Democrats already retreating from public option before DNC even starts

[Silvanus]

Of course it is, because it's one founded in actual history, not hypothetical scenarios that have to be premised with "well, if literally the entire country had a different party system...".

If you don't want to look at alternative possible outcomes of elections in order to determine whether those electoral outcomes had certain impacts, that's fine with me. You can just be quiet if you prefer.

Lyndon Johnson was a visceral racist, and was an anti-Civil Rights senator before he took on Kennedy's legacy. Goldwater was a Civil Rights proponent who voted against the Act of 1964 only because he thought the federal government constitutionally lacked the power to outlaw segregation done by private institutions.

Oh yes, I'm sure it was just a principled Federal-vs-State thing.

 

[Buyetyen]

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that at least 2 of them are full socialists so I would actually expect this from them since they seem to usually view people not as far left as them as more of a threat then those on the right.

Socialist myself. I just figured out early on that most US socialists are really, really bad at messaging, communication, getting out the vote and wrapping their heads around how the political game works. One reason they keep getting outmaneuvered is they refuse to learn what rulebook their enemies are playing by. They seem to think facts can triumph over rhetoric if they just belittle people more.

 

[tstorm823]

A man who distances himself from racism personally but knowingly facilitates it institutionally deserves condemnation all the same. This is what his gravestone may as well say:

'Here lies Barry Goldwater:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Betrayed his own words and beliefs in pursuit of the presidency'

That's not at all what happened. He didn't betray his beliefs in pursuit of the presidency, he stood by his beliefs at his own political peril. Voting against the Civil Rights Act was not the path to the presidency. Johnson ran an ad that was just the KKK endorsing Goldwater, and a second where a "Lincoln Project" style "Republican" disavowed Goldwater while mentioning the KKK was behind him. Racism wasn't a campaign tactic. The Southern Strategy is a myth.

He Knew He Was Right

The tragedy of Barry Goldwater.

www.newyorker.com

Most of the twenty-seven senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act were Southern segregationists. Goldwater was not a segregationist, nor was he any kind of racist. He was, in fact, a lifelong opponent of racial discrimination. At the beginning of his political career, as a city councilman, he had led the fight to end segregation in the Phoenix public schools; his first staff assistant when he went to the Senate, as Perlstein tells us, was a black woman; he was a member of the N.A.A.C.P. Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act because he believed, as a conservative, that the federal government did not have the power to compel states to conform to its idea of racial equality, or to dictate to individuals whom they must associate with.

The decision tormented him. Before the vote, he asked for advice from a political ally and speechwriter for his campaign, William Rehnquist, then a Phoenix attorney. Rehnquist assured him that the bill was unconstitutional. Goldwater sought a second opinion from another member of his brain trust, Robert Bork, then a law professor at Yale. Bork wrote a seventy-five-page concurrence. It was with a heavy heart (to borrow a phrase of L.B.J.'s) that Goldwater cast his vote on civil rights. He was, Perlstein says, "a shaken man afraid he was signing his political death warrant, convinced that the Constitution offered him no other honorable choice."

I'm not defending the stance Goldwater took there, I'm inclined to think the powers of the federal government to protect the rights of individual citizens are very broad, but to suggest he took his position out of political expediency is even more ridiculous than suggesting it was out of deep-seated racism.

Oh yes, I'm sure it was just a principled Federal-vs-State thing.

See above.

 

[Eacaraxe]

If you don't want to look at alternative possible outcomes of elections in order to determine whether those electoral outcomes had certain impacts, that's fine with me. You can just be quiet if you prefer.

One you brought up in post #222.

Take the same mass movement, and transplant it into a hypothetical Goldwater presidency, and there would certainly be no Civil Rights Act in 1964.

One in which you were not only factually (as it would have been Nixon in office, not Goldwater, in '64) and chronologically (Goldwater would have taken office in '65) incorrect, you brought up the wrong fucking bill (Goldwater might have impacted the Voting Rights Act, not the Civil Rights Act), and proceeded to make this choice at the opportunity cost of examining actual elections and the impact they had on the state of civil rights in the US, when you knew damn well the 1964 election had an intervening variable in the form of a sitting Democratic president dying of a gunshot to the head. And, all while freely admitting this was not a partisan issue in the first place, but rather a regional issue.

In other words you're asking, "but what if the post-Buckley neoconservative wing of the party had been in power before the event that put them in control?".

You're damn right I'm going to question the wisdom and intent of this facially dubious choice.

 

[Worgen]

Socialist myself. I just figured out early on that most US socialists are really, really bad at messaging, communication, getting out the vote and wrapping their heads around how the political game works. One reason they keep getting outmaneuvered is they refuse to learn what rulebook their enemies are playing by. They seem to think facts can triumph over rhetoric if they just belittle people more.

Hmm, I have to wonder if it comes from the fact that a lot of those voices here in the states are from younger people who are more likely to be super excited about their ideas and have almost no ability to argue them. Just a firm belief that they are so good it would be self evident and whoever they are telling them to will have to bow down before their ideas. It actually would explain a lot with how they argue and how resistant they are. Personally I'm not convinced by capitalism or socialism, but I don't really see many issues that socialism would solve that well regulated capitalism wouldn't.

 

[tstorm823]

Hmm, I have to wonder if it comes from the fact that a lot of those voices here in the states are from younger people who are more likely to be super excited about their ideas and have almost no ability to argue them. Just a firm belief that they are so good it would be self evident and whoever they are telling them to will have to bow down before their ideas. It actually would explain a lot with how they argue and how resistant they are. Personally I'm not convinced by capitalism or socialism, but I don't really see many issues that socialism would solve that well regulated capitalism wouldn't.

I don't think that's it. I don't think it's excitement for their own ideas at all, I think it's disdain for what they believe they are opposing. The internet isn't overflowing with people extolling the virtues of socialism, at least not in comparison to the quantity of people railing on capitalism. It makes sense that people excited about socialism can't argue for their ideas if what they're really excited about is opposing capitalism. And then often the criticisms of capitalism don't land because most often they aren't criticisms of capitalism to begin with, they're general cultural criticisms being assigned to capitalism as though it's a full societal system like communism and not just economics.

 

[Agema]

That's not at all what happened. He didn't betray his beliefs in pursuit of the presidency, he stood by his beliefs at his own political peril.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", he said.

Then he decided an issue of the distribution of power between two levels of government was more important then fundamental rights of millions of his countrymen. So either a) he betrayed his own words, or b) his definition of "liberty" meant the hopeless fucked concept of the freedom of a state to deny basic rights to its citizens.

And then he ran a campaign that knowingly expected his support of states rights to pick up racist, white, southern votes, even if not explicitly stated. That was the point the Republican party walked away and abandoned black voters, because they'd found a bigger demographic to appeal to.

 

[Buyetyen]

Hmm, I have to wonder if it comes from the fact that a lot of those voices here in the states are from younger people who are more likely to be super excited about their ideas and have almost no ability to argue them.

I think it's more likely that they just got carried away with their hate boners. Easy enough to do and anyone who thinks they're immune has most certainly done it before.

 

[tstorm823]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice", he said.

Then he decided an issue of the distribution of power between two levels of government was more important then fundamental rights of millions of his countrymen. So either a) he betrayed his own words, or b) his definition of "liberty" meant the hopeless fucked concept of the freedom of a state to deny basic rights to its citizens.

And then he ran a campaign that knowingly expected his support of states rights to pick up racist, white, southern votes, even if not explicitly stated. That was the point the Republican party walked away and abandoned black voters, because they'd found a bigger demographic to appeal to.

You're being obtuse. We have a constitutional system where the powers of the federal government are limited to protect the liberty of the people. It's not about whether that particular bill was morally correct or whether it was for or against individual liberty, it was about whether or not the federal government should have that scope of power with a mind to the future.

And he didn't do that. Southern strategy is still a myth. Accusations of racism were a campaign tactic against him, not a tactic for him. Get over it.

 

[Worgen]

I don't think that's it. I don't think it's excitement for their own ideas at all, I think it's disdain for what they believe they are opposing. The internet isn't overflowing with people extolling the virtues of socialism, at least not in comparison to the quantity of people railing on capitalism. It makes sense that people excited about socialism can't argue for their ideas if what they're really excited about is opposing capitalism. And then often the criticisms of capitalism don't land because most often they aren't criticisms of capitalism to begin with, they're general cultural criticisms being assigned to capitalism as though it's a full societal system like communism and not just economics.

Generally, but I have heard online socialists try and argue that socialism would get rid of all the problems, like racism and pollution and such. With no real explanation of how beyond some utopian views about things.

I think it's more likely that they just got carried away with their hate boners. Easy enough to do and anyone who thinks they're immune has most certainly done it before.

I think the hate boners would mainly need to come from them being questioned about things, but its been a very long time since I was willing to accept blind hate of something without reasoning to backing it up.

 

[Buyetyen]

Generally, but I have heard online socialists try and argue that socialism would get rid of all the problems, like racism and pollution and such. With no real explanation of how beyond some utopian views about things.

Ignorance and arrogance know no partisan distinctions in that regard.

I think the hate boners would mainly need to come from them being questioned about things, but its been a very long time since I was willing to accept blind hate of something without reasoning to backing it up.

You don't necessarily need to question someone to engorge a hate boner. All they have to do is not feel validated. And you can do that entirely unintentionally and out of nowhere they'll snap and make it uncomfortably personal while you're trying to figure out what exactly set them off.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Ignorance and arrogance know no partisan distinctions in that regard.

You don't necessarily need to question someone to engorge a hate boner. All they have to do is not feel validated. And you can do that entirely unintentionally and out of nowhere they'll snap and make it uncomfortably personal while you're trying to figure out what exactly set them off.

Yet, "we're" the arrogant, condescending, infantilizing ones who cannot go without insults and complain without backing up our points. Amazing it took you less than twelve hours left to your own devices to completely invalidate whatever point you may have made about others' conduct, by proceeding to act worse. And, proving the only thing really at stake was your indignation at facing pushback.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Maybe it's just fucking with people, because the modern far right have adopted the tactics of internet trolls.

Vocally throw their weight behind the Democrats, and see if they can put off enough voters.

Listen, I'm just having fun because it's both hilarious and a tad fucked up. It is just Richard Spencer being a fuckhead, but it also makes Biden look like exactly how we think, more appealing to Nazis than to the left.

 

[MrCalavera]

Listen, I'm just having fun because it's both hilarious and a tad fucked up. It is just Richard Spencer being a fuckhead, but it also makes Biden look like exactly how we think, more appealing to Nazis than to the left.

I mean, fuck, if Biden managed to appeal to actual neonazi, then maybe the DNC plan to appeal to conservatives starts finally working!

 

[Agema]

You're being obtuse. We have a constitutional system where the powers of the federal government are limited to protect the liberty of the people. It's not about whether that particular bill was morally correct or whether it was for or against individual liberty, it was about whether or not the federal government should have that scope of power with a mind to the future.

You evidently had a constitutional system limiting the federal government in order to protect the liberty of the states, as the historical record shows clearly enough the states happily suppressed the liberty of a lot of their the people in deeply unjust ways for many generations. That stopped when people decided to use federal power to force the states to grant those people liberty.

And he didn't do that. Southern strategy is still a myth. Accusations of racism were a campaign tactic against him, not a tactic for him. Get over it.

It wasn't me that called him a racist.

I'm saying he overtly supported a system that allowed blatant, formal racism, illiberalism and injustice to continue. This cannot be avoided when we want to assess what his commitment to injustice and liberty truly was. And my answer to that is "well short of his rhetoric".

 

[Iron]

Easy to see how disconnected the career politicians are from their own constituency. It's their own damned fault for supporting those parts of the party to try and get some enthusiasm and traction for a geriatric and demented candidate. They're still neo-liberal shills that'd stick to corporate welfare though, regardless of what they claim to support on the outside.

 

[lil devils x]

I mean, fuck, if Biden managed to appeal to actual neonazi, then maybe the DNC plan to appeal to conservatives starts finally working!

The funny thing is though, if you go to Biden's actual site, and listen to what Biden has been telling people this week, everyone can plainly see he hasn't changed anything substantial in his healthcare plan he announced on Monday. His healthcare plan still centers around a medicare like public option that he is making accessible to everyone. Where his tweaking of the plan has been done isn't in the things that are important to us, it is how to pay for it, which is expected and other technical details. It is STILL the best plan we have to shift to M4A thus far.

All the " talk" going around is just that... Nothing has really changed either way.

 

[Buyetyen]

Just dropping this in since some white people still believe there never was a Southern Strategy:

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

The forty-two-minute recording, acquired by James Carter IV, confirms Atwater’s incendiary remarks and places them in context.

www.thenation.com

 

[lil devils x]

Easy to see how disconnected the career politicians are from their own constituency. It's their own damned fault for supporting those parts of the party to try and get some enthusiasm and traction for a geriatric and demented candidate. They're still neo-liberal shills that'd stick to corporate welfare though, regardless of what they claim to support on the outside.

This is the US we are talking about. Not even our progressives can get anything passed through congress without some serious corporate bribes involved. What does anyone realistically expect to happen? The US has been a full blown corporatocracy for a long time now. Not putting in the bribes means nothing good ever gets done.. We can't even pass a great bill that everyone 100% agrees on without having some meat thrown in there for corporations.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I mean, fuck, if Biden managed to appeal to actual neonazi, then maybe the DNC plan to appeal to conservatives starts finally working!

Hey, you just have to drop healthcare, the environment, and welfare in general. Then just go tough on crime. It's not hard and it buys you so much.

Until you remember there's a party for that already.