Democratic (Party) Direction

You don't have to use "socialism," just the goodies that come with socialism (healthcare for all, living wage, etc).

Hannity put OAC's whole platform up on the screen yesterday and it just looked dope
― Simon H., Thursday, June 28, 2018 12:57 PM

I saw a fair amount of people who aren’t socialists basically say the same thing today re: that Hannity still

you a good dude flopson but you're trying a little too hard here with the nate silver routine. DSA was a huge factor in her victory. Get out of the dem consultant mindset, this wasn't a "branding" campaign from 10,000 feet it was an on the ground campaign.

You do if you want the DSA to back you and canvass for you. xps

btw, imho the most exciting/future-laden aspect of AOC's victory (aside from her own future career as a lawmaker) is what it signals to potential candidates, not in 'the heartland' or wherever, but in the countless other urban districts across the country whose "safe" democratic incumbents haven't really stirred themselves to update their platforms and tactics since the 1990s.... both at the congressional and statehouse level. would be really cool to see more such flips happen.

I told my dad I was voting for Bernie and he called me a communist and made a burka joke. I was so startled I could only respond with, "I don't think you know what these things are."

ignore the stigma, even among the left, the word 'socialism' is mostly just the source of arguments and confusion. it's not worth the trouble.

― iatee, Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:06 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i would have agreed with you ten years ago. not anymore.

there's a whole generation of people who don't know much about socialism or socialists but it's still stigmatized.

So, what Al said is much more effective.

Thoughts from smart organizer & writer John Matthew Smucker:

If your analysis of Ocasio's win is "the party's liberals won," you're missing the fundamental thing: the populist axis of identification and mobilization. This isn't just bolstering a "liberal base." It's opening a popular insurgency against a corroded political establishment. That's how it brings in new bases of people, previously beyond the reach of either the Party's establishment or its liberal wing.

Ocasio's populism is refreshingly different than Trump's lemon populism. Her populism actually punches up at power, at extreme concentrations of wealth, and at structural problems—instead of punching down at the most vulnerable. Her "we the people" is inclusive of all of us.

The inclusionary populism of candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jess King is the winning ticket for progressive forces—to be the driver of history in the decades ahead. The dangerous alternative is the reactionary forces that Trump represents holding onto the momentum and consolidating their hold on the helm. In a populist moment, the status quo will not hold. There's no going back to "normal" or to how things were before. We have a choice between two fundamentally different visions and directions for society: one whose "we" is inclusive, and one that scapegoats immigrants Muslims, and who knows who's next. Not to be overly dramatic, but the last time industrialized nations had such a stark choice was in the 1930s.

I also think that when you have a policy position that's outside the mainstream, just getting people to say it on TV is often a win even if they're critical of it. Like now "Abolish ICE" is national talk, a few weeks ago it was mostly a lefty hashtag.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:02 PM (twenty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Policy statements that fit into two or three words are amazingly powerful. "Medicare for all" also was a lefty hashtag that by summer of last year was a train all the likely Democratic presidential candidates were getting on. Constantly shouting slogans like this changes the world.

the sheer memetic brilliance of "Black lives matter" I think helped kick this off

Not to be overly dramatic, but the last time industrialized nations had such a stark choice was in the 1930s.

yeah, all due respect but that's overly dramatic

you a good dude flopson but you're trying a little too hard here with the nate silver routine. DSA was a huge factor in her victory. Get out of the dem consultant mindset, this wasn't a "branding" campaign from 10,000 feet it was an on the ground campaign.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Thursday, June 28, 2018 4:07 PM (twenty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

im sure they ran a great campaign im really just nitpicking about one word. i think the fact that even DSA candidates don’t foreground any socialist economic policies belies the riskiness. the thing about my socialism concern trolling is we can’t really argue about it beyond gut feelings given the evidence. i like the ‘inclusionary populism’ quoted by hoos, to me that is the lesson from her win

"inclusionary populism" is bad

the thing about my socialism concern trolling is we can’t really argue about it beyond gut feelings given the evidence.

precisely, which is why I just think this is a weird time to have this conversation. I definitely see where you are coming from and I don't think your concerns are ridiculous by any means, but what means do you have at your disposal to convince others here, particularly on this day. we're all just guessing man

it's way too many syllables, it sounds wonky, it's evasive xp

rename "socialism" to "legal weed"

I do think you're OTM that what these candidates are advocating is not socialism as per the dictionary definition of the word; it annoys my inner pedant as well. In the context where Republicans fearmongered about Obama's 'socialism' for years, I can sort of see a strategic purpose in just embracing the label and diminishing its negative power instead of attempting a scholarly debate on terminology and one's exact stance on ownership of the means of production. xp to flopson

silby otm

yeah, all due respect but that's overly dramatic

― Οὖτις, Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:32 PM (twenty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tell that to people being deported and detained and the reporters watching the NYPD line up outside the Times office right now

It's high toned, I agree, and I'd rather I thought he was wrong, but I really really don't anymore.

Unless and until you can show me someone who lost who otherwise might have won but for self-identifying as a socialist, this is a pointless conversation. Anyone espousing those policies is going to get the label anyway. Democrats have spent too long playing defense against being called the wrong names. It's stupid and cowardly.

called the wrong names by people who won't vote for them, to an audience of people who won't vote for them, mind you

Trump's rhetoric is undeniably fascistic, and the GOP is anti-Democratic enough to both enable him and take advantage of him to advance their own anti-democratic agenda. I'd say alarmism is called for as long as it doesn't cause you to curl up into a ball and do nothing.

xps- yeah i wasn’t saying ‘inclusionary populism’ is a good slogan. im really bad at naming things (hence “flopson”) in general and don’t know have a great sense for what good politics branding is

One of the things I love about the word "socialism" is that it sounds nice and has the word "social" in it. Like it just doesn't sound scary no matter how hard you try to make it sound scary.

imagine if it were "weedism"

I have a better chance of knowing what you stand for if you call yourself a socialist than if you called yourself a Democrat tbh

alarmism is often necessary, but it's a paradox, and it can be a flawed political message. either you're right and the world goes to shit, or the crisis is averted and everybody says "why'd you get so worked up?"

Hoos you know I agree that things are bad and we need to react accordingly but this is not Europe in the 30s. This isn't even America in the 30s.

Do I think we're in the midst of a global downturn with food lines? No. Do I think we're watching global ascendant fascism like we haven't seen in almost a hundred years, and that we're moving closer by the day to unmasked American authoritarian nativism? Yes.

I agree!

but the level of armed conflict isn't even close to what was happening in the 1930s (much less the 20s)

I was gonna say, the entire species is facing total destruction and MAD is not gonna cut it this time. Alarmism is appropriate. xp

I'm not sure that Smucker's arguing that the level of armed conflict is what's comparable. His point is that on which we seem to agree.

in the 30s the choice was between two sides that were p much ready to murder the other wholesale, I don't think we're there yet (at least not on our side, because we're a bunch of rational humanist pussies and they own all the guns)

Not to be overly dramatic, but the last time industrialized nations had such a stark choice was in the 1930s.

yeah, all due respect but that's overly dramatic

― Οὖτις, Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:32 PM (forty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this aged well in light of the baltimore newsroom shootings

oh gimme a break

I know you guys have read one or two history books

let's not confuse America's rich tradition of bloodthirsty lone gunmen with America's rich tradition of organized political violence, sometimes these things overlap but they are not interchangable

does Faith of My Fathers by John McCain count?

Have we posted the clip of MSNBC failing to actually describe what AOC is about?

here’s the full clip pic.twitter.com/k983eBhr88

— Connor 🌹 (@alsoconnor) June 28, 2018

Yeah see no it's the climate that concerns me and only a massive restructuring will make a dent xps

no argument there

hrm, Democratic Alarmism, it has a ring to it i admit

Nixonland reminded me how much daily public violence occurred in the US in my childhood

thanks, really, this stuff is scary and def gonna get worse so perspective helps

Nixonland reminded me how much daily public violence occurred in the US in my childhood

an instance when old man "back in MY day!"-ism is actually valuable. Anyone who lived through the 30s + WWII and the late 60s-early 70s would tell you this is nothing compared to the regular incidents of open political violence of those eras. But, y'know, we're def heading in that direction since at least Charlottesville if not earlier.

i'm not THAT old

Do you recommend Nixonland?

I mean one glance at the level of historical violence between organized labor and strikebreakers in the US, or kristallnacht (30k people carted away!) in Germany, or the multiple(!) shootouts between the Panthers and various police departments, or Kent State, or any number of incidents puts the lie to that kind of rhetoric. Don't minimize what's going on today, but don't minimize what happened in the past either.

Nixonland is great.