Exaggerating The Power of Left Wing Democrats (1 Viewer)

[The Other Liberal]

There's a lot of talk about the left wing Democrats. Listen to the media and so called progressives and socialists appear to be taking over the party. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are viewed as powerful politicians pushing Democrats too far left with proposals like Single Payer Healthcare and the Green New Deal to fight climate change. The pundits on CNN and in print media like The Washington Post warn of rising socialism and left wing progressivism that alienates most voters especially working class whites Democrats need to win Congress and state houses. Moreover the mainstream media wrongly ties Democrats to controversial activists movements like Black Lives Matter and college students activists. The former calls for defunding local police viewed as racists, while the students fuel a repressive cancel culture. Everyone calls for a move to the center. Even Elizabeth Warren a liberal by any standard is too far left. Never mind the Democrats don't officially endorse such things. Not to mention the issues raised by activists are legitimate and complex.

It doesn't matter that false charges of left wing extremism among Democrats come from conservatives in the GOP. The media that adopts that narrative, and centrist Democrats use it to their political advantage too. Since the 1980s it has contributed to the rise of a centrist establishment that really controls the Democratic Party. It's not that left leaning Democrats are very powerful. They're just vocal and they stand up for their convictions. They draw a powerful contrast with the right wing GOP and centrist Democrats. Vilifying them and exaggerating their influence prevents Democrats from discussing or advancing a liberal agenda. Centrist Democrats and Conservative Republicans are alike in opposing strongly regulated markets, funding, and expanding safety nets especially health care. They don't want to redistribute wealth and income despite a grossly unequal economy that undermines working people either. If there were a strong liberalism within the party leftist concerns and demands could be translated into needed reforms. In many ways that's what the New Deal did. It's far reaching policy reforms eased the effects of the depression. The New Deal also tamed capitalism and created a welfare state that made life more livable for all. All of this preempts left wing excess. However centrists tend to be skeptical of liberal efforts. Like conservatives they're totally against the left.

What are the results of this politics ? You get a regressive and reactionary Republican Party that doesn't benefit anybody including millions of working class people who vote for them. These people fall for the scare tactics about socialism or prioritize social issues. Yet nothing is done about their material wellbeing. At the same time Democratic Centrism is only a little better. Too often the center is Republican lite. The left isn't relevant despite their pro working class rhetoric, and liberals are not really in the game. We don't even own up to our name or tradition. Most of us wrongly claim to be progressive. Many others liberals are centrists.

 

[Roofgardener]

You believe? Based on what?

The voices told me !

Here is one example; there are others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_Party

 

[Roofgardener]

I tried to post two screenshots showing Fox News reporting a violent riot in Portland, against CNN's now infamous 'Peaceful, but fiery' entry, but for some reason the forum is not accepting the links ?

 

[Lapaz]

Do you really believe that or is ‘both sides’ just the easiest line of attack to wage?

I absolutely believe it. If you read what I wrote, I wrote that Republicans are already controlled by their extremist wing, while Democrats are controlled by their extremist wing in some parts of the country. The trend is that Democrats are trending similarly to the Republicans. I hope that trend doesn't continue, otherwise we'll have two nationwide parties controlled by their extremists. Cancel culture is getting crazy in some parts of the country. When we start removing Lincoln and Washington from schools due to some flaw in their behavior by today's standard, then that's crazy, particularly because today's standard is becoming itself extremist. Will we cancel anyone who has cheated on his spouse? Will the future cancel anyone today that eats meat or has pets? If we follow this pattern, MLK will be cancelled.

Democrats have been the sane party for the last couple of decades, but I'm seeing insanity take hold in some areas as well. While House Republicans overwhelmingly voted to overturn the electoral college with over 150 of them voting to do so, over 30 Democrats voted to overturn it in 2005. While a majority of Republicans are sympathetic to QAnon, I think at least 5% of Democrats are sympathetic to Antifa, but a much larger percentage are sympathetic to cancel culture. We need to do something to strengthen the middle, because that's where the sane people reside. That's where I believe Lincoln, Washington, and even MLK reside.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't see 'cancel-culture' that rampant outside of California. I also draw a distinction between 'cancel-culture' and a corporation deciding to withdraw its support from certain people or ideals -- that is simply the free market at work.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I don't see 'cancel-culture' that rampant outside of California. I also draw a distinction between 'cancel-culture' and a corporation deciding to withdraw their support from certain people or ideals -- that is simply the free market at work.

I loathe that term because it implies every time there are consequences for behavior it's invalid. Like so many other social catch phrases it has become just a way of removing nuance from things and breaking it down to "me side good, you side bad" type discussion.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I loathe that term because it implies every time there are consequences for behavior it's invalid. Like so many other social catch phrases it has become just a way of removing nuance from things and breaking it down to "me side good, you side bad" type discussion.

Yeah, it’s the new bogeyman full of sound and fury and signifying not much actually
If the bulk of your argument is a slippery slope ‘what if’ then you don’t really have an argument

 

[zztop]

I don't see 'cancel-culture' that rampant outside of California. I also draw a distinction between 'cancel-culture' and a corporation deciding to withdraw its support from certain people or ideals -- that is simply the free market at work.

I've waited FOUR YEARS to post this (okay not really - but some comments here reminded me of this election special triumph did - which the humor might be an acquired taste)



Triumph discusses gender identity, micro aggressions and trigger warnings with young college voters

 

[Lapaz]

I don't see 'cancel-culture' that rampant outside of California. I also draw a distinction between 'cancel-culture' and a corporation deciding to withdraw its support from certain people or ideals -- that is simply the free market at work.

California starts a lot of trends, but it does exist elsewhere. What about the Cleveland Indians getting rid of the Indians name? I agreed with the Redskins getting rid of their name since that seemed legit, but some others are facing pressure. There are schools all over the country facing pressures to change their names. I’m using schools as an example, but the punishment for minor sexual transgressions have gotten extreme as well, like getting rid of Senator Franken. That showed the power of the far left. I agree that it has not become the norm among Democrats throughout the country, but the numbers seem to be growing.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

California starts a lot of trends, but it does exist elsewhere. What about the Cleveland Indians getting rid of the Indians name? I agreed with the Redskins getting rid of their name since that seemed legit, but some others are facing pressure. There are schools all over the country facing pressures to change their names. I’m using schools as an example, but the punishment for minor sexual transgressions have gotten extreme as well, like getting rid of Senator Franken. That showed the power of the far left. I agree that it has not become the norm among Democrats throughout the country, but the numbers seem to be growing.

The Indians thing I file under a corporation making a choice based on evolving social norms. It's a difference of degree rather than kind. It's not wholly unreasonable to think Native Americans would be offended by the name 'Indians' given the obviously racist mascot/logo that used to be associated with the team.

The other stuff, yes, is going too far. I'm more of a centrist and will readily acknowledge the far left does far more harm than good to the progressive movement. It only serves to add fuel to the numbskulls on the right that say cringe-worthy things like white people or religion is danger.

Sadly, I saw Senator Bill Cassidy in some clip recently mumbling how we need to "cancel cancel-culture." Uh, I have an idea, Senator, maybe you can actually dedicate your efforts to fix the countless problems the country currently faces rather than worrying about a school in California being renamed.

 

[Roofgardener]

I loathe that term because it implies every time there are consequences for behavior it's invalid. Like so many other social catch phrases it has become just a way of removing nuance from things and breaking it down to "me side good, you side bad" type discussion.

I see where you are coming from. Nevertheless, it makes me very nervous when a group of people - operating under an agenda - can put pressure on organisations to - for example - cancel a speaker, or ban an artist from a venue, purely because the artist in question disagrees with their social beliefs.

When governments or quasi-state organisations do this, it is reminiscent of 1930's Germany under Fascism.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

No it isn’t. It in no way resembles it. I’m not a fan of it either, but comparing it to 30’s Germany is a few thousand miles beyond hyperbole.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I see where you are coming from. Nevertheless, it makes me very nervous when a group of people - operating under an agenda - can put pressure on organisations to - for example - cancel a speaker, or ban an artist from a venue, purely because the artist in question disagrees with their social beliefs.

When governments or quasi-state organisations do this, it is reminiscent of 1930's Germany under Fascism.

Aside from the hyperbole that SBTB points out, it should be noted that ‘purely...disagrees’ is quite the strawman

 

[Xeno]

I see where you are coming from. Nevertheless, it makes me very nervous when a group of people - operating under an agenda - can put pressure on organisations to - for example - cancel a speaker, or ban an artist from a venue, purely because the artist in question disagrees with their social beliefs.

When governments or quasi-state organisations do this, it is reminiscent of 1930's Germany under Fascism.

You mean exercising our right to boycott?

 

[Lapaz]

The Indians thing I file under a corporation making a choice based on evolving social norms. It's a difference of degree rather than kind. It's not wholly unreasonable to think Native Americans would be offended by the name 'Indians' given the obviously racist mascot/logo that used to be associated with the team.

The other stuff, yes, is going too far. I'm more of a centrist and will readily acknowledge the far left does far more harm than good to the progressive movement. It only serves to add fuel to the numbskulls on the right that say cringe-worthy things like white people or religion is danger.

Sadly, I saw Senator Bill Cassidy in some clip recently mumbling how we need to "cancel cancel-culture." Uh, I have an idea, Senator, maybe you can actually dedicate your efforts to fix the countless problems the country currently faces rather than worrying about a school in California being renamed.

I don't think the name Indian was changed due to evolving social norms. I think it was changed due a vocal and influential group of activists, and those are the same activists that are behind a lot of cancel culture. In the context of a team logo, Indian reflects pride and power, not racism nor anything derogatory. If Indian is derogatory, then what about Cowboys, or Vikings, or Patriots, or Buccaneers, or Chiefs, or Raiders or Saints just from the NFL? Or from college, what about the Cajuns, Fighting Irish, Sooners, Rebels, Spartans, Knights, Trojans, and Minutemen? Most people would associate the people associated with those names with pride. We have military aircraft named Apache, Comanche, and people are very proud to fly those aircraft. I know the Indians logo of Chief Wahoo was controversial, but they got rid of the logo. If the logo was the problem, then that could be changed to be something more laudatory of Indians. Just create a logo of a strong Indian, instead of getting rid of the Indian nickname, with input from the Indian community. It wasn't enough for the activists, so Cleveland is bowing to unreasonable social evolution by getting rid of their name. That social evolution is an outgrowth of political correctness, and cancel culture seems to be an evolution of political correctness, all of which largely stems from far left Democrats, and that oversensitive culture will have a backlash. Instead of sensible progressive change, the left is getting associated with people fighting to ostracize anyone that is sensitive. That leftist excess sensitivity is essentially intolerance which is repulsive, and it is similar to the repulsive intolerance of the right. Since cancel culture advocates are left wingers, it is tarnishing all leftists with their ridiculous crusades. Unfortunately, I don't think liberal Democrats are pushing back against the nonsense enough for fear of themselves being cancelled. Trumpers didn't have power in the Republican party 20 years ago, but that group has grown in power. Social media may have accelerated that growth in the Republican party, and it seems like that party could be lost. We may find ourselves with a radical Democratic party as well if this far left intolerance isn't checked.

 

[Xeno]

I don't think the name Indian was changed due to evolving social norms. I think it was changed due a vocal and influential group of activists, and those are the same activists that are behind a lot of cancel culture. In the context of a team logo, Indian reflects pride and power, not racism nor anything derogatory. If Indian is derogatory, then what about Cowboys, or Vikings, or Patriots, or Buccaneers, or Chiefs, or Raiders or Saints just from the NFL? Or from college, what about the Cajuns, Fighting Irish, Sooners, Rebels, Spartans, Knights, Trojans, and Minutemen? Most people would associate the people associated with those names with pride. We have military aircraft named Apache, Comanche, and people are very proud to fly those aircraft. I know the Indians logo of Chief Wahoo was controversial, but they got rid of the logo. If the logo was the problem, then that could be changed to be something more laudatory of Indians. Just create a logo of a strong Indian, instead of getting rid of the Indian nickname, with input from the Indian community. It wasn't enough for the activists, so Cleveland is bowing to unreasonable social evolution by getting rid of their name. That social evolution is an outgrowth of political correctness, and cancel culture seems to be an evolution of political correctness, all of which largely stems from far left Democrats, and that oversensitive culture will have a backlash. Instead of sensible progressive change, the left is getting associated with people fighting to ostracize anyone that is sensitive. That leftist excess sensitivity is essentially intolerance which is repulsive, and it is similar to the repulsive intolerance of the right. Since cancel culture advocates are left wingers, it is tarnishing all leftists with their ridiculous crusades. Unfortunately, I don't think liberal Democrats are pushing back against the nonsense enough for fear of themselves being cancelled. Trumpers didn't have power in the Republican party 20 years ago, but that group has grown in power. Social media may have accelerated that growth in the Republican party, and it seems like that party could be lost. We may find ourselves with a radical Democratic party as well if this far left intolerance isn't checked.

Many of the groups you named aren't ethnic groups and the term "Indian" in reference to Native American/First Nation peoples is a misnomer stemming from colonizers who had no awareness of geography.

There's a big difference between using a term tied to colonization and using the actual name of a First Nation tribe.

Not tolerating intolerance doesn't make someone intolerant.

Please use paragraphs.

 

[Lapaz]

Many of the groups you named aren't ethnic groups and the term "Indian" in reference to Native American/First Nation peoples is a misnomer stemming from colonizers who had no awareness of geography.

There's a big difference between using a term tied to colonization and using the actual name of a First Nation tribe.

Not tolerating intolerance doesn't make someone intolerant.

Please use paragraphs.

I realize it is an ethnic group, but there is no reason that it can't be a source of pride. I think the fixes being advocated by the overtly sensitive crowd is the wrong approach. That group is lumped in with Democrats, and it is going to hurt the party.

 

[Xeno]

I realize it is an ethnic group, but there is no reason that it can't be a source of pride. I think the fixes being advocated by the overtly sensitive crowd is the wrong approach. That group is lumped in with Democrats, and it is going to hurt the party.

You're right, it certainly can be a source of pride (even though I personally find the idea of anyone taking pride in their ethnicity repugnant. We're all humans. Let's take pride in that instead). But they're not Indians. They were called Indians by white people who didn't know better and continue to be called Indians by people who don't care.

Nobody has a problem with a name like "Fighting Irish" because, well, the Irish are Irish. Calling them "Fighting Micks" would be a lot different.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I realize it is an ethnic group, but there is no reason that it can't be a source of pride. I think the fixes being advocated by the overtly sensitive crowd is the wrong approach. That group is lumped in with Democrats, and it is going to hurt the party.

Sorry (not sorry) about the genocide, how about we give you this patronizing nickname- that’s the essential issue
like having the Nevada Fighting Internment Camp Survivors