lying only makes them feel more powerful. In France, a soft approach to socialism didn't result in actual socialist policies.

3. Interest in fascism and socialism often arise together. Basically, these voters often want a radical alternative to the establishment. It's easier to convince fascists that socialism will serve their interests better than people like Matt Yglesias, who celebrate using nationalist rhetoric to clamp down on leftist policies.

4. "Liberals" are not necessarily good people. People like Matt Yglesias are very deliberately using the threat of fascism to oppose the left. They will always come up with similar excuses, so the time for socialism will never be right.

5. Interest in socialism among American voters is higher than it has ever been since before McCarthyism. There is also non-socialist union activity. The longshoremen union is on a strike that's threatening to cripple the country. People who support such activities for selfish reasons could theoretically be made to see that specific socialist policies would serve their interests better.

[Ares Land]

There are several problems with this:

1. Interest in ideologies is not a fully subjective, first order property of voters. It's a consequence of the social system that's in place to begin with.

I agree. But then what? All public debate seems currently focused on the question of how often immigrants eat cats and dogs. This is not going to lead to interest in any ideology but fascism.

2. Fascism is often a consequence of failed promises of socialist transformation. Many Trump supporters used to be Bernie supporters who decided they needed a strongman instead. Why? They decided the Democratic Party will never let Bernie Sanders contest the election, so the right thing to do is to let Trump annihilate it along with other enemies of the people. Seeing Trump get away with lying only makes them feel more powerful.

Do you have proof for any of this? How many Trump voters are Bernie supporters exactly?

In France, a soft approach to socialism didn't result in actual socialist policies.

That's debatable My answer to this is three-fold:
a) There are a lot of actual socialist polices here.
b) Actual Socialism(TM) was never possible, short of violent revolution.
c) Since 2002, and possibly earlier, the rise of the RN votes meant making the major left-wing party move leftward an outright impossibility.

3. Interest in fascism and socialism often arise together. Basically, these voters often want a radical alternative to the establishment. It's easier to convince fascists that socialism will serve their interests better than people like Matt Yglesias, who celebrate using nationalist rhetoric to clamp down on leftist policies.

People on the left are perenially convinced they can turn fascists over to their side, maybe by being extra convincing, or extra understanding.
I used to know a lot of far-right voters; I'm no longer in touch with most of them for obvious reasons, though I still see a couple of them occasionally. A few things I noted: they are not interested in socialism; if they had any actual interest in economic policy, they'd be conservatives -- but they're really not interested in anything but their pet issues, immigration and "wokeism" (ie anything but straight white people.)

4. "Liberals" are not necessarily good people. People like Matt Yglesias are very deliberately using the threat of fascism to oppose the left. They will always come up with similar excuses, so the time for socialism will never be right.

As it happens, I don't like Matt Yglesias much. I'm not that familiar with liberals (we don't really have those over here). The important bit is that however bad liberals can be, conservatives are certainly worse.
While I'm at it... Matt Yglesias doesn't get to decide whether the time for socialism is right. The time for socialism will be right when you 51% of voters in favor, or maybe enough people to support the glorious socialist revolution. Neither is going to happen in the coming few years.

5. Interest in socialism among American voters is higher than it has ever been since before McCarthyism. There is also non-socialist union activity. The longshoremen union is on a strike that's threatening to cripple the country. People who support such activities for selfish reasons could theoretically be made to see that specific socialist policies would serve their interests better.

I'm aware of all that, and happy about it; but there's nowhere near enough interest to get a socialist candidate for the Presidency, with a chance of winning that is. My prediction is that it will stay this way for the foreseeable future, especially as long as the public debate is focussed on how evil immigrants are.

All in all... I'm a European socialist. Not as far left as it goes, but still solidly to the left, so of course I don't see anything convincing about the Democrats. But what I don't understand is that weird idea that socialism would somehow gain anything from a Trump victory.

[rotting bones]

I agree. But then what? All public debate seems currently focused on the question of how often immigrants eat cats and dogs. This is not going to lead to interest in any ideology but fascism.

Change the discourse. Have leftists tried arguing that Trump has personally eaten the brains of his supporters, and that's why they behave like braindead zombies? If you start with a theory, you can always find circumstantial evidence to vindicate it.

Don't worry about sounding dumb. If people say dumb things in large numbers, that will strike fear into the hearts of your enemies.

Maybe the lesson leftists should learn from Trump is not that people are essentially conservative, but that people are essentially dumb.

Do you have proof for any of this? How many Trump voters are Bernie supporters exactly?

At least 12% of Sanders supporters switched to Trump IIRC. Not all, but a significant fraction. A woman in Jan 6 who was mentioned by the media several times was one of them. Try Googling: Sanders-Trump voters.

Many more were simply demoralized when Sanders didn't gain traction, and stopped following politics.

That's debatable My answer to this is three-fold:
a) There are a lot of actual socialist polices here.
b) Actual Socialism(TM) was never possible, short of violent revolution.
c) Since 2002, and possibly earlier, the rise of the RN votes meant making the major left-wing party move leftward an outright impossibility.

You know more about this. I remember reading analyses saying that when the Socialists were in power, they were not able to govern as socialists like their voters expected.

People on the left are perenially convinced they can turn fascists over to their side, maybe by being extra convincing, or extra understanding.
I used to know a lot of far-right voters; I'm no longer in touch with most of them for obvious reasons, though I still see a couple of them occasionally. A few things I noted: they are not interested in socialism; if they had any actual interest in economic policy, they'd be conservatives -- but they're really not interested in anything but their pet issues, immigration and "wokeism" (ie anything but straight white people.)

The core demographic that constitutes the fascist base are people with small proprietor class interests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqESHNvmP20 Granted, these people can be difficult to reason with. They oppose civil liberty because they think liberals use minorities as a vote bank through policies of "appeasement" to keep the establishment intact. Nevertheless, when small business owners count themselves among those who are too dispossessed to have country or religion, I have seen them grow to support the corrupt Indian version of Marxism. I have seen similar things on the internet, but who knows what real out here.

In the American context, the key is that leftists have to convince them the left is not in favor of "replacing" the majority by appeasing minorities, safe spaces are compatible with personal liberty, etc. A lot of these grievances are perpetuated by right-wing propaganda outlets. This suggests a strategy of making them see the owners of these outlets as rivals who are keeping them down (absolutely true) rather than businessmen with a common cause.

As it happens, I don't like Matt Yglesias much. I'm not that familiar with liberals (we don't really have those over here). The important bit is that however bad liberals can be, conservatives are certainly worse.
While I'm at it... Matt Yglesias doesn't get to decide whether the time for socialism is right. The time for socialism will be right when you 51% of voters in favor, or maybe enough people to support the glorious socialist revolution. Neither is going to happen in the coming few years.

...

I'm aware of all that, and happy about it; but there's nowhere near enough interest to get a socialist candidate for the Presidency, with a chance of winning that is. My prediction is that it will stay this way for the foreseeable future, especially as long as the public debate is focussed on how evil immigrants are.

All in all... I'm a European socialist. Not as far left as it goes, but still solidly to the left, so of course I don't see anything convincing about the Democrats. But what I don't understand is that weird idea that socialism would somehow gain anything from a Trump victory.

You didn't say the time is not right for a socialist President. I read you as saying that as long as there's a fascist threat, the conversation should be about how to counter it. If you don't discuss socialist alternatives, what will motivate voters to counter the fascist threat? How will 51% ever be in favor of socialism if it's never the right time to argue for it?