this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
294 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3605 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
294
Democrats are trying to work out what went wrong. On the left a consensus is forming (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

Following Kamala Harris’s unexpected defeat, Democratic leaders are scrutinizing their party’s failures, particularly with working-class voters.

Figures like Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Ro Khanna argue the party lacks a strong economic message, especially for those frustrated with stagnant mobility and neoliberal policies.

Sanders emphasized Democrats’ disconnect from working-class concerns, while Murphy criticized the party’s unwillingness to challenge wealthy interests.

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison announced he won’t seek re-election, leaving the party’s leadership in flux as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries prepare to assume top roles amid a Republican resurgence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 60 points 3 days ago (8 children)

They didn't show the entire tweet chain. Murphy starts off saying we should abandon neoliberalism which is good. But then finished by uncritically supporting men's rights, abandoning social issues, and abandoning action on climate change.

He's calling for Democrats to move to the right. The big tent he's pitching is fascism. A true populist movement that champions socialism and progressive causes can bring people together while also championing these issues.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You mean this?

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1855616243039916152.html

That doesn't fit your description.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Murphy starts off saying we should abandon neoliberalism which is good.

The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of fifty years of neoliberalism, which has left legions of Americans adrift as local places are hollowed out, rapacious profit seeking cannibalizes the common good, and unchecked new technology separates and isolates us.

But then finished by uncritically supporting men’s rights, abandoning social issues, and abandoning action on climate change.

But here's the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren't 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.

Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don't decide for them.

It fits the description to a T. We don't have time for 50% or 0% action on climate change. The window to avert key tipping points that will have catastrophic consequences for the Earth's climate is now.

As a trans person, I am not interested in 50% or 0% of my rights. I would like my right to exist, 100% of the time.

We should push back on some of the more fringe men's rights groups. No one is entitled to a state mandated girlfriend. But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

On climate:

But here's the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren't 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.

He doesn't say anything else on climate, and this is not "abandoning action on climate change." The people already in the tent don't agree on everything, and they have not "abandoned action" because of it.

On men's rights:

Meanwhile, men tumble into a different kind of identity crisis, as the patriarchy, society's primary organizing paradigm for centuries, rightly crashes. The right pushes an alluring dial back. The left says "get over it". Again, a refusal to listen/offer responsible solutions.

This is not "uncritically supporting men's rights."

But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.

Sure, if that's how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won't be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

He doesn’t say anything else on climate, and this is not “abandoning action on climate change.” The people already in the tent don’t agree on everything, and they have not “abandoned action” because of it.

The people who don't agree with climate change don't believe it exists.

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/06/trump-victory-sweeping-climate-consequences

This is not “uncritically supporting men’s rights.”

Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.

Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don’t decide for them.

We are listening to them. This is what they are saying.

This time around, one of the attack lines is “your body, my choice.”

https://www.vox.com/politics/384792/your-body-my-choice-maga-gender-election

Sure, if that’s how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won’t be.

That's how we're framing it. If that's not appealing to some people, there's a mainstream fascist political party they can join. We don't need two mainstream fascist parties.

By the way, the worldview is that all people are equal. And that inequality harms us all, but some people are harmed more than others. People on the left have no interest in a worldview where women are second class citizens.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The people who don't agree with climate change don't believe it exists.

Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?

Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.

And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.

That's how we're framing it.

Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?

We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don't believe in climate change. It would be a waste of time since they want to kill us and want to pollute as much as possible.

And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.

My argument didn't tell the MAGA movement to be fascists. A progressive and socialist populist movement could rally most people without needing for anyone to hate minority groups or disregard scientific consensus.

Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.

Good, so you agree then? We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution. edit: typo

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Exactly. Trans rights, radical climate solutions, but also yeah we need to work with young men to help them feel less isolated and vulnerable to the far right. We need to be talking with rural people as people not just over them

load more comments (6 replies)