Social Conor Lamb, House Moderate, on Biden’s Win, ‘the Squad’ and the Future of the Democratic Party

[MMAisGod]

@MMAisGod / @Jack V Savage , right out the gate, he discusses his unhappiness with how the defund the police message came about. He does have clear policies differences too but that one seems to touch on messaging v. policy aligning.

Been so busy at work just catching up to this. Also read the whole article.

Honestly think it was an excellent interview and pretty spot on. The messaging vs position taking makes sense too imo, but I think there's more depth to that. Since there are some members in the party that actually DO believe banning/defunding the police or the bad fracking take are good ideas, or people like we saw in Minneapolis, I'd like the see the names he mentioned on top of others in the party outright calling them out like "no, that is a bad idea and stop hurting our image, we are against that" when it's brought to them. To their credit, they do actually confidently state their positions, but they avoid confronting their peers in the same party. I think the non-answers in an attempt to not upset the farther left is more harmful than it is to be on the right side of it but not vocalize it strongly, because the more extreme positions get more airtime and shape public opinion. We criticize the media a lot, but if we had some of these individuals outright calling them out that they're wrong and causing more harm than good to the party the media would be reporting it and discussing it on all their segments. The way Lamb addressed this is a perfect response and I pretty much agreed with him on almost everything he said.

 

[Sano]

This is a coordinated effort to dismiss the progressive wing of the DNC, and its very obvious.
meanwhile every candidate that ran on m4a and other progressive issues won their races.

This x1000. Very transparent.

Not saying there isn't a legitimate discussion to be had about the best way to do politics, but most of the progressive policies have majority support and him claiming that they do not, despite the evidence, exposes a major bias. Ultimately it seems that many of the more moderate candidates that are opposed to the policies the people want lost their races and are now trying to scapegoat the progressive wing in an attempt to poisen the well, and regain control. What's the approval rating for Pelosi and Schumer again?

 

[Sano]

Medicare for all didn't win. Bernie didn't win. Moderate Biden won, and he spent his entire campaign courting moderate Republicans. Why is this being blamed on AOC?

During the primaries the reason for the DNC preferring Biden over Bernie is that it would hurt down ballot races. Well, they got their way, they got their candidate. How are they still blaming progressives?

Florida passed a 15 dollar minimum wage but voted for Trump. Several Trump states passed marijuana legalization. These are things Democrats supposedly are in favor of but don't actually make any push for. Biden never talked about these things durinf his campaign.

The reality is Democrats ran a terrible campaign in 2020 with terrible leadership. They offered nothing of substance, no vision for the future, didn't talk policy, and only ran on "Trump bad". They did the impeachment stunt, which only increased Trump's approval rating. Pelosi blocked a stimulus bill right before the election, when people needed it the most. That's all on the Democratic leadership, not AOC or Bernie Sanders. If Democrats have any sense they will replace Pelosi with someone less hated and more competent.

Good lord, that interview showed the full view of Lamb's ignorance and fecklessness. He's simultaneously shifting between "policies, not candidates, matter" and "candidates, not policies, matter" and implying that fracking is a ballot-turning issue but that universal healthcare is not.

Yes, we get that "I'm a marine, a Christian, and a patriot" is a winning policy-less campaign message in rural Trump country. But not the nation and national conversation move according to Trumpian identity politics, and for the umpteenth cycle in a row "not standing for anything" is the most consistent criticism of the Democrats by voters...and this is due to hollow persons like Lamb.

Preach.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Been so busy at work just catching up to this. Also read the whole article.

Honestly think it was an excellent interview and pretty spot on. The messaging vs position taking makes sense too imo, but I think there's more depth to that. Since there are some members in the party that actually DO believe banning/defunding the police or the bad fracking take are good ideas, or people like we saw in Minneapolis, I'd like the see the names he mentioned on top of others in the party outright calling them out like "no, that is a bad idea and stop hurting our image, we are against that" when it's brought to them. To their credit, they do actually confidently state their positions, but they avoid confronting their peers in the same party. I think the non-answers in an attempt to not upset the farther left is more harmful than it is to be on the right side of it but not vocalize it strongly, because the more extreme positions get more airtime and shape public opinion. We criticize the media a lot, but if we had some of these individuals outright calling them out that they're wrong and causing more harm than good to the party the media would be reporting it and discussing it on all their segments. The way Lamb addressed this is a perfect response and I pretty much agreed with him on almost everything he said.

‘Defund the police” is going to be the gay marriage of the next 4 years. They’re going to make it seem like every person left of Tom Cotton wants a policeless society. It’s just another form of fear mongering.

 

[ineverpost]

The "squad" is not going anywhere. They hacked the current system and got a demographic that rarely votes to start voting. Now that they've started, they aren't going to stop. Far left and moderates will need to work together to compromise. The last decade or more of government has been nothing more than lines drawn in the sand with no one willing to negotiate across party (and now the same party spectrum) lines. They literally do fucking nothing now except put on theater.

 

[MMAisGod]

‘Defund the police” is going to be the gay marriage of the next 4 years. They’re going to make it seem like every person left of Tom Cotton wants a policeless society. It’s just another form of fear mongering.

What? Some politicians have openly said they wanted to defund the police and that we need to do it. It isn't fear mongering if people are actually saying and meaning what they say. It's just that the position itself is a terrible policy and is not popular as a whole, and doesn't actually benefit anyone if it was to implement, so it needs to be shut down by more reasonable discussion. The longer people are allowed to chant "Defund the police" without getting checked the more problematic the perspective becomes due to added visibility of a bad position.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What? Some politicians have openly said they wanted to defund the police and that we need to do it. It isn't fear mongering if people are actually saying and meaning what they say. It's just that the position itself is a terrible policy and is not popular as a whole, and doesn't actually benefit anyone if it was to implement, so it needs to be shut down by more reasonable discussion. The longer people are allowed to chant "Defund the police" without getting checked the more problematic the perspective becomes due to added visibility of a bad position.

It is fear mongering to 1. Act as if defund the police = abolish the police and 2. lump every politician left of Tom Cotton into calling got the abolishment of the police.

 

[MMAisGod]

It is fear mongering to 1. Act as if defund the police = abolish the police and 2. lump every politician left of Tom Cotton into calling got the abolishment of the police.

Why do you keep mentioning Tom Cotton lol. That might be just a bit of hyperbole no?

Defund the police doesn't mean abolish the police at all though. Lamb for example didn't say anything close to that and he is a moderate Dem. Defund the police means just that, defund, the police, which seems to be an overall less popular opinion. There have been quite a few politicians shouting this position to the rooftops, but luckily they do not take up the dominant portion of total Congress. For low a low hanging fruit example, your girl AOC had this to say two weeks ago when she was upset that the police weren't getting defunded enough to her liking--

“Defunding police means defunding police,” the congresswoman said in a statement. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools.”

Ocasio-Cortez said that cutting the police budget is not effective if it does not result in the reduced presence of law enforcement.

“It does not mean counting overtime cuts as cuts, even as NYPD ignores every attempt by City Council to curb overtime spending and overspends on overtime anyways,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “If these reports are accurate, then these proposed ‘cuts’ to the NYPD budget are a disingenuous illusion. This is not a victory. The fight to defund policing continues.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...posed-1b-cut-defunding-police-means-defunding

So I don't think there is any confusion here. The position is as clear as it is harmful. No one benefits from this line of thinking and we need to see more emphasis in reigning this stuff in.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why do you keep mentioning Tom Cotton lol. That might be just a bit of hyperbole no?

Defund the police doesn't mean abolish the police at all though. Lamb for example didn't say anything close to that and he is a moderate Dem. Defund the police means just that, defund, the police, which seems to be an overall less popular opinion. There have been quite a few politicians shouting this position to the rooftops, but luckily they do not take up the dominant portion of total Congress. For low a low hanging fruit example, your girl AOC had this to say two weeks ago when she was upset that the police weren't getting defunded enough to her liking--





https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...posed-1b-cut-defunding-police-means-defunding

So I don't think there is any confusion here. The position is as clear as it is harmful. No one benefits from this line of thinking and we need to see more emphasis in reigning this stuff in.

I use Tom Cotton as an example of the typical high profile Republican. Hyperbole? Sure, but not really as none of his colleagues would push back on his insanity.

Defund the Police is an unfortunate, and nebulous term that means different things to different supporters, but nearly all reactionary detractors understand it as “abolish the police”. It was the same thing with ‘believe all woman’. It never meant that woman are always right and their word us all that is required to jail men, but that is how easily triggered people decided to interpret it.

edit: I agree with aspects of defunding the police, and I think it should be rolled out slowly over time. I also think any version of this bill needs to be accompanied by other social programs. I do not subscribe to the more extreme ideas associated with it.

 

[MMAisGod]

I use Tom Cotton as an example of the typical high profile Republican. Hyperbole? Sure, but not really as none of his colleagues would push back on his insanity.

Defund the Police is an unfortunate, and nebulous term that means different things to different supporters, but nearly all reactionary detractors understand it as “abolish the police”. It was the same thing with ‘believe all woman’. It never meant that woman are always right and their word us all that is required to jail men, but that is how easily triggered people decided to interpret it.

edit: I agree with aspects of defunding the police, and I think it should be rolled out slowly over time. I also think any version of this bill needs to be accompanied by other social programs. I do not subscribe to the more extreme ideas associated with it.

That adds some clarity for sure.

So think about this push, defund, the police department. If you're talking say, 10% which I've seen pitched to be moved to community services of xyz for abc reasoning, then you are by definition removing a percentage of the police budget to accommodate that. But. Who is impacted by this? Community X with higher crime rates, or Community Y in the suburbs with gated entrances? Which community needs a more established police presence, and would be hit harder by a reduction in those rates?

I say that because if anything, the budget needs to be increased, not defunded, since a large part of the argument against the police is lack of quality recruits and lack of training. I think most of us can or should be able to agree that those are two major problems. Then it become, how to address those issues. How can you improve on both of those items with a smaller budget? Doesn't seem likely. If you have more funding however, you can make the improvements necessary to enhance the quality of the police departments, which will in turn enhance the overall experience for everyone else. Thinking long term here, improvements with the police department can come by an increase in budget coinciding with an increase in oversight probably much easier than removing some of their funding.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Some background on this congressman. He got some national stage time in 2017 when he ran in a special election for PA's 18th congressional district. It was a district that went strongly for Trump in 2016 but he managed to win it by under 1,000 votes. At the time, I remember pointing out to people this guy shouldn't be considered a generic issue democrat because of a few of his positions on guns, fracking, etc. Shortly after in 2018, the Supreme Court redrew the gerrymandered districts in the state, leading Lamb to run in the now 17th Congressional District by 40,000 votes. This year, he won in the same district by just 10,000 votes and was vocal with Pelosi and leadership that the party went the wrong direction in national messaging.

This interview sums up some of those in-party fault lines that exist and I think the interview plays into the whole dilemma of how a party can't simply run the same within all districts and expect results. You see here, Lamb directly draws some criticism to AOC and her expectation that the party could all run under her same stances. It's a short read, I suggest just clicking the link and going through it.

Conor Lamb, House Moderate, on Biden’s Win, ‘the Squad’ and the Future of the Democratic Party
New York TImes

What went wrong for House Democrats when they were supposed to pick up seats?


Let’s take that issue. Joe Biden did not support defunding the police. Almost all the members of the Democratic Congress, even folks like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, came out against it. What is the party supposed to do that it didn’t?


Is it the view of moderate Democrats that the progressives or the so-called Squad has taken up too much space in the national conversation?


In the Democratic primary, even as progressive candidates lost, polling showed that their issues remained popular among Democrats. Even things like single-payer health insurance or things like the Green New Deal. What’s your response to that?


On Saturday, I interviewed Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and she mentioned you and how some House moderates ran their campaigns. I wanted to get a fact check quickly: Did you all spend just $2,000 on Facebook the week before the election?


You mentioned sniping. Are progressives leading that or are moderates also doing so? I’m thinking of all the anonymous quotes attacking members of the left, something that she mentioned.



I thought I'd post this one here and suggest you read the whole interview. It really shows some perspective of the range a party has despite being all rolled up in the same group. One thing I believe him and AOC do have in common however has been their displeasure with Pelosi. Lamb voted for Kennedy last time a vote came up for majority leader and obviously AOC has been very vocal about Pelosi as well.

It's interesting how the GOP's national messaging is always essentially identical to their regional messaging. The GOP doesn't feel the need to pick and choose or massage their stated policy objectives for the benefit of different audiences. At least not to any significant degree.

Why are the democrats so different?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

That adds some clarity for sure.

So think about this push, defund, the police department. If you're talking say, 10% which I've seen pitched to be moved to community services of xyz for abc reasoning, then you are by definition removing a percentage of the police budget to accommodate that. But. Who is impacted by this? Community X with higher crime rates, or Community Y in the suburbs with gated entrances? Which community needs a more established police presence, and would be hit harder by a reduction in those rates?

I say that because if anything, the budget needs to be increased, not defunded, since a large part of the argument against the police is lack of quality recruits and lack of training. I think most of us can or should be able to agree that those are two major problems. Then it become, how to address those issues. How can you improve on both of those items with a smaller budget? Doesn't seem likely. If you have more funding however, you can make the improvements necessary to enhance the quality of the police departments, which will in turn enhance the overall experience for everyone else. Thinking long term here, improvements with the police department can come by an increase in budget coinciding with an increase in oversight probably much easier than removing some of their funding.

That is the rub for me as I also believe better recruiting and training are needed, which would require more funding, but perhaps a simple reallocation of funds could accommodate that and funding could still be further reallocated to outside programs.

 

[Lead]

It's interesting how the GOP's national messaging is always essentially identical to their regional messaging. The GOP doesn't feel the need to pick and choose or massage their stated policy objectives for the benefit of different audiences. At least not to any significant degree.

Why are the democrats so different?

I think that’s core the the ideologies of each party. It’s much easier to unite a coalition that just wants to keep things as they were than to build one on change because a second dimension of “change to what” also is at play. There are differences in the Republican Party or at least different factions, especially back in 2012 but now it’s a little more blended and indistinguishable from one person to the best aside from how they view Trump.

Each party has the issue of what Lamb is discussing too though in how does a party achieve their goals whether it be in attempting very strong drastic proposals in the near term or slow gradual reforms over time. That’s always at play and you could see it in the dem primary this year a lot.

 

[MMAisGod]

That is the rub for me as I also believe better recruiting and training are needed, which would require more funding, but perhaps a simple reallocation of funds could accommodate that and funding could still be further reallocated to outside programs.

I also think it's a two way street. Some reallocation of funds are definitely needed, and that is what should be considered when discussing any increase in funding or how much. For example, on one handed, obviously you'd need additional funding to carry out those items especially long term, but, on the other hand, do we really need mini-tanks and super guns budgeted in almost every location that would never need it? Someone needs to really make a huge push based on the books, along the lines of "here's how much money is wasted every year, but here's how much money is needed every year, this is why we need more/need to allocate" and work it out in a reasonable fashion. Hardline stances hurt everyone from anywhere it's pitched. Most of the times the statements in general are fairly vague though so at best you can only gauge positions, but I'd have to assume someone working for these guys and gals has done some homework.

 

[Lead]

I also think it's a two way street. Some reallocation of funds are definitely needed, and that is what should be considered when discussing any increase in funding or how much. For example, on one handed, obviously you'd need additional funding to carry out those items especially long term, but, on the other hand, do we really need mini-tanks and super guns budgeted in almost every location that would never need it? Someone needs to really make a huge push based on the books, along the lines of "here's how much money is wasted every year, but here's how much money is needed every year, this is why we need more/need to allocate" and work it out in a reasonable fashion. Hardline stances hurt everyone from anywhere it's pitched. Most of the times the statements in general are fairly vague though so at best you can only gauge positions, but I'd have to assume someone working for these guys and gals has done some homework.

I might have things mixed up but I believe this is how the federal government gets local departments more compliant to a national standard. They essentially bribe them with very high end equipment like that which they may never need or use but it gets them interested and on the hook if they buy in. That’s part of the issue with trying to make this a national issue. There aren’t a lot of avenues congress has in telling a local police department what they can and can’t do. It usually has to be through some sort of bargain like that. People who care about this issue really should focus at local or state level for change.

 

[MMAisGod]

I might have things mixed up but I believe this is how the federal government gets local departments more compliant to a national standard. They essentially bribe them with very high end equipment like that which they may never need or use but it gets them interested and on the hook if they buy in. That’s part of the issue with trying to make this a national issue. There aren’t a lot of avenues congress has in telling a local police department what they can and can’t do. It usually has to be through some sort of bargain like that. People who care about this issue really should focus at local or state level for change.

Yea I think that's it. Like pretty much, "yea this nuclear deflecting tank-van, yea got all in" but it's nonsensical. I 100% think it should be a state/city level push, since different locals have vastly different needs. You can't really uniform it, but we need the leaders to push the issues the right way. As silly as it is to go radical with defunding police, it's just as bad to think they should be military-lite. So if anything, we need the state/local leaders to guide us, and call them out hardcore when they don't. If not we're just at their whim.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I say that because if anything, the budget needs to be increased, not defunded, since a large part of the argument against the police is lack of quality recruits and lack of training.

The thing is, Biden has pushed to increase funding both for this kind of reason and as part of a general approach of aid to state and local gov'ts to cover the revenue shortfall from the recession. Conversely, Republicans really have gone the other way as part of opposition to stimulus.

I've pointed that out before. The real-world policy fight is the exact opposite of what you see from morons on Twitter, in part because symbolism is more important to dumb political screechers than actual policy.

 

[MMAisGod]

The thing is, Biden has pushed to increase funding both for this kind of reason and as part of a general approach of aid to state and local gov'ts to cover the revenue shortfall from the recession. Conversely, Republicans really have gone the other way as part of opposition to stimulus.

I've pointed that out before. The real-world policy fight is the exact opposite of what you see from morons on Twitter, in part because symbolism is more important to dumb political screechers than actual policy.

I know I've said this before, but the main part of this argument that you always miss is that there's an active portion of the Democratic party that openly and confidently speak about defunding the police as the best method of approach. Republicans "opposing stimulus" isn't an active attack on police funding, not in that way as they are attacking stimulus in general which is like, everyone. A Dem saying "make sure my words are clear, I want to defund the police" is literally exactly how it translates, and it's a real life policy battle. I am glad Biden is there to check those in his own party.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I know I've said this before, but the main part of this argument that you always miss is that there's an active portion of the Democratic party that openly and confidently speak about defunding the police as the best method of approach.

I think the language here is vague. It's certainly not the position of Biden or the party's leadership. Are there some people who say it, though? Sure. And they don't even have a clear meaning. I think if the goal is to really understand what's going on in the real world, it's a big mistake to equate Twitter mobs or one or two outspoken politicians with a party as a whole.

Republicans "opposing stimulus" isn't an active attack on police funding, not in that way as they are attacking stimulus in general which is like, everyone.

Nevertheless, the impact of Democrats getting their way is more funding for the police, and the impact of Republicans getting their way is less funding for the police. Hence my point.

 

[MMAisGod]

I think the language here is vague. It's certainly not the position of Biden or the party's leadership. Are there some people who say it, though? Sure. And they don't even have a clear meaning. I think if the goal is to really understand what's going on in the real world, it's a big mistake to equate Twitter mobs or one or two outspoken politicians with a party as a whole.

I absolutely think they have a clear meaning. I mean, they quite literally, tell us to not confuse the meaning and police department's funding needs to be reduced to *insert arbitrary amounts. I have seen it either openly stated, or actually defunded to extents, from Democratic politicians in Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, NYC, LA, and a bunch of other cities across the country. This isn't "twitter Joe", it is active Democrat politicians pushing, attempting, or enforcing, their belief in defunding police departments. I've shared probably 6-8 different links to you at this point across these people but for some reason you keep think it's like only AOC and Twitter Guy X. The winner here is that there are more Democratic politicians with enough sense to not let the movement overtake the party, but the movement itself is directly exclusive to the Democratic party and that should be pretty unarguable.

Nevertheless, the impact of Democrats getting their way is more funding for the police, and the impact of Republicans getting their way is less funding for the police. Hence my point.

It depends on which Democrats, but if you're talking about on a national level in a big budget general funding, then yes. If you're talking about at the city and state levels, probably not. If there are $100 and it has to be split between HC, education, climate, and police budget, there's no way you yourself even believe that the Republicans wouldn't have a higher share budgeted to police.