Jump to content

OFFICIAL IAW IS FULL MITTENS FOR SAINT PETE BUTTIGIEG THREAD


Recommended Posts

Just now, Amazatron said:

So a Harvard Law Professor isn't elite?

 

I don't know about you, but I would like my leaders to be highly intellectual, rational, and thoughtful.  If that's elite, then fine.  

 

Yeah, there's a difference between "elite" and "elitist," or "rich."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

So a Harvard Law Professor isn't elite?

 

I don't know about you, but I would like my leaders to be highly intellectual, rational, and thoughtful.  If that's elite, then fine.  

The most you will get of those traits is 2 out of 3.  Choose wisely.

 

And you forgot the most important one of all: effectual.

 

Hell, the last guy had those traits to one degree or another and he's going to end up being viewed as a profoundly mediocre two-term nobody whose accomplishments can only be characterized as paper-thin at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

And you forgot the most important one of all: effectual.

 

I mean, if we want to list something like that out, it's kind of the only thing matters, no? That is, the objective is to have an individual in office who can effect change for the "better" and whom will best respond to new challenges as they arise.

 

But we can't really directly measure that unless you're going for your second term as president. Even former political experience is only a proxy for what that means to hold the presidential office. Instead, we have to try and infer it. Criteria like "thoughtfulness" are useful features to that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Massdriver said:

What's wrong with elites running the country? I'm all for it.

 

Depends on the kind of "elite" person we're talking about. I'm all for it, but not elitism. Elitism is an attitude, an ideology, and that's what I disapprove of. 

 

53 minutes ago, ByWatterson said:

I have no problem with philosopher kings. Greek aristocracy, but not a plutocracy or oligarchy.

 

As long as they're actually the best of us. 

 

Agreed. Not sure about Mayor Pete yet on that score. 

 

28 minutes ago, ByWatterson said:

Buttigieg strikes me as of that class of excellence of parts - character, insight, service, honesty. I thought his answer last night on the police chief, for instance, wherein he clearly articulated why he took action, and some regrets he has, was a complete home run. In a word, I guess, I want thoughtful leaders.

 

I'm in full agreement but be careful - pro-corporate centrist gradualist Democrat Obama was in a similar packaging and they tried to sell us on Beto O'Rourke the same way. This is an easy trap to fall into. 

 

20 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

So a Harvard Law Professor isn't elite?

 

I don't know about you, but I would like my leaders to be highly intellectual, rational, and thoughtful.  If that's elite, then fine.  

 

As @ByWatterson pointed out, I'm all for what you describe, I used the word elitism, not elite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

I'm still not quite sure how Buttigieg comes off as "elitism" in that case.  He's never dodges questions or "moves the goal posts" like you claim.

 

Can you tell me what specifically he plans to do then? This is an honest question, one which I posed earlier and really would like an answer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

I'm still not quite sure how Buttigieg comes off as "elitism" in that case.  He's never dodges questions or "moves the goal posts" like you claim.

 

He speaks in broad strokes. He never hammers down what he's actually trying to say, probably because that allows him to not have a hard stance that pushes other potential voters away. He's a "jack of all trades" type of politician, trying to fit in with everyone. I'm wondering more why everyone is ready to love him so much. 

 

His elitism stems from small clues like his answer to a "college for all" question and his ignoring and ridiculing of student protesters fighting for wages for Harvard janitorial staff. Additionally, he still accepts lobbying money donations to his campaign. He's also used the derisive term "social justice warriors" (at the same protest) but he calls himself a progressive, which makes no sense. There are plenty of small clues like these that say more about him. 

 

Are there things to like about him? Of course there are. But this isn't about finding a candidate, this is about finding the best candidate and I don't think that's Mayor Pete yet compared to other potentials/hopefuls I'm seeing. My mind is always ready to be changed but I get an empty suit Barack Obama/Beto O'Rourke vibe from Mayor Pete (so far). 

 

16 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Can you tell me what specifically he plans to do then? This is an honest question, one which I posed earlier and really would like an answer to.

 

Same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd vigorously dispute Obama as an empty suit.

 

No, he was not the messianic figure others portrayed him to be, but on health care and gay rights, in particular, he moved the Overton window so far, so fast.  For instance, Obama forced Republicans to admit health care demanded a national solution.  That's not gradualism to me.  In a few short years after implementation (six?), we're no longer talking about whether to achieve universal coverage, but how.  Even Republicans state that as their goal - liars all, but the politics have moved dramatically leftward.

 

If Buttigieg is another Obama, who will move the window to a better place, achieve some landmark legislation, and plausibly mend the country a bit, I'm all for that, man. Sign me up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ByWatterson said:

I'd vigorously dispute Obama as an empty suit.

 

No, he was not the messianic figure others portrayed him to be, but on health care and gay rights, in particular, he moved the Overton window so far, so fast.  For instance, Obama forced Republicans to admit health care demanded a national solution.  That's not gradualism to me.  In a few short years after implementation (six?), we're no longer talking about whether to achieve universal coverage, but how.  Even Republicans state that as their goal - liars all, but the politics have moved dramatically leftward.

 

If Buttigieg is another Obama, who will move the window to a better place, achieve some landmark legislation, and plausibly mend the country a bit, I'm all for that, man. Sign me up.

 

There are better candidates who can do that and then some. There's no reason to go with Mayor Pete (depending on what we learn during this primary). And you are being overly generous to Obama - his moderate stances and his inability to understand the truth of Republican politics made him a much more ineffective leader than he could have been. Though I agree with you that he did do some good things, no question. Obama "winning' on healthcare was low hanging fruit that he still somewhat mishandled, in my opinion.

 

I like Obama, but I don't want another one. If that's all I can get, sure, I'll take it, but there's better out there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

I like Obama, but I don't want another one. If that's all I can get, sure, I'll take it, but there's better out there. 

 

One more thing about him: I never doubted he was in it to further what he believed to be our interests.

 

I don't believe that about Sanders, for instance. Harris, Biden, especially Warren, yes.  But Sanders engages in the same kind of grievance-driven "I win!" politics that characterizes Trumpism. That's why Buttigieg is so refreshing right now - I have zero doubt as to his sincerity.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ByWatterson said:

One more thing about him: I never doubted he was in it to further what he believed to be our interests.

 

I don't believe that about Sanders, for instance. Harris, Biden, especially Warren, yes.  But Sanders engages in the same kind of grievance-driven "I win!" politics that characterizes Trumpism. That's why Buttigieg is so refreshing right now - I have zero doubt as to his sincerity.

 

We'll see. I'm simply not as optimistic I suppose. :p 

 

But I will say that Sanders is absolutely in it for our interests - but he is tired of fighting the fight on obvious issues that should have been solved by now. Mayor Pete is simply too much of a question mark to be held to the same scrutiny of record that a Sanders or Biden can be. But I feel confident that Mayor Pete is sincere he wants to be President, and has shown he's politically savvy. Sincere as a person, I'm not sure yet - all that matters in the end is your voting record and your policy positions though, and Mayor Pete doesn't have enough of the former and he's been too vague on the latter.

 

Nothing else matters after that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ByWatterson said:

 

One more thing about him: I never doubted he was in it to further what he believed to be our interests.

 

I don't believe that about Sanders, for instance. Harris, Biden, especially Warren, yes.  But Sanders engages in the same kind of grievance-driven "I win!" politics that characterizes Trumpism. That's why Buttigieg is so refreshing right now - I have zero doubt as to his sincerity.

 

I truly believe Sanders cares deep down about the country and its direction. I figure if he were really driven by and for himself, he'd have picked an easier road to the White House than socialist mayor in Vermont while Vermont was Republican and then being in Congress until his 70s before running for president, you know? And I do think he's helping to shift the conversation as well.

 

However, while I'm more to the left, I agree with you about Obama, and it's something I feel some on the left don't give him credit for. I'd agree with them that Warren or Sanders are more consistent, definitely. But we went from, "Don't pass the ACA!" to, "Okay, we'll keep just about everything it does but it's gotta go." Medicaid expansion is being passed in Republican states and Democrats actively campaign on it. Even Doug Jones in Ala-freaking-bama supports the ACA, which 9 - 10 years ago, that wouldn't have been possible during the debate leading up to its signing.

 

The fact that we're discussing how to achieve universal health care (as you said), the types of Medicare-for-All (the original bill vs. opt-in vs. the amount of public v private insurance), is because the argument has fundamentally shifted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

There are better candidates who can do that and then some. There's no reason to go with Mayor Pete (depending on what we learn during this primary). And you are being overly generous to Obama - his moderate stances and his inability to understand the truth of Republican politics made him a much more ineffective leader than he could have been. Though I agree with you that he did do some good things, no question. Obama "winning' on healthcare was low hanging fruit that he still somewhat mishandled, in my opinion.

 

I like Obama, but I don't want another one. If that's all I can get, sure, I'll take it, but there's better out there. 

 

You really think Warren and Sanders can speak to Republican politics better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could be optimistic and believe that the country is tolerant enough to vote an openly gay man president,  but as a fag living in north Florida I am nothing but doubtful.

 

Society has become a lot more polite towards gay people in the last decade or two, but in general there’s a lot of so called “open minded” individuals who don’t seen gays as equal counterparts to straight men. A lot of these people aren’t even aware they have this

prejudice/bias, but I experience it often. They keep us around for entertainment and fashion, but it’s hard to be taken seriously as a strong and capable leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

There are better candidates who can do that and then some. There's no reason to go with Mayor Pete (depending on what we learn during this primary). And you are being overly generous to Obama - his moderate stances and his inability to understand the truth of Republican politics made him a much more ineffective leader than he could have been. Though I agree with you that he did do some good things, no question. Obama "winning' on healthcare was low hanging fruit that he still somewhat mishandled, in my opinion.

 

I like Obama, but I don't want another one. If that's all I can get, sure, I'll take it, but there's better out there. 

I don't see how Obama could have done any better if you are judging him by how much progressive legislation he passed. Congress is the reason Obama couldn't get his policies through, including Democrats, particularly in the Senate. Remember Pelosi got cap and trade passed in the U.S. House, but it failed in the Senate because senators from certain states said no. Take a look at the history of Obama's first term. He jammed through a lot of shit, but the politics of Congress are real. You actually believe that Bernie Sanders is going to do better at convincing moderate senators to vote for his plan than Obama was? Sanders connects with a third of the Democratic base, and the rest don't like him all that much. Most of Congress doesn't like him, and the only reason they support some of his bills now is out of trying to appeal to that third of the base, not because they like the guy. Honestly it's worthy of massive eye rolling to think that Sanders, the least pragmatic nutcase the Democrats have running, is going to be the golden ticket to a better America. I agree with @ByWatterson, Sanders is in this for himself.  He was born in 1941. He has no business running the country on that alone.

 

 

As for why Mayor Pete isn't coming out with 30 policy papers, it's probably because it boxes him in just like you guys said. The Bernie wing of the party isn't going to support him anyway because they're going to support Bernie no matter what, so what does he have to gain by turning off most Democrats who at least have some respect for markets? If Bernie wasn't running, I would bet more people would define their positions better this early in, but there just isn't a point strategically to do so yet.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

don't see how Obama could have done any better if you are judging him by how much progressive legislation he passed. Congress is the reason Obama couldn't get his policies through, including Democrats, particularly in the Senate. Remember Pelosi got cap and trade passed in the U.S. House, but it failed in the Senate because senators from certain states said no. 

This is as good a time as any to bring up that the fillibuster needs to be abolished.

 

“We don't have the 60 votes,” said Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “So Sen. Reid's a pragmatist. So rather than take us to a situation where we don't have the votes, rather than do half-measures, let's wait until we can get it done and get it right. So I think it's a smart decision.”

 

All the talk is not having 60 votes, not a majority. Climate change legislation of any kind will. Not. Pass. The Senate if you require a 60 vote threshold. Republicans will. Never. Sign. On. No one should hold any delusions about bipartisan climate legislation, it's just not gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

This is as good a time as any to bring up that the fillibuster needs to be abolished.

 

“We don't have the 60 votes,” said Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “So Sen. Reid's a pragmatist. So rather than take us to a situation where we don't have the votes, rather than do half-measures, let's wait until we can get it done and get it right. So I think it's a smart decision.”

 

All the talk is not having 60 votes, not a majority. Climate change legislation of any kind will. Not. Pass. The Senate if you require a 60 vote threshold. Republicans will. Never. Sign. On. No one should hold any delusions about bipartisan climate legislation, it's just not gonna happen.

Lets also be realistic about what will happen if a Democrat wins the White House in 2020. Republicans won't vote on a single confirmation. Not one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thewhyteboar said:

Lets also be realistic about what will happen if a Democrat wins the White House in 2020. Republicans won't vote on a single confirmation. Not one.

And if the Senate isn't taken back, I'd be shocked if any executive appointments are confirmed, outside of Trump continuees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

As for why Mayor Pete isn't coming out with 30 policy papers, it's probably because it boxes him in just like you guys said. The Bernie wing of the party isn't going to support him anyway because they're going to support Bernie no matter what, so what does he have to gain by turning off most Democrats who at least have some respect for markets? If Bernie wasn't running, I would bet more people would define their positions better this early in, but there just isn't a point strategically to do so yet.

 

On the other hand, people like me aren't going to be interested until he gives us something to get behind. Maybe people like me are a minority, but that still leaves me unsure why people are excited by a personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, legend said:

 

On the other hand, people like me aren't going to be interested until he gives us something to get behind. Maybe people like me are a minority, but that still leaves me unsure why people are excited by a personality.

We are a year and a half out.

 

He's a young nobody mayor from flyover country. My guess is he's doing everything he can to get his name out there while remaining palatable to as broad a base as possible.

 

I'm sure he has no lack of policy proposals, but why dive in that deep before 80% of the country even recognizes your name or face?

 

And I'd venture that people are so excited by this "personality" because he is the complete inverse of Trump in almost every conceivable way. After 2 years of hot garbage, it feels refreshing to listen to someone who is articulate, reasonable, honest, and humble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Scott said:

We are a year and a half out.

 

He's a young nobody mayor from flyover country. My guess is he's doing everything he can to get his name out there while remaining palatable to as broad a base as possible.

 

I'm sure he has no lack of policy proposals, but why dive in that deep before 80% of the country even recognizes your name or face?

 

And I'd venture that people are so excited by this "personality" because he is the complete inverse of Trump in almost every conceivable way. After 2 years of hot garbage, it feels refreshing to listen to someone who is articulate, reasonable, honest, and humble.

 

If he offers some sense of policy that seems reasonable, then that will be great! I don't think he's more of an inverse of Trump than someone like Warren who is also discussing policy, so I'm still not sure what the excitement is about though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Personally, I don't see a lot of substance in these criticisms.

 

Most of the issues cited are ones of systemic, national racism that likely couldn't be corrected entirely by a small town mayor (for example, the article even admits that the school system is not under the direct purview of the mayor's office, but that, regardless, Mayor Pete should have fixed the school-to-jail pipeline as well as broader segregation issues). They fault him for firing a black police chief, and express upset that minority applicants are having a difficult time passing entrance exams for city jobs. Not sure how much of this is directly traceable to Pete's functions as mayor.

 

One South Bend resident states that, “If he’s not out waving a banner saying I did this for you black people, then a lot of people are like ahh, I don’t know if he’s for us or not."

 

Another states, “A thing I’ve noticed about the difference between say older people and the younger generation...is if you are not demolishing [white supremacy] from jump then that’s not gonna work.”

 

Also, the top comment criticizes Pete because he's apparently not gay enough. He's just a white, gay, cis dude from the Midwest. 

 

I feel increasingly unmoored from the Democratic party. The more we embrace identity politics (for the love of all that is holy, someone is denouncing this gay presidential candidate for not being gay enough), the more we secure Trump's reelection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Massdriver said:

I don't see how Obama could have done any better if you are judging him by how much progressive legislation he passed. Congress is the reason Obama couldn't get his policies through, including Democrats, particularly in the Senate. Remember Pelosi got cap and trade passed in the U.S. House, but it failed in the Senate because senators from certain states said no. Take a look at the history of Obama's first term. He jammed through a lot of shit, but the politics of Congress are real. You actually believe that Bernie Sanders is going to do better at convincing moderate senators to vote for his plan than Obama was? Sanders connects with a third of the Democratic base, and the rest don't like him all that much. Most of Congress doesn't like him, and the only reason they support some of his bills now is out of trying to appeal to that third of the base, not because they like the guy. Honestly it's worthy of massive eye rolling to think that Sanders, the least pragmatic nutcase the Democrats have running, is going to be the golden ticket to a better America. I agree with @ByWatterson, Sanders is in this for himself.  He was born in 1941. He has no business running the country on that alone.

 

 

As for why Mayor Pete isn't coming out with 30 policy papers, it's probably because it boxes him in just like you guys said. The Bernie wing of the party isn't going to support him anyway because they're going to support Bernie no matter what, so what does he have to gain by turning off most Democrats who at least have some respect for markets? If Bernie wasn't running, I would bet more people would define their positions better this early in, but there just isn't a point strategically to do so yet.

 

While I don’t think Obama was quite as bad as his biggest detractors on the left make him out to be, I do think he was hostage to the financial lobby, and that he shot himself in the foot by saving the banks and then letting them foreclose on vast swathes of homeowners and throwing them out of their homes.

 

If he would have provided homeowners with the same debt amnesty he did the banks, and avoided appointing so many creatures of the financial lobby to key administrative posts, he and the democrats would have been so overwhelmingly popular that the Republicans and the Tea Party reactionaries would have never regained Congress and he could have passed more of his agenda—and more importantly, he could have achieved a generational ideological shift in a progressive direction.

 

But he did achieve some moderate legislative victories, and did a lot to shift the conversation in things like healthcare and gay rights in a better direction.  And, despite all Obama’s flaws, I don’t think Bernie Sanders and his ilk is the answer.

 

Much of the left might hate gradualism, or turn against it out of frustration, but I think those that do often forget that too many people in this country are of centrist persuasion to make anything else work without resorting to authoritarian tactics, at least on the economic front.

 

As a closet mutualist-anarchist, I’m a pretty radical guy myself, but I’ll still always defend one of the many insights that made Proudhon a better thinker than Marx—revolution sounds nice on paper, but in practice they are violent and inegalitarian affairs.  Sometimes they’re necessary (say, to end chattel slavery, or overthrow the tyranny of feudalism), but, generally speaking, evolution—preferably through broad-based democratic consensus— is the better means to a better world.  And that entails a tolerance for gradualism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

I wish I could be optimistic and believe that the country is tolerant enough to vote an openly gay man president,  but as a fag living in north Florida I am nothing but doubtful.

 

Society has become a lot more polite towards gay people in the last decade or two, but in general there’s a lot of so called “open minded” individuals who don’t seen gays as equal counterparts to straight men. A lot of these people aren’t even aware they have this

prejudice/bias, but I experience it often. They keep us around for entertainment and fashion, but it’s hard to be taken seriously as a strong and capable leader.

Hold up, @Komusha? Am I out of the loop here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

 

While I don’t think Obama was quite as bad as his biggest detractors on the left make him out to be, I do think he was hostage to the financial lobby, and that he shot himself in the foot by saving the banks and then letting them foreclose on vast swathes of homeowners and throwing them out of their homes.

 

If he would have provided homeowners with the same debt amnesty he did the banks, and avoided appointing so many creatures of the financial lobby to key administrative posts, he and the democrats would have been so overwhelmingly popular that the Republicans and the Tea Party reactionaries would have never regained Congress and he could have passed more of his agenda—and more importantly, he could have achieved a generational ideological shift in a progressive direction.

 

But he did achieve some moderate legislative victories, and did a lot to shift the conversation in things like healthcare and gay rights in a better direction.  And, despite all Obama’s flaws, I don’t think Bernie Sanders and his ilk is the answer.

 

Much of the left might hate gradualism, or turn against it out of frustration, but I think those that do often forget that too many people in this country are of centrist persuasion to make anything else work without resorting to authoritarian tactics, at least on the economic front.

 

As closet mutualist-anarchist, I’m a pretty radical guy myself, but I’ll still always defend one of the many insights that made Proudhon a better thinker than Marx—revolution sounds nice on paper, but in practice they are violent and inegalitarian affairs.  Sometimes they’re necessary (say, to end chattel slavery, or overthrow the tyranny of feudalism), but, generally speaking, evolution—preferably through broad-based democratic consensus— is the better means to a better world.  And that entails a tolerance for gradualism.

In some areas it's too late for gradualism. Specifically on climate. We're quickly burning through our carbon budget so solutions that would be deemed gradual today are probably not going to be effective enough given how much time is left to nearly zero out carbon emissions. They would have been great 30 years ago, though.

 

Also, don't delude yourself that there is a broad based consensus on something like this, when one political party denies it is even happening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scott said:

We are a year and a half out.

 

He's a young nobody mayor from flyover country. My guess is he's doing everything he can to get his name out there while remaining palatable to as broad a base as possible.

 

I'm sure he has no lack of policy proposals, but why dive in that deep before 80% of the country even recognizes your name or face?

 

And I'd venture that people are so excited by this "personality" because he is the complete inverse of Trump in almost every conceivable way. After 2 years of hot garbage, it feels refreshing to listen to someone who is articulate, reasonable, honest, and humble.

 

The great thing is there's no rush imo to get behind a candidate currently. I have some favored ones now (been really impressed with Warren), but with a little under a year away from voting, I'm just going to see how they campaign, what they're offering throughout the year, how the debates shake up, etc. A lot of people I see ranking who they like so far, but I'm just like, hey, what's the rush?

 

I get what you're saying about identity politics. I think it's impossible not to talk about it (civil rights are all about identity, and the economy disadvantages connected to many minorities are connected to things that have a racist past that don't seem racist now, systemic racism), but I post on Reset for example -- which isn't a progressive board as much as it is Democratic, if that makes sense -- and I've heard things like, "Man, Biden and Sanders are at the top, of course it would be old white guys," and, "I'd rather have a minority leading the pack than old white guys," and I go, "Yo, fellas, you do realize Sanders is Jewish and that's a minority, RIGHT? And that we've NEVER HAD A JEWISH PRESIDENT?" I saw a few Jewish board members go, "Yeah, seriously, why are we minorities when it suits some of you?" 

 

I'm pretty excited by how diverse the field is. We have several women, several black Americans (both men and women which hasn't happened until now), one Hispanic candidate, an openly gay candidate, a Hindu, a Jewish candidate (who's way better than freaking Lieberman), white men (who, some forget, are still an important demographic in the Democratic Party) and a Taiwanese candidate. It's honestly pretty damn cool.

 

14 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

I wish I could be optimistic and believe that the country is tolerant enough to vote an openly gay man president,  but as a fag living in north Florida I am nothing but doubtful.

 

Society has become a lot more polite towards gay people in the last decade or two, but in general there’s a lot of so called “open minded” individuals who don’t seen gays as equal counterparts to straight men. A lot of these people aren’t even aware they have this

prejudice/bias, but I experience it often. They keep us around for entertainment and fashion, but it’s hard to be taken seriously as a strong and capable leader.

 

You'll be happy to know one of our best workers at my station was gay and received a well-deserved promotion to a bigger market. He was totally a leader behind-the-scenes, nice as can be, friends with much of the newsroom and appreciated by the whole crew. :) 

 

Also, hit me up some time. You can't be in Florida and hide from me. :isee: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

In some areas it's too late for gradualism. Specifically on climate. We're quickly burning through our carbon budget so solutions that would be deemed gradual today are probably not going to be effective enough given how much time is left to nearly zero out carbon emissions. They would have been great 30 years ago, though.

 

Also, don't delude yourself that there is a broad based consensus on something like this, when one political party denies it is even happening

As I said, in certain cases something beyond gradualism is called for.  I think the 'revolutions' for the causes of ending slavery through the Civil War or feudal totalitarianism through the French Revolution were justified.  I can see how one might argue fighting climate change is one of those exceptions.  But I see a lot of people on the left basically doing what lots of people on the right did during the Obama years, and abandoning the idea of gradualism altogether, on all issues, because they think gradualism is what got them Trump.

 

The refrain of the right during Obama's term was "We tried gradualism with Bush and 'big-tent conservatism' and it got us Obama, time for Tea Party hard-right hysteria!"  That opened the door for Trump's alt-right takeover.

 

I just don't see this impulse to abandon all attempts at trying to forge consensus through compromise as being fruitful in the long term, as frustrating as it is to make concessions to people who are on the wrong side of an issue.  The rise of illiberal, uber-nationalist, nativist strongmen around the world--Orban, Duterte, Le Pen, Erdogan, etc.--is in part a result of this impulse, IMO, and it's easy to forget that a similar reactionary wave in response to the globalization of the 19th century eventually became part of the basis for the World Wars of the 20th.  I don't want to have to fight another Great War to revive the popular will for gradualist consensus-building in the West.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

But I see a lot of people on the left basically doing what lots of people on the right did during the Obama years, and abandoning the idea of gradualism altogether, on all issues, because they think gradualism is what got them Trump.

 

Also because we have, like, 12 years before the climate boils over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Also because we have, like, 12 years before the climate boils over.

Right, but that's not all that Bernie's about.

 

He, like AOC, wants Nordic tax rates but without Nordic free trade; he wants to break up Big Tech without addressing the underlying problems that allow Big Tech to wield such tremendous monopoly power; he's shown support for price controls on key commodities, which are blunt instruments that got Venezuela in trouble;  and he has a history of supporting brute-force nationalization of major industries.  Among other things.

 

All that has nothing to do with climate change.  And while I agree with many of the underlying goals he's aiming at, I don't think trying to achieve them in an uncompromising fashion and without a hint of nuance, as he's campaigning to do, (and as I've found many faithful DSA members are all for) will prove fruitful in the long term.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Amazatron said:

 

You really think Warren and Sanders can speak to Republican politics better?

 

Yes I do.

 

14 hours ago, Massdriver said:

I don't see how Obama could have done any better if you are judging him by how much progressive legislation he passed. Congress is the reason Obama couldn't get his policies through, including Democrats, particularly in the Senate. Remember Pelosi got cap and trade passed in the U.S. House, but it failed in the Senate because senators from certain states said no. Take a look at the history of Obama's first term. He jammed through a lot of shit, but the politics of Congress are real. You actually believe that Bernie Sanders is going to do better at convincing moderate senators to vote for his plan than Obama was? Sanders connects with a third of the Democratic base, and the rest don't like him all that much. Most of Congress doesn't like him, and the only reason they support some of his bills now is out of trying to appeal to that third of the base, not because they like the guy. Honestly it's worthy of massive eye rolling to think that Sanders, the least pragmatic nutcase the Democrats have running, is going to be the golden ticket to a better America. I agree with @ByWatterson, Sanders is in this for himself.  He was born in 1941. He has no business running the country on that alone.

 

 

As for why Mayor Pete isn't coming out with 30 policy papers, it's probably because it boxes him in just like you guys said. The Bernie wing of the party isn't going to support him anyway because they're going to support Bernie no matter what, so what does he have to gain by turning off most Democrats who at least have some respect for markets? If Bernie wasn't running, I would bet more people would define their positions better this early in, but there just isn't a point strategically to do so yet.

 

On Obama, I agree with the below if that helps explain my position.

 

2 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

 

While I don’t think Obama was quite as bad as his biggest detractors on the left make him out to be, I do think he was hostage to the financial lobby, and that he shot himself in the foot by saving the banks and then letting them foreclose on vast swathes of homeowners and throwing them out of their homes.

 

If he would have provided homeowners with the same debt amnesty he did the banks, and avoided appointing so many creatures of the financial lobby to key administrative posts, he and the democrats would have been so overwhelmingly popular that the Republicans and the Tea Party reactionaries would have never regained Congress and he could have passed more of his agenda—and more importantly, he could have achieved a generational ideological shift in a progressive direction.

 

But he did achieve some moderate legislative victories, and did a lot to shift the conversation in things like healthcare and gay rights in a better direction.  And, despite all Obama’s flaws, I don’t think Bernie Sanders and his ilk is the answer.

 

Much of the left might hate gradualism, or turn against it out of frustration, but I think those that do often forget that too many people in this country are of centrist persuasion to make anything else work without resorting to authoritarian tactics, at least on the economic front.

 

As a closet mutualist-anarchist, I’m a pretty radical guy myself, but I’ll still always defend one of the many insights that made Proudhon a better thinker than Marx—revolution sounds nice on paper, but in practice they are violent and inegalitarian affairs.  Sometimes they’re necessary (say, to end chattel slavery, or overthrow the tyranny of feudalism), but, generally speaking, evolution—preferably through broad-based democratic consensus— is the better means to a better world.  And that entails a tolerance for gradualism.

 

This, said it before I could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Right, but that's not all that Bernie's about.

 

He, like AOC, wants Nordic tax rates but without Nordic free trade; he wants to break up Big Tech without addressing the underlying problems that allow Big Tech to wield such tremendous monopoly power; he's shown support for price controls on key commodities, which are blunt instruments that got Venezuela in trouble;  and he has a history of supporting brute-force nationalization of major industries.  Among other things.

 

All that has nothing to do with climate change.  And while I agree with many of the underlying goals he's aiming at, I don't think trying to achieve them in an uncompromising fashion and without a hint of nuance, as he's campaigning to do, (and as I've found many faithful DSA members are all for) will prove fruitful in the long term.  

 

If you have a better candidate to win the general election amongst those in the primary, I'm all ears. No one is saying Bernie doesn't have issues, just that next to Warren he's the next best option so far. You really going to argue Klobuchar or Booker or Harris or Gillibrand or O'Rourke are more likely to improve the country than Bernie? Their problems are even deeper.

 

It's always been about picking the least worst candidate, in every election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...