you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 109 points 1 day ago (9 children)

GOP: We see you as subhuman and want to hunt you for sport.

Centrist Dems: That’s someone I can work with to craft bipartisan legislation that only compromises 95% of what my voters want.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    This "progressive" vs "centrist" bullshit is a false narrative. You could describe James Talarico or Adam Hamilton as centrist, but they have more in common with Bernie Sanders than with Chuck Schumer.

    This battle is about ethics and tenacity vs corruption and fecklessness, not "progressives" vs "centrists." Schumer clearly greases the wheels for his donors, represents the interests of AIPAC above those of the United States, and does not have the skills to lead with new ideas or stand up to would-be authoritarians. All the Democrats who represent the working people should unite to support another candidate for Majority Leader.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 23 hours ago* (2 children)

    I see what you're saying from a rhetorical standpoint: it would perhaps be more effective at uniting the democratic base against feckless and corrupt leadership if we drop the lateral-proximal political spectrum dichotomy.

    But from a purely descriptive standpoint, there absolutely is a difference between progressives and centrists. 'Centrists' in this context is shorthand for "fiscally conservative neoliberal establishment corporate dems committed to the status quo and appeasement."

    Whereas 'progressives' refers to "the party caucus fighting for the working class, reparative justice, pro-social policy, meaningful climate action, and other necessary reforms."

    One is beholden to large corporate donors, one only answers to their constituents. In practical terms, there's a huge difference.

    If we can communicate that better than simply saying "progressives" and "centrists," I'm all ears for the proposed vocabulary we should use. I'm not attached to the labels, I'm only interested in implementing the necessary changes that centrists actively stand in the way of.

    About Progress, Regress, and Status QuoWhat it boils down to is we have three options: progression, status quo, or regression. Only one of those is viable for the enduring wellbeing of democracy, the planet, and the common good. That much should be clear.

    Regression tries to glorify a bygone past and attempts to return to a fantasy of what was, while ignoring the policies that led to the few parts that were actually better (boomers are nostalgic for FDR's economy, so they demand Nixon's and Reagan's policies which destroyed the comfortable living standards they enjoyed growing up).

    Status quo attempts to treat the present moment as static, and it thinks we can ride out the coming storm by resting on whatever imaginary laurels a few people have amassed for themselves by creating, perpetuating, and accelerating the problems in the first place.

    Progression is the only option that looks into the future, assesses the paths in front of us and says "We can't go down this or that path because they end in disaster. This other path though gives us a chance." The only option that looks at where we need to go, what the goal is, (i.e. societal and planetary healing followed by collective flourishing), and asks "Okay what policies do we need to implement in order to start down this better path?"

    It should be abundantly clear by this point what we need to do, and it's incredibly frustrating that so many people still don't see that. And we're running out of time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 21 hours ago (1 child)

    I genuinely believe this is a false dichotomy. The descriptors you assign to each category may apply to some politicians, but many more hold complex views that don't fit into these boxes. The "fiscally conservative neoliberal establishment corporate dems" you're discussing are the corrupt people I'm talking about. These are the people taking bribes and not representing their constituencies, which is a totally standalone issue. This conversation must be about political reform and anti-corruption rather than some left-center conflict theater

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 19 hours ago

    The line isn't even that blurry. There are caucuses. The progressive caucus has over a hundred members in the next session of congress. The "New Democrats," i.e. fiscal conservatives, have slightly more, for now.

    There may be some in between but they need to make up their minds because this is the battle for the soul of the Democratic party, and if the progressives can't act quickly, 2028 isn't going to go so well, and as I've said before, we're running out of time.

    The moment for bold climate action was years ago, but now we have to scramble just to manage the catastrophe as best we can to minimize the damage it's going to cause. If you think this is merely about "conflict theater" then go home, if this is a game to you then stop playing. We're running out of time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago

    "Yes we gave ICE a $50 trillion budget for next year, but in exchange we recieved a gentleman's agreement that the president would consider allowing the permit for 1 wind farm to be reviewed."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago

    it’s bipartisan because it gives half my electorate something they selfishly want and only destroys the lives of 10% of my electorate for no reason! that’s what i call a compromise

  • source
  • parent