DNC purges progressives

GeorgeK said:

I think you've been listening to trolls telling deliberate lies rather than actual Bernie supporters. His top three issues are Healthcare (ranging from access to affordability including cost of medications), Environment (pollution to renewable energy) and Education (making it accessible and affordable for those who can actually do it.) Do you not consider those social issues?

Click to expand...

If his top issue, or one of his top three issues, is healthcare, how does that square with endorsing a candidate who is anti-choice and restrictive about access to healthcare?

GeorgeK said:

I think you've been listening to trolls telling deliberate lies rather than actual Bernie supporters. His top three issues are Healthcare (ranging from access to affordability including cost of medications), Environment (pollution to renewable energy) and Education (making it accessible and affordable for those who can actually do it.) Do you not consider those social issues?

Click to expand...

Yes, but they're not the only social issues.

As cornflake said above, birth control, comprehensive sexuality education, and reproductive rights are health issues. How do Bernie supporters decide which social issues, and which parts of which individual social issues, get thrown under the bus?

And are you telling me that people who say they support Bernie and don't care about social issues are lying? Why?

If Bernie supporters did support other progressive candidates, wouldn't we know about it?

Introversion said:

Hmm. Why is it dismaying to point out that Flake voted lockstep for Trump’s policies? Why are centrists interested in anything resembling the current Republican platform?

Click to expand...

It was more the tone, and the timing, than the content. I don't have any issue pointing out the hypocrisy, but it can be done in a way that doesn't come across as spiteful. I thought this was a sledgehammer approach.

Lyv said:

Not to put you on the spot, but what would your definition of "progressive" be? I ask that a lot and get different answers. I have been a proud Democrat my entire adult life and worked for social justice and for progress as a liberal, so I was surprised to find many Bernie-supporter progressives basically considered me to a conservative because I supported Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders for president. Nothing else mattered, only which candidate I supported.



I'd like to see your source for that. Did they further break down demographics by race. Did they also look at men? Do you remember?

Click to expand...

Given that HRC and Bernie agreed on more than 90% of issues, I'd like to know what differentiates being a progressive vs a liberal. I thought the terms were pretty interchangeable. I consider myself both, but I voted for Clinton in the primaries and the general election. As far as I know, Clinton supported all of the social issues I do, and it sounds like (now) that Bernie and some of his followers actually consider social justice, including women's rights (the heart of what I thought it meant to be progressive), to be optional.

The reason why Republicans win presidential elections (not to mention controls the house, senate, and most of the governorships) is that, in most states people who don't agree with or benefit from all, or even most, of what the GOP stands for still vote for them. Why? I've no idea, but the fact that the GOP still engenders more brand loyalty, and can also attract disaffected moderates and liberals, suggests that the democrats are failing at something the GOP is succeeding at. Maybe a lot of it is just racism etc. and a bunch of scared old white people who stupidly think they can set the clock back to circa 1955. People are afraid, and fear appears to make people more conservative in some ways.

But neither party is doing a good job of addressing what can be done about the number one job killer--technology that increasingly requires fewer humans to do jobs at all levels of education and skill (even in the sciences). The GOP focuses on immigrants and (in Trump's case) globalization as culprits that are stealing US jobs, and the Democrats push the conversion of our public higher education system to vocational schools for STEM (something the GOP is happy to go along with, since their kids usually go to elite, private schools anyway, and it behooves them for "commoners" to be disposable worker bees who haven't been thought to think critically--aka been liberalized--in school). No one is really ready to rethink our concepts of wealth, work, and ownership and to step outside of the traditional "capitalist vs socialist" box.

To the latter of Roxx's post -- there's a section in Hillary's book in which she addresses the whole coal miner thing, and her forthright addressing of the issue, and how, before the campaign, she'd looked into a bunch of things to address the changing economic and industrial future, including universal basic income schemes, which she and Bill had been introduced to, been excited by, then delved into deeply and felt there were too many issues with to advocate implementing on the kind of scale that'd be necessary in the U.S.

Someone was thinking about this stuff, and looking deeply into the numbers, the actual potential implementation, what all of it would mean, etc. That person is currently probably getting coffee in Chappaqua. Sigh.

To be fair, I would hesitate to argue that one needs a "liberal arts education" to be able to think clearly and rationally about important topics. Some of the most eloquent, intelligent, thoughtful people I know didn't go to college at all. On the other hand, some of the dullest, most unclear thinkers were liberal arts majors.

If there's a way to teach people to think, I don't believe it lies inherently in being enrolled in "English 203 - Socialist Perspectives in Literature."

FWIW, after Sanders threw his hat in the ring for the nomination, I followed a bunch of his supporters on Twitter to find out what they were thinking. The principal activity of almost all of those accounts was posting anti-Clinton video and memes. They're still doing it and they're not bots. So I'm not sure what to think.

Certainly not all of them, and maybe just a vocal minority, but I've seen enough to say that some (not all, not many, specific use of language here) Bernie supporters seem to fueled by the same burning anger, sense of being wronged somehow with accompanying conspiracy theories, and need cast themselves in a heroic anti-establishment light that put Trump in office. (sorry for the run-on sentence and I need to drop the Bernie animus)

A lot of older Democrats are not happy with the Clinton family and those that supported them. There was a bit of long struggle in the 70s and 80s in the Democratic Party. The emergent Third Way strategy appealed to the university-attending crowds but those who tracked to tech schools and traditionally joined unions were not in favour. The anti-Clinton folks largely voted for Obama because they believed Obama was behind them. In many ways, Obama held true. Lots to disagree with but there was lots to be in favour of Obama.

The frustration with the Third Way I get and can even agree with, though I'm not sure I see where Obama was so dramatically different from the Clintons. Shinier and baggage free yes, plus a really good man and great president. Dramatically more liberal/progressive than the Clintons, no, IMHO that is perception far more than reality.

Kjbartolotta said:

The frustration with the Third Way I get and can even agree with, though I'm not sure I see where Obama was so dramatically different from the Clintons. Shinier and baggage free yes, plus a really good man and great president. Dramatically more liberal/progressive than the Clintons, no, IMHO that is perception far more than reality.

Click to expand...

True. And some of them were exhausted by his work not matching his words.

Obama's awesome by the way. I was super-hard on him during his presidency, and some of it was pretty unfair, but I feel like you should admire politicians before and after their terms. When their in office, make their lives hard.

Kjbartolotta said:

Obama's awesome by the way. I was super-hard on him during his presidency, and some of it was pretty unfair, but I feel like you should admire politicians before and after their terms. When their in office, make their lives hard.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way. But he was very much a centrist while in office.

I miss having a centrist in office.

Just want to note that I have nothing of substance to add after my observation, but I'm following this thread with interest.

ElaineA said:

if you're going to latch on to the Democratic party and then work to undermine its candidates, go form your own damn party.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

I'm fine to push my party to the left. We have a lot of problems need to overcome--such as not centering our base. But if you just want to Godzilla all over the structure and people do go it elsewhere.

Hi Liv,
For me progressive and liberal are interchangeable. I define it as a deep concern for workers and civil rights. At its best, a progressive agenda recognizes how interconnected these issues are. Fighting economic inequalities and injustices for everyone regardless of gender, race etc can have a huge positive effect on civil rights issues. A very old example-- back in the 20s when Ford Motor Co started paying line workers the same wages regardless of race, that was one of the big foundations for an emerging black middle class.

I'm American, but I have a different perspective on US politics because I live in Europe where the party spectrum is much broader. Policies considered radically left in the US are mainstream here (health care!). And even some of the far right parties here are more liberal than the Republican Party on social issues in particular. So when I look at the Dems today, I see a center-right party (strong on social issues but weak on driving real economic programs that stomp on neo-liberalism) when I feel it should be center-left. The labels left and right are increasingly useless anyway.

On women's voting patterns, I'm pretty sure I read it on Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight.com. I loved their election coverage and the stastical look at what was happening.

Kjbartolotta said:

The frustration with the Third Way I get and can even agree with, though I'm not sure I see where Obama was so dramatically different from the Clintons. Shinier and baggage free yes, plus a really good man and great president. Dramatically more liberal/progressive than the Clintons, no, IMHO that is perception far more than reality.

Click to expand...

I agree, and sometimes I feel like some of the crap that Mrs. Clinton got came from a distorted view of Obama. I mean, I love the man. Like you, I was hard on him while he was in office, but I miss him, and he's probably my favorite President. But he was a centrist. John Kerry was probably much more liberal than him.

GeorgeK said:

The only difference between the DNC leaders and the GOP leaders is the DNC use language that is a little more politically correct, but it's just lip service.

Click to expand...

If that's truly how you see it, I imagine you'll have little time for "centrists."

Do you really believe that by the time Trump has dismantled everything built by Obama and previous presidents (EPA, Department of Education, Title IX), there won't be any difference?

Welcome to the States Of America. Because the United is now gone.

-cb

GeorgeK said:

Yes, those all and more fall under the heading of healthcare. I don't understand your point

Click to expand...

That Bernie is not really supporting those things, if he is campaigning for pro-life candidates.

GeorgeK said:

They don't. That's the thing about representative democracy. The person you elect does. All the individual does is help to elect their representative. Beyond that the individual has no real say.

Click to expand...

They have their say when they decide who to vote for.

GeorgeK said:

Because social issues is pretty much what Bernie represents, so if they disagree with him on everything he represents then they obviously by definition are not his supporters

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't really work like that. People can support a candidate for any reason they want to. It could be because they're ignorant and don't know what that person represents, or just because they like that person for whatever reason. They're not lying about being Bernie supporters. They just don't know what he stands for.

GeorgeK said:

Not unless you are active in local politics and have a local progressive running.

Click to expand...

What? Why? Local politics is not the only place where progressives exist. Bernie is "local" to somewhere, but he has national attention, when no other progressive does.

GeorgeK said:

The only difference between the DNC leaders and the GOP leaders is the DNC use language that is a little more politically correct, but it's just lip service.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely not true to the people who are actually affected by these social issues.