the Democrats need a more bold vision than what they have been doing which is offering essentially the status quo with some tweaks. — Mr Bee

I'll say it again, I think Biden's domestic policies have been the right ones. I had hoped to see what he could do in the second term.

If only there were a candidate that focused on working class issues, had popular proposals, took no corporate money, and had an energized, diverse coalition. It would be an example Democrats could emulate. Alas, no such candidate exists.

Oh wait…

If only there were a candidate that focused on working class issues, had popular proposals, took no corporate money, and had an energized, diverse coalition. It would be an example they could emulate. Alas, no such candidate exists.

Oh wait… — Mikie

I'm not talking about candidates with good ideas, I'm talking about how to win. Sanders is too far left.

Great set of suggestions. I'll add a concern, one that I don't know how to fix.

Everyone likes it when some government policy helps them. Many (including most low income people) resent it when something is done to help OTHER people, but not them. E.g.: the student loan forgiveness program. I personally never liked it, and I understand why working class people would resent it. This dovetails with some of the issues you raised: the perception is that focusing on LGBTQ issues implies not focusing on what is important to them.

Similarly with aid to Ukraine: many resent it. There's no apparent, immediate benefit to Americans. It's supportive of American ideals, and we liberal idealists support it, but this doesn't sell to many.

There used to be moderately liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Not anymore. The Democrats in Congress couldn't even work with moderates like Manchin and Sinema, so they're gone now. So, I think your idea is pie in the sky — T Clark

Which is what I said: “But that could never happen , for a few reasons. First, the party would never support an old line conservative.”

For me, Biden was exactly the right candidate. As far as I'm concerned, he is the best president in my adult lifetime. My first election was in 1972. I voted for McGovern. What I'm looking for is a strategy so that candidates like him or Harris can win. — T Clark

Of course Biden was exactly the right candidate for you. You’re a liberal. I’m saying a liberal like you or Biden or Harris can’t win unless they move far enough to the right that they become an old line conservative in the mold of G.W.Bush or Mitt Romney.

I think on economic issues, Democratic policies are better for working class people, no matter where they live. That's the point of my post - we have to back off on primarily social policies that drive these voters away — T Clark

I also think on economic issue Democratic policies are better for working people, but you will never convince them of that. It’s not just a question of which issues the party focuses on, but of the approach taken to those issues. The Democrats could cease talking about every contentious social issue (gender rights, gun control) and concentrate strictly on bread and butter issues affecting people’s pocketbooks, and they would still lose unless they moved far enough to the right to be indistinguishable from old line libertarian free-market Conservatives.

. I think the values represented in the Republican party these days are those of a fairly small group of exceedingly ideological politicians supported by corporate business. — T Clark

I think you’re making a colossal mistake in judgement. American right wing populism isnt driven from the top down, but from the bottom up. It’s a grass roots movement driven by your neighbors outside of your urban bubble. Talk to them and you’ll see what I mean. Talk to Bob Ross about the platform you think would bring voters back to the Democrats and see how far you get.

I think the right description of what you call "less educated workers" is just working people. They're the people who the Democratic party needs to bring back. They belong with us — T Clark

I focused on working people, but the heart of the issue isn’t workers, it’s a socially traditionalist value system shared by workers and wealthy people, those without college educations as well as those with advanced degrees, who are mostly from lower population density regions, with occasional exceptions like Trump. The main issue is what I call social I.Q. One can have a PhD and still rank low on social I.Q. What is social I.Q.? It is the sophisticated understanding of the complex systemic relations between individual and social behavior, and the best living laboratory for learning about it is residence in a diverse, cosmopolitan high population density urban center. The only way to bring back Trump-supporting workers, business owners and scholars is either to abandon economic and social policies based on social I.Q. (which is what most liberal-pprogressive economic policy is based on), or change Trump-supporters’ value systems, which cannot be done externally. They have to evolve on their own terms , at their own pace, incrementally over a long period of time.

I think you’re making a colossal mistake in judgement. American right wing populism isnt driven from the top down, but from the bottom up. It’s a grass roots movement driven by your neighbors outside of your urban bubble. — Joshs

I suspect this is correct. In your assessment, is Trump sincere or simply harnessing the available populism?

In your assessment, is Trump sincere or simply harnessing the available populism? — Tom Storm

Trump thinks like his supporters, so in that sense he is sincere. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t an opportunist, but he’s an opportunist who sees the world the way they do.

The only way to bring back Trump-supporting workers, business owners and scholars is either to abandon economic and social policies based on social I.Q. (which is what most liberal-pprogressive economic policy is based on), or change Trump-supporters’ value systems, which cannot be done externally. They have to evolve on their own terms , at their own pace, incrementally over a long period of time. — Joshs

Sounds like a lethal impasse for the next 10 or 20 years.

Trump thinks like his supporters, so in that sense he is sincere. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t an opportunist, but he’s an opportunist who sees the world the way they do. — Joshs

That's an interesting take. I don't think I've heard it said that Trump shares the views of his base. The only commentary I am familiar with is that he has zero convictions and merely harnesses the fears and bigotries of the unsophisticated to propel his movement. Liberal propaganda?

I watched some Trump speeches and saw him on Rogan and found him spontaneous, engaging and self-deprecating, I can see why people like him.

The biggest problem with democrats is that they are unable to market and speak to the working class. They aren't creating a political core that can be gathered around, there are no slogans or easily summed policies and democrats openly fight among themselves about policies that mean nothing to the regular voter.

I don't think the progressive support need to be dampened. I think the opposite is true, the problem is actually that democrats need to get away from the center because it doesn't offer anything. The working class have problems or feel that they have problems that need some solutions and the center liberal position will mostly just perpetuate things as they've always been.

I think you need to check this video I posted in the election thread. He sums things up pretty well. Look at the map of support for Sanders, that's what the people want, not what politicians want. The liberal democrats have been failing for so long now, losing support because they cater to lobbyists and center liberals with no actual insight into what politics that the people want.



The people want support in their life. The politics Sanders stand for is basically to install basic living conditions found in Scandinavia, or at least half way to it. If the democrats actually took a step to the left rather than waddling around in the center (as they've already have been for long now), then they would actually show people solutions.

Democrats suffer from the basic thing of "trying to satisfy all you will satisfy no one". They gained so little from catering to trying to win republican voters that they lost democrat voters.

Just stand up for something instead of trying to dilute everything down to nothing.

Sanders is too far left. — T Clark

No he isn’t. Which is the point. His ideas are good and popular— separating him from these proposals and saying he’s somehow too far left is absurd.

But I suppose we can keep pretending that going farther and farther right will eventually pay off.

I’m a liberal Democrat. I don’t like losing elections and we shouldn’t be. Democrats govern and Republicans destroy. We should be the majority party, but we’re not. Here are some suggestions about how we might go about fixing this. — T Clark

My suggestion: Do not approach the conversation as if you are the arbiter of moral truth, and the only available acceptable option. This is partially the reason Democrats constantly fail to inspire. They are authoritarian, as to people's views of them. In practice, though, there is little difference to the average person.

Your responses, over the course of months, suggest that you perhaps are not able to see this clearly. It suggests that, perhaps, you are in an ideological hole unable to even consider positions that make you uncomfortable. This has nothing to do with whether, or any specific issue, you hve the facts right. You probably do, in many cases. But to open a thread like this, the way you have, is extremely off-putting and highlights communication issues for the party. It seems you've taken on the same playbook in your own communiques.

This is why Democrats lose. There is no critical thinking. There is pandering and cowing to pressure. Sure, there is on the other side, but at least the last eight (10, i guess) years, that hasn't been a selling point or a legitimate criticism as it had been previously (and why, previously, I strongly lent democrat and on paper, probably still appear that way issue-for-issue). Republicans won this round because Democrats and the Party appear like shitty movie sets - no depth, push-over, shallow "how do we get votes" type of campaigning.


Perfect take, imo.

A core value... complicated, mate.

Haha, I see your frustration. Yes, people on both sides of the political isle are inconsistent in their beliefs.

By American core values, which I am surprised none of the liberals on here called me out on this yet (in such a manner as to bring up all the historically bad aspects of our culture that existed—e.g., slavery), I mean the fundamental moral, political, and metaphysical ideas embodied, albeit imperfectly at the time, in the constitution, the declaration of independence, and the founding fathers.

No, I am not saying that the founding fathers were perfect in their beliefs; but I think we can give them a charitable read and understand what they were going for fundamentally without accepting all the actions and habits they did and had as absolutely correct.

These values, which I did NOT put in order of importance, were:

1. Inalienable rights—e.g., the right to life, liberty, and property. Everyone has certain rights because their nature is such that they are a person.

2. Freedom of religion. Everyone should be able to follow their own notion of what is good, as long as it doesn’t impinge on other peoples’ rights.

3. Freedom of speech and press.

4. The right to not be unreasonably searched.

5. The right to not self-incriminate.

6. The right to bear arms.

Etc.

Liberals are moving away from these core values in the name of social justice.

American core value is gun freedom

Absolutely, Jefferson once wisely said that a rebellion from time-to-time is healthy for rebalancing society just as much as a storm from time-to-time is healthy for the earth’s ecosystem. Government inherently gravitate towards tyranny, and the friction which helps prevent it is the people being well-trained in and capable of owning lethal weapons.

also, you are against censorship, but you would avoid having a LGTBIQ flag in your classroom

I see what you mean; but freedom of speech is not the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. It is the right, ceteris paribus, for a citizen, as having the role of a mere citizen, to say what they want without fear of the government punishing them.

The role a person is currently assuming in society influences their duties. E.g., a cop cannot tell a person false information about the law, a government official cannot give their own opinions at a press conference when they are supposed to be representing whatever the government decided to say, etc.

So, yes, a teacher cannot express in their classroom their own particular opinions on things in a manner such as to indoctrinate their students into believing those opinions. Their job is to teach the kids the curriculum, and ensure their basic well-being.

you claim that it is essential to have different beliefs, but some of you label as 'Communist' the working model of Mondragón (Spain) for not being capitalist enough. 

I’ve never heard of that business structure before, but prima facie it looks good. Nothing about it is communistic nor socialistic (prima facie).

For me, it is to have a strong national healthcare system. So, to you is carrying a M-16 in your big polluting Ford truck.

I think a healthcare system that is actually governed by the free-market would be best; and the right to bear arms is more important: what does good health care do if you can’t protect your rights?

The problem America has with health insurance is that it is giant scam: they have no competition; there’s no transparency; and the whole idea of insurance is purposefully convoluted to make those companies more money. If the government forced them to engage in a free-market just like the old barber shop on the block, then it would be much better IMHO.

Yep, you are definitely to the right of what used to be considered establishment Conservatism.

I am not sure how that is the case.

that the outlook of educated urbanites is so far removed from your worldview that there is little room for compromise, which is fine with me

What do you mean? I am not following.

so in order to protect the Union we need to devolve as much power to the states as possible

Conservatives love limiting government; and unions are ehhh—I see how they are necessary sometimes, but sometimes they are just another form of the eradication of the free-market.

I also love short visits to Trump’s America, but I can’t live there.

What do you mean? :lol:

But my values are the morally correct ones, and the liberal cities are on the path to hell

Yup. I try to be as open-minded as possible and charitable to opposing positions; but, e.g., California is a shit show.

he has zero convictions and merely harnesses the fears and bigotries of the unsophisticated to propel his movement. Liberal propaganda? — Tom Storm

Not propaganda, just hypocritical nonsense, I think, designed to support the emotional responses to politicians you abhor. I was guilty of doing this, as a 'democrat', for like a decade.

Nothing per se wrong with that, though. Do what makes you most comfortable. Only lying about a politician would be - in this case, I think its just jacked-up weirdos doing the exact same gymnastics they do in their day-to-day lives to cover up hypocrisies and inconsistencies. That said, there seems to me to be far more willingness to lie, or at least allow untruths, to propagate as a specifically political tool on the Left.

From what I can see you are a jingoist ideologue.

I am not ultra-nationalist; but I am a nationalist. I think you are conflating the two, but maybe I am wrong.

You toe the party line and don't seem particularly interested in how the US will be governed as opposed to ideology.

I am failing to understand the dichotomy here: the US government vs. idealogies. What do you mean?

The idealogy is what is baked into the way the government works—all societies are that way. Everyone adheres to some (in)complete idealogy: are you suggesting there’s something wrong with that?

Says a supporter of the party that tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election for president in 2020

Trump did try to do that, and I do not approve of that.

The party that refused to consider a Democratic Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons.

I am fine with that: are you saying you wouldn’t want to pick a democrat over a republican if you could choose for the supreme court?!? That doesn’t make sense to me.

It includes such things as registration, permitting, background checks, gun safety, and restrictions on ownership for certain groups, e.g. convicted criminals.

Hmmm, those conservatives, then, I disagree with. E.g., registration is so antithetical to the 2nd amendment. Don’t you agree?

The only one that makes historical and contextual sense is banning ownership for certain convicted criminals (like violent felons): the constitution was written in terms of what reasonably law-abiding citizens would have as protections.

I think they would be approved by even those in conservative states if they trusted it wouldn't lead to more restrictive measures.

I hope not: then we are doomed. People have forgotten the freedoms and rights that the founding father’s wisely envisioned.

I envisioned it being paid for by private funds

That’s fine, and I agree.

This from the guy who wants to send US troops into other sovereign countries to force our ideological preferences down their throats. That's pragmatism?

This is a straw man and a red herring. I am saying that there are situations where countries have a duty to subject other countries to their values—e.g., North Korea, Talibanian Afghanistan, etc.

Republicans want to pretend the way black people have been treated historically is no longer an issue. It turns my stomach.

I can’t speak for all republicans on that (although I don’t think you are right here), but I can say that trying to provide retributions is nonsense and is unfair. You can’t make a right with two wrongs.

I don’t ignore that bad things happened, but turning our society into a identity politics game from a merit-based system regresses society.

The State of Florida has made it part of the school curricula that slaves benefitted from slavery.

Did you actually read it??? I don’t think you did. Here it is: https://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/20753/urlt/11-3.pdf . They did not censor any of the horrors of slavery in there.

The Republican party is as guilty of this as the Democrats. That's why I want to get us out of that business.

How? Conservatives are trying to get rid of it.

epublicans want to pretend the way black people have been treated historically is no longer an issue. It turns my stomach.

This is not a republican position, per se. I also highlight something which seems to be missed by all and sundry trying to advocate for various schemes. They are historical grievances. They literally not in issue. Barely a man in the land would deny their reality and import. What to do about the historical wrongs is what's at issue. So, this formulation is entirely wrong. The historical wrongs are not an issue anymore, plainly. The same way the gross, extreme and comparable (or exceeding) wrongs visited on northern Europeans, North Africans by North Africans in the 15-18th centuries is no longer an issue.

However, the treatment of Northern Africans by other Northern Africans today is an issue that no one seems to want to talk about, in this context. Its a pretty telling issue, though, that America abandoned slavery and Northern Africa has not.

the student loan forgiveness program. I personally never liked it, and I understand why working class people would resent it. — Relativist

I started out ambivalent about the program but came around to feeling it was a good idea. From what I can tell from the web, support for forgiveness was lukewarm at best. As you can see from my OP, I'm not so much worried about the Democrats policies as I am their non-policy actions.

Similarly with aid to Ukraine: many resent it. There's no apparent, immediate benefit to Americans. — Relativist

Most Americans support aid for Ukraine across the political spectrum. Whether or not there is resentment from some, I don't see it as an issue that is relevant to my concerns as described in the OP.

I'll say it again, I think Biden's domestic policies have been the right ones. I had hoped to see what he could do in the second term. — T Clark

What do you think he would do in a second term?

Not propaganda, just hypocritical nonsense, I think, designed to support the emotional responses to politicians you abhor. I was guilty of doing this, as a 'democrat', for like a decade. — AmadeusD

I don't like any politicians.

What I am looking for is an answer to the quesion is it true when commentators say -

...he has zero convictions and merely harnesses the fears and bigotries of the unsophisticated to propel his movement. — Tom Storm

Of course Biden was exactly the right candidate for you. You’re a liberal. I’m saying a liberal like you or Biden or Harris can’t win unless they move far enough to the right that they become an old line conservative in the mold of G.W.Bush or Mitt Romney. — Joshs

The whole point of my OP is that this isn't true, so, clearly, you and I disagree.

I think you’re making a colossal mistake in judgement. American right wing populism isnt driven from the top down, but from the bottom up. It’s a grass roots movement driven by your neighbors outside of your urban bubble. — Joshs

The majority of Americans, including in conservative states, support same sex marriage. Electorates in Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, Kansas - conservative states - voted to remove abortion restrictions or prevent changes in current law. The Republican party is not driven from the bottom up. It has been taken over by a relatively small group of rabid ideologues whose policies don't match those of their constituents.

I focused on working people, but the heart of the issue isn’t workers, it’s a socially traditionalist value system shared by workers and wealthy people, those without college educations as well as those with advanced degrees, who are mostly from lower population density regions, with occasional exceptions like Trump. The main issue is what I call social I.Q. — Joshs

Sure, social conservatism is an important aspect of the Republican electorate, but we don't need all Republican voters. A large percentage of Republicans don't support Trump because of traditional values.

The biggest problem with democrats is that they are unable to market and speak to the working class. They aren't creating a political core that can be gathered around, there are no slogans or easily summed policies and democrats openly fight among themselves about policies that mean nothing to the regular voter. — Christoffer

Agreed. Part of the point of my OP is that there are extraneous issues, which I described, which are preventing creating such a political core.

I think the opposite is true, the problem is actually that democrats need to get away from the center because it doesn't offer anything. The working class have problems or feel that they have problems that need some solutions and the center liberal position will mostly just perpetuate things as they've always been. — Christoffer

I don't agree with this. I think Biden's domestic policies have been the right ones, but they have been overshadowed by the social and political issues I described in my OP. Even if you're right, I don't think that undermines the value of what I proposed.

The people want support in their life. The politics Sanders stand for is basically to install basic living conditions found in Scandinavia, or at least half way to it. If the democrats actually took a step to the left rather than waddling around in the center (as they've already have been for long now), then they would actually show people solutions. — Christoffer

I like Sanders and I like a lot of his policies. You and I just disagree about what policy approach is the right one given political conditions in the US now.

Your opinion of my attitude is not really of interest to me.

I am not ultra-nationalist; but I am a nationalist. I think you are conflating the two, but maybe I am wrong. — Bob Ross

Your recent thread "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism" makes it clear this is not true.

Says a supporter of the party that tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election for president in 2020

Trump did try to do that, and I do not approve of that. — Bob Ross

I can't think of a response to that. You live in a different moral world than I do.

The party that refused to consider a Democratic Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons.

I am fine with that: — Bob Ross

Ditto.

The only one that makes historical and contextual sense is banning ownership for certain convicted criminals (like violent felons): the constitution was written in terms of what reasonably law-abiding citizens would have as protections. — Bob Ross

As I noted, not all conservatives feel that way.

I am saying that there are situations where countries have a duty to subject other countries to their values—e.g., North Korea, Talibanian Afghanistan, etc. — Bob Ross

Yes, I heard what you said. It could not be further from pragmatism.

What do you think he would do in a second term? — Mr Bee

More support for American workers and industry.

They are historical grievances. They literally not in issue. — AmadeusD

There's no sense in arguing about this in this thread. I have a hard time dealing with people who think that minorities, especially black people, somehow now have a level playing field in our society. It's not that is was historical, it's that it continues.

"you" being purposefully vague. "one" could suffice.

My response to that question, is the quote you've used. I think that quote describes the behaviour in that question you wanted an answer to :)

Your opinion of my attitude is not really of interest to me. — T Clark

A clear reading of my post would illustrate this is not what's being put forward. I refer to the Democratic party and their abysmal failures throughout. IF you read it this way, that explains a huge amount. I am not trying to be rude - this literally clears up some misapprehensions, from my position, you've engaged in. Not a disparagement.

it's that it continues. — T Clark

You have to be suggesting that slavery, or systematic (i.e open, and admitted) racism is extant. It isn't. Plainly (please don't be silly - obviously there are racist individuals, but the hyper-vigilance of your kind of thinking violates any sense of reason). So, unless you're suggesting the above, your position is nonsense. You're right, it's not worth arguing about. Either you notice reality, or you don't. This one is a direct disparagement, though.

Trump & Biden: I voted for Biden, but I said in 2020 that he was too old. Biden should not have needed armtwisting to forego his run for a second term. He should have announced in January that he would not run again -- thus giving his party 10 months to select the best possible candidate an to run a proper campaign. Who thought that Harris was the ideal candidate? She was the handiest, not the most ideal candidate. I voted for Harris/Walz--better than Trump.

Trump is a livelier corpse than Biden, but will likely run a far worse administration. Should Trump succumb to the grave, I expect nothing better from Vance.

It seems like it will be a while before Democrats will have another chance to prove to the working class that they are the best party for working people. It could easily be at least 4 years. Never mind better rhetoric. They need to burn to pass legislation that directly benefits working people in a substantial and enduring way. They could, for instance, pass laws (and fund their enforcement) removing barriers to unionization efforts. They could raise the federal minimum wage ($7.25 since 2009) substantially. They could regulate for better wages, working conditions, and benefits (the capitalists will howl in agony). The workers who most need a helping hand are the less educated, less skilled. What these people need are actual jobs, many of which were shipped off to Asia or Mexico.

I'm a long-standing member of the GLBTQ++ "community". We are not such a large constituency of the Democratic Party that we should be the focus of party policy. WHAT? Yes. The group that gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, and queers ++ belong to is first and foremost, working class. As deviant as we might or might not be, we have to do what everybody else has to do -- work for a living. Drop the identity focus. Whatever race, ethnic group, religion, or sexual predilection we are, we have deep common interests and needs AS WORKERS.

And another thing: Find and cultivate young talent, young leadership. and younger candidates. Enough with geriatrics already. (I'm 78; so is T Clark. Brilliant as we are, we're too old to be president, so don't look at us).

It isn't. — AmadeusD

A discussion for a different thread.

6. The right to bear arms. — Bob Ross

It is still very complicated to me to see bear arms as a constitutional right, or even more, a core value of a nation. Whenever some of you strongly defend the right of having access to weapons, I would like to answer. You want to have a weapon in your home to defend yourself from whom? -- Also, is there a correlation between carrying guns and safety? I think not. -- On the other hand, don't you trust your own neighbours or officemates? If you think that you live in a safe county, I can't see why you should have a gun in your house. 

It seems like if we decide to ban you from bearing guns, you would feel 'oppresed' by the state, and your freedom will not be fulfilled.

Liberals are moving away from these core values in the name of social justice. — Bob Ross

Interesting. Why don't you view social justice as a core value too?

I think a healthcare system that is actually governed by the free-market would be best; and the right to bear arms is more important: what does good health care do if you can’t protect your rights? — Bob Ross

Holy sh*t. You left me speechless. It is true that my country is poorer, but honestly, here reigns more common sense than there. I guess it is the luck of being born in Europe.