“Voters are telling us what they want. We must crush their efforts.”
Happy to write “change” and “hope” on posters.
Not so happy to actually provide it.
the working class never sent them bribes. no bribes, no support.
This is the New York Times fanning the flames to divide the left. [EDIT for clarity: Divide the left means divide the vote means Republicans in power]
I’m sure they interviewed actual people with real opinions like this, but these are the opinions they are choosing to highlight and thus shape the narrative.
Okay, I see your flag and all of that, but I’m gonna take this in good faith.
The New York Times and other media have an opportunity to cast the Democratic Socialist Party as the cool kids, and even if that doesn’t align with the corporate Neolib agenda, it does allow them to make coalitions and leaves them to co-opt the DSP in the future.
TLDR, it is in the establishment Democratic Party’s interest to encourage and support the DSP. The New York Times in mainstream media is refusing to frame the politics that way.
The problem with the DSA isn’t that they don’t align with the corporate neolib agenda. It’s that the DSA seeks to abolish the institutions that liberalism relies on for its power. It is not in the interest of the Democrats to support the DSA except in so far as it allows them to sheepdog proto-revolutionary energy into dead ends. That’s how they use Bernie and in the last decade or so it’s how they used the DSA.
Until people understand what liberalism is, this confusion will continue. Liberalism is what made Thomas Jefferson want to split from the crown. It’s also the philosophy that allowed him to argue against importing slaves from Africa to increase the price of the slaves he sold from his “breeding plantations”, or rape farms as they might be more rightly called.
Every conservative in the US today, with a couple rare exceptions, is a Liberal, and every Democrat in the US today is also a Liberal. They differ on how far liberal values should extend, but they rely on the same power system: private property, profit, corporate personhood, common stock, police, genocide, and ecocide.
The DSA will only be a part of the Democrats insofar as they are a) ineffective or b) abandon their anti-capitalist pole. Outside of that, the NYT is doing the same job it always has done - protect the ruling class from the masses.
You are distracted by the term “the left.”
This article and and others that support this narrative, serve only to divide the Democratic vote.
Divide the democratic vote along any boundary and Republicans remain in power.
If you think Neolibs are just as bad as Nazis, then I can’t help you.
Do I think the Good Cop in the Good Cop / Bad Cop routine is just as bad as the Bad Cop? That’s not the question. The question is why, after all this time, and everything you know, do you still think that cooperating with the Good Cop is in your interest. It’s not.
The Democratic Party and The Republican Party are two fronts for the fascist elite of the Eurocentric empire, they have a single shared purpose. They collaborate on that purpose and take up oppositional positions in the public sphere to maintain and divide the loyalty of the masses.
Democrats winning has done absolutely nothing to stop the march of fascism. In fact, Democrats actively participate in the never ending fascism that birthed and sustained the USA for its entire existence. Don’t forget, not only did FDR put anyone vaguely asian-looking into concentration camps, the government stole their private property as well, while they were also building the racist redlining program into the banking industry.
The Democrats can’t save you because they have no intention of saving you. They are active collaborators in the whole fascist system, and part of their role is to get you a coffee and apologize for the bad behavior of their partners. But they’re not doing that because they intend to fix it. They do it because it gets you to support them and ignore the alternative.
You’re using words as if English were an immutable language, which it isn’t.
Yes, FDR was president of a very racist country and Jefferson owned slaves. But neither one pointed to a minority, thought “I can scapegoat them”, and then used violence and terror to break the political system and commit genocide.
No one can stop you from using 'facism" as a label for what I might call eurocentric globalism, but if you do so please do not expect anyone to react as if you were talking about genocidal bigotry.
Especially when we have actual genocidal bigots more than happy for you to dilute their second-most infamous label.
ok
thanks for sharing your carefully considered opinions
It’s only in their interest if you assume their interest is in governance. If that is not their interest, if they are actually interested in maintaining the status quo so they can keep insider trading from congress, then it makes sense for them to fight against the rising tide of progress.
do you think the commies are self-sabotaging from fear they might actually be in a position of responsibility and have to deliver some of their nonsense if they unite with the moderate left?
I’ve honestly always kinda rolled my eyes at the, “they’re the same party/working together” line as a trite bumper sticker.
But man, it really seems like they’re the same party and working together, excepting like three or four individuals.
The ratchet effect has been going on long enough that the best case scenario is they’re not competent when in power to get anything done.
Because they’re complicit
The Obama Wing
Lol lmao even. OP is unhinged
Obama is establishment, so I dont see why you would think of this as unhinged.
He isn’t in power though. This is just click bait
He had enough power to clear the Democratic field for Biden in 2020.
More than 6 years ago…
We’re still living in the fallout of 2016. The Dem establishment’s coordinated push against progressives (and the Clinton team’s strategy of trying to prop up Trump) greatly contributed to the rise of Trump. And that dynamic of an ascendant fascist right being bolstered by centrists more interested in keeping leftists out of office than fighting the fascists, has defined American politics for the last decade. You could even argue it started earlier than that with Obama’s failure to deal with the fallout of the recession, but honestly we could just keep going back in time if we wanted. I think the most relevant turning point for the current paradigm is 2016.
From there look at how they have treated or reacted to progressive candidates not even going to congress but local positions since 2016. They have not offered much in the way of support when they become the nominee and at times let a spoiler candidate run to stop them from winning. Some people may not believe it yet, but complicity is in the Democrat’s blood. The entire “tent pole party” is the same lip service as they give the “melting pot” metaphor now. That they’d rather a Republican at this time win over a progressive Democrat.
Has another Democrat become nearly as relevant in that time? Was Haley Stevens pretending that Obama endorsed her just last month? Are you really saying thst the Democrats don’t desperately cling to Obama’s popularity, or that that doesn’t give him sway within the party?
Because they are also deeply integrated with the bourgeoisie. Neoliberals will always favor fascism.
Obama wing? I’d be much more okay trying to call it the Hillary wing or Biden wing. But even that is stupid. It’s the corporate/oligarch-funded Democrats vs. the Democratic Socialists.
If you want to try and make your point, trying to tie Obama to the part of the party you’re wanting to attack will not help your case.
Also, where did ‘ascending democrats’ come from?
A class war subtext from NY Times…
Burn down the american system to the ground so a new democratic system can be erected in its place. A council shall rule not one singe person
I love how people think the Democrats are exactly like the Republicans.
Republicans bent the knee to trump x1000
Obama faced stiff push back and was considered a progressive almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS AGO. Obama is not the kingpin, he did not restructure the Dems or really change the overall party goals, he set expectations for more progressive administrations ahead of him and is part of the reason why establishment Dems can’t seem to get a bite.
Say what you want, judge as you please but he opened up paths for other more progressive candidates than himself and if you’re too stupid to analyze his term clearly, you probably voted for Trump at least once.
But he ended up actually not being a progressive.
What he did was show that “hope and change” (progressivism) was popular enough to win an election, which admittedly did pave the way for future progressive candidates. Even if he was just pulling the rug out from under his supporters.
He passed the biggest healthcare reform bill in decades in the checks notes few months he had full control of the legislature. Changes to it were hamstrung after Ted Kennedy died.
Did he prematurely triangulate in the hopes of getting Republican votes under the assumption that they were operating in good faith? Absolutely. But I think that was naivete, not a policy statement.
you probably voted for Trump at least once.
or at the least, not against at least once.
Because they help themselves and they aren’t working class people
what’s this gotta do with obama lol
These people declared war on Obama back in the day.
Conservative Democrats.
Stop calling them moderates.
Its new york times, ofcourse they paint them as moderates.
As long as people know not to repeat it.
Because they are right wing, just less right wing than the nut jobs currently sticking up the government.
And they want that donor $$$ so pretend to offer us a choice between left and right instead of right and extremist right.
