Social Obama: I worry progressives may undercut Democratic allies

[Seano]

Why are you doing this? @VivaRevolution doesn't post racist stuff and has never hinted at objecting to Obama based on the color of his skin.

Even the liberal posters who used to be able to think critically have been mind raped by the left. They can't help it. Racism, racism, racism. Its their mantra.

 

[Jack V Savage]

However if you go down the list of policy positions then a significant majority will sign on with policy positions that actually put them in the camp of progressives.

Which is why the terminology is wrong. The self-described "progressives" who burn with hatred at "centrists" who have essentially the same policy preferences (and prefer the far right to politicians on their side who they suspect of not being left enough) are better described as the performative left, while the base is more effectively left.

 

[Trotsky]

You were never an "ally", just an enabler.

In any other country neo-libs and socialists would be at each others' throats. In my country they are basically the eternal enemies of one another. The left's token hatred for conservatives hardly matches up with their hatred of neo-libs, whom they see as trying to assume their social justice platform for themselves, while continuing to march to the drum of capitalism.

Oh man, it must be awesome living in a country with a functional democracy where neoliberals and leftists can hate each other without having to be concerned about a conservative mutant baby literally doing everything in its power to destroy the government, work against the public interest, and perpetuate and enrich itself at all costs.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why are you doing this? @VivaRevolution doesn't post racist stuff and has never hinted at objecting to Obama based on the color of his skin.

I'm posting it because of the posts he made in the thread. Defining Obama solely by his race. He's black so he was an "intersectionalist Cultural Marxist" or whatever even though he didn't run or govern that way at all. Some people will just never be able to look past skin color.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm posting it because of the posts he made in the thread. Defining Obama solely by his race. He's black so he was an "intersectionalist Cultural Marxist" or whatever even though he didn't run or govern that way at all. Some people will just never be able to look past skin color.

That description doesn't register as an insult with me (I genuinely wish he was more intersectional or a Marxist of any kind), but it really is insane how Obama continues to get pegged as an identity politics extremist. He was - easily, by a wide margin - the least identity political president in several decades. I mean...it's not close with regard to Trump, Reagan, GHWB, and Clinton, all of whom's platforms were saturated in identity politics. The only one that is close to Obama, that I would say one could reasonably argue in good faith was less identity political than Obama, was his predecessor George W. Bush.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That description doesn't register as an insult with me (I genuinely wish he was more intersectional or a Marxist of any kind), but it really is insane how Obama continues to get pegged as an identity politics extremist. He was - easily, by a wide margin - the least identity political president in several decades. I mean...it's not close with regard to Trump, Reagan, GHWB, and Clinton, all of whom's platforms were saturated in identity politics. The only one that is close to Obama, that I would would one could reasonably argue in good faith was less identity political than Obama, was his predecessor George W. Bush.

Good post. Clinton's was interesting because it was right-wing identity politics he was using. Liberal policies plus conservative identity politics is probably still the best approach politically (though I'd have moral qualms about half of that program).

 

[glenwo2]

"One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States —maybe it’s true here as well — is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, 'Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,' and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a 'circular firing squad,' where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens," he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...progressives-may-form-a-circular-firing-squad

Obama makes a great point here, but I still think this will fall on deaf ears on the left. Conservatives have been touting on how the left have been eating themselves over the past couple of years and it seems like Obama is even starting to take notice.

While the majority of Republicans are moving left there are a lot of Democrats that are moving further to the left, which is causing a lot of former left leaning voters to vote Republican.

Please explain this.

 

[glenwo2]

Don't give a fuck what Obama thinks anymore.

The new Dem nominee doesn't need his or Hillarys endorsement.
Already moved way too progressive as whole party to carry those centrist fossils around. Not needed, stay home.

Follow your own advice on Election night 2020.

You'll be doing the country a service.

 

[TheGreatA]

Oh man, it must be awesome living in a country with a functional democracy where neoliberals and leftists can hate each other without having to be concerned about a conservative mutant baby literally doing everything in its power to destroy the government, work against the public interest, and perpetuate and enrich itself at all costs.

My read on the American political situation is roughly as follows:

I would consider the "establishment" views of the Republican party to be neo-conservative, whereas Democrats would be neo-liberal. The primary interest of each, is to protect market liberalism from populist uprisings. The Democrats pander to liberal sentiments whereas the Republicans pander to conservative sentiments, but in the end, sentiment takes a back-seat to the core foundation of their politics, which is to protect America's capitalist system. In their case, economics are the focus, whereas social issues are just fodder for the rubes, something that you have to talk about every once in a while in order to win elections.

The populist wing of Democrats is socialist/progressive, whereas the populist wing of Republicans is conservative/nationalist. Both parties are currently under-going a struggle where the "populists" of each party are attempting to assume leadership for themselves, from the so-called establishment figures, because obviously, there is no chance of running with anything other than the Democrat/Republican platforms.

Economically speaking, both nationalists and socialists have a tendency to lean left, even if they disagree heavily on where they stand on social issues. This is partially utilized as a "weapon" against the populists, by neo-cons and neo-libs (who always, above all, come together in their stout defense of market liberalism), keeping the populists divided and occupying the fringes of each political side, even if they might find agreements when it comes to economic policy (which, to them, often takes second place to the social issues that they act so concerned about).

In recent times, I've seen some evidence of something akin to collaboration taking place between the populist fringes of each political side, which is a sign that things may eventually change. But for now, it is mostly a matter of a couple of "far-right" dudes giving "far-left" dudes props for their energy and passion. You'd need a lot more common ground than that, in order to establish a new balance of power, similar to what the neo-libs and neo-cons were able to achieve, for so many decades.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My read on the American political situation is roughly as follows:

I would consider the "establishment" views of the Republican party to be neo-conservative, whereas Democrats would be neo-liberal. The primary interest of each, is to protect market liberalism from populist uprisings. The Democrats pander to liberal sentiments whereas the Republicans pander to conservative sentiments, but in the end, sentiment takes a back-seat to the core foundation of their politics, which is to protect America's capitalist system. In their case, economics are the focus, whereas social issues are just fodder for the rubes, something that you have to talk about every once in a while in order to win elections.

The populist wing of Democrats is socialist/progressive, whereas the populist wing of Republicans is conservative/nationalist. Both parties are currently under-going a struggle where the "populists" of each party are attempting to assume leadership for themselves, from the so-called establishment figures, because obviously, there is no chance of running with anything other than the Democrat/Republican platforms.

Economically speaking, both nationalists and socialists have a tendency to lean left, even if they disagree heavily on where they stand on social issues. This is partially utilized as a "weapon" against the populists, by neo-cons and neo-libs (who always, above all, come together in their stout defense of market liberalism), keeping the populists divided and occupying the fringes of each political side, even if they might find agreements when it comes to economic policy (which, to them, often takes second place to the social issues that they act so concerned about).

In recent times, I've seen some evidence of something akin to collaboration taking place between the populist fringes of each political side, which is a sign that things may eventually change. But for now, it is mostly a matter of a couple of "far-right" dudes giving "far-left" dudes props for their energy and passion. You'd need a lot more common ground than that, in order to establish a new balance of power, similar to what the neo-libs and neo-cons were able to achieve, for so many decades.

This is wrong on every point that isn't incoherent. I think it's mostly a result of you not understanding our system, which doesn't really allow victorious parties much power to implement their preferred agenda.

 

[andnowweknow]

Yeah prez of the united states.
You're batting .000 right now lol.

So is your mom.

 

[TheGreatA]

This is wrong on every point that isn't coherent. I think it's mostly a result of you not understanding our system, which doesn't really allow victorious parties much power to implement their preferred agenda.

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

No 1st world democracy gives the victorious parties much power in order to implement their preferred agenda. They are always met with opposition, and in the case of most other Western countries (America excluded), the victorious party also has to collaborate with a bunch of other political parties in government, in order to possess majority vote.

Since there are no major parties in America outside of the two, the collaboration that would normally occur in Western democracies between, for example, a socialist and a left-leaning centrist, in order to possess the majority vote, takes place within the party. However, since only one can truly be in control of the party structure, the other must occupy a fringe, which eventually leads to discontent. And this causes to a greater amount of internal competition within the American political parties, than what would occur in a multi-party system where the party members are more closely aligned politically.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Right, but if you understood our system, you would. You can look at Trump's presidency for a good illustration. Or note this: The actual limits of policy in America are to the right of *any* of the Democratic primary presidential candidates. All the gnashing about whether Jim is more progressive than John is completely beside the point, and everyone (including the "establishment"--which is undefined term--and "progressives" at the professional level) knows this. What determines how much policy moves is the makeup of Congress and how cleverly the president uses the power he does have (which is why American policy would move more in a progressive direction under Biden than it would under Gabbard). The notion that there's some shadowy party establishment that opposes candidates who move too far left or right reflects a deep misunderstanding of how parties work and how our system works. Another point many people don't understand--donors, party activists, and politicians who could plausibly be considered the establishment of parties--generally are to the left/right (depending on their party) of their typical voter. Voters don't tend to be "moderate", but they do tend to be inconsistently extremist, unlike people who are more committed to politics.

 

[glenwo2]

ROBERT CHARLES: Obama is right -- Dems' circular firing squad is set to give Trump a 2020 landslide

Former President Obama declared concern Saturday that Democrats are creating ”a circular firing squad” by embracing progressive socialists. He is right. Democrats are setting up a 2020 landslide -- for President Trump.

Some hope former Vice President Joe Biden will save the day, but it's unlikely. When he does declare his candidacy, what happens next will be fascinating.

What remains of the Kennedy-Truman-Clinton Democratic Party is in tatters. They imagine with relief that Biden, a seasoned — albeit perambulating, out-of-step candidate — can rise to the top. They are likely wrong.

The progressive-socialist wing of the new Democratic Party is powerful. But that will be the party’s downfall.

This new wing of the Democratic Party has no time for aging Joe Biden, a onetime law-and-order, anti-drug, pro-free speech, gun-owning, far-too-familiar Catholic. Biden is not hip, and could not be if he wanted to be. Biden is not woke. He is not lit, turnt, or fire.

Biden will be out-gunned and undone by the anti-American history wing of his own party. They are already out-raising him on mobile apps, using pro-socialist, anti-free market, pro-drug legalization, free college, free health care, anti-history rhetoric.

The new Democratic Party has contempt for Biden’s “white privilege,” faith, good fortune, old ways and salute of our flag. This ignorance and indifference will almost surely sideline the Democrats’ best shot. He has lived long enough to love his country, even if he borrowed a speech in 1988 from British Labor leader Neil Kinnock.

As Democrats feel their oats, they will coalesce around a photogenic pair of candidates. The majority of their party — labor unions, church-going minorities (of which there are many), hard-working and heartbroken parents of kids lost to drugs, families of pro-American veterans, cops and those who believe in Bill Clinton, never mind John Kennedy and Harry Truman — will be left behind.

Traditional Democrats will be left speechless, leaderless and party-less — sandcastles washed to sea by uninformed socialists.

Despite historical discriminators, this unchecked rush to an ill-informed, over-centralizing, oppressive ideology is exactly what happened in pre-1917 Russia, early 1930s Germany and Italy, Maoist China, 1950s North Korea, 1960s North Vietnam and Cuba, with violent leftists in Europe during the 1970s, Angola, Nicaragua and Grenada in the 1980s, and most recently the Socialist paradise of Venezuela.

Socialism invariably fails, spectacularly. Sadly, Democrats over 50 years old know this, but are not speaking up. As in all countries listed above, traditional Democrats hope what they see is not true, project their old values on new leaders, and ignore the reality around them.

Some may believe "powers that be" — such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — will sort this mess out. Others hope for the best, trust in old party labels, assume intergenerational party continuity, and think even if the worst happens, they will not be affected. Wrong. Restrictions on freedom, once begun, seldom retreat.

This is why historians say we are destined to err if we ignore history. So the Democratic Party is at an ideological tipping point. That endangers America. Americans are not socialists, progressive or otherwise. Americans are — by way of the Bill of Rights — anti-socialists. We are resilient, cussed individuals, not disposed to becoming a take-orders monolith.

Historically, we hate one thing — government or any force (including big data companies, overreaching states and runaway federal bureaucracy) telling us what to do, how to run our lives, or taking away personal choice.

That is why the 2020 race is shaping up to be a landslide. Beyond President Trump’s orchestration of stunning economic results, less regulation, lower taxes, reassertion of sovereignty, national security, emphasis on free speech, second amendment rights, energy independence, and renewed moral compass, Trump is authentically defending individual liberty against accelerating centralization.

A coalition of level-headed, historically grounded, less emotional Democrats — sensitive to American "heartland" values — may yet emerge. They may show the courage to stop this horrific slide left. But time is short.

An ideological recovery would re-center national debates — on everything from common sense health care and fiscal policy to traditional American concerns, including national, community and personal security. That would be good for America, for every American. Again, don’t count on it.

Democrats are ignoring American and world history, trying to remake us into socialists — which we will never be. That is why a Trump 2020 landslide is increasingly likely. The Democratic Party is on a beeline to nowhere, except wilderness. Obama is right.

- Robert Charles is a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush, former naval intelligence officer and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses.


>>> TLDR version :

Trump will win BIGLY if the Democrats do not remove their heads out of their asses and start talking POLICY instead of Get-Trump.

 

[TheGreatA]

Right, but if you understood our system, you would. You can look at Trump's presidency for a good illustration. Or note this: The actual limits of policy in America are to the right of *any* of the Democratic primary presidential candidates. All the gnashing about whether Jim is more progressive than John is completely beside the point, and everyone (including the "establishment"--which is undefined term--and "progressives" at the professional level) knows this. What determines how much policy moves is the makeup of Congress and how cleverly the president uses the power he does have (which is why American policy would move more in a progressive direction under Biden than it would under Gabbard). The notion that there's some shadowy party establishment that opposes candidates who move too far left or right reflects a deep misunderstanding of how parties work and how our system works. Another point many people don't understand--donors, party activists, and politicians who could plausibly be considered the establishment of parties--generally are to the left/right (depending on their party) of their typical voter. Voters don't tend to be "moderate", but they do tend to be inconsistently extremist, unlike people who are more committed to politics.

Let's put it this way, if the balance of power, the left-right split, in American politics were to be formed by heavily left-leaning socialists and economically left-leaning/centre/vague nationalists, with neo-liberals and neo-conservatives occupying niche positions (which to an extent, they do, in a number of European countries), the American system would permanently be moved towards a more socialist rather than capitalist economy. Now, rather than politicians fighting over whether America ought to be a little more or a little less capitalist, they would fight over social issues instead, while economic policy takes a back-seat. And the Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders types actually share quite a bit of common ground when it comes to economic policy, whereas a Bernie and a Mitt Romney-type share absolutely none.

There is absolutely no question that the neo-liberal/neo-conservative split has dominated American politics for the past several decades, and that socialists and nationalists have mostly been seen as wing-nuts by the main-line advocates of each party. Since neo-libs are, at most, centrists economically, whereas neo-cons are basically ultra-capitalists, the country has remained a rather heavily capitalist, economically right-leaning country compared to many of its Western counter-parts, where socialists and even nationalists are often holding the strings, forming balances of power that lead to economically left-leaning results.

Considering how our democracies are formed, it is not only important to understand what your own party consists of, but what the party opposite to yours consists of, as well. It is their level of resistance, and what they choose to resist, which determines what will pass off as acceptable long-term policy. For example, someone that is truly interested in turning the country left, economically, they will prefer a socially conservative resistance which may keep the trannies out of women's bath-rooms, but which won't take down your proposed health care package. Whereas someone whose focus is entirely on social issues, doesn't really care if an ultra-capitalist opposes their economic plans, as long as he doesn't really oppose gay marriages and such, with the kind of fervor that a true social conservative would.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Like how libertarians undercut Republicans and now they have no power? Or how the white-power base that is bleeding in has ruined the moderate right?

Lol. Whiiiiite peeeeeople baaaaaad!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Let's put it this way, if the balance of power, the left-right split, in American politics were to be formed by heavily left-leaning socialists and economically left-leaning/centre/vague nationalists, with neo-liberals and neo-conservatives occupying niche positions (which to an extent, they do, in a number of European countries), the American system would permanently be moved towards a more socialist rather than capitalist economy.

If both parties agreed on left-leaning economics (relative to the current baseline), policy would move to the left. That's a trivial observation. If you're willing to acknowledge that the problem is that we have a party that is committed to not only fighting any expansion of the safety net but to actually rolling it back, sure. That doesn't require any CTs about shadowy "establishments" suppressing whatever, though.

There is absolutely no question that the neo-liberal/neo-conservative split has dominated American politics for the past several decades, and that socialists and nationalists have mostly been seen as wing-nuts by the main-line advocates of each party.

Both terms are so vague that one can't question your claim meaningfully, true. "Nationalists" and "socialists" are also terms that mean different things to different people.

Since neo-libs are, at most, centrists economically, whereas neo-cons are basically ultra-capitalists, the country has remained a rather heavily capitalist, economically right-leaning country compared to many of its Western counter-parts, where socialists and even nationalists are often holding the strings, forming balances of power that lead to economically left-leaning results.

It doesn't matter what either party wants in its heart; it matters how much power it has to implement its agenda, which is the issue. Democrats can all take a blood oath to never do anything that Noam Chomsky wouldn't want them to do, and it wouldn't change anything unless they were able to get large majorities in Congress and to remake the courts.

On the other side, look at Obama. Not a far-left guy, but one of the best presidents ever for progressives because of how intelligently he wielded the limited power he had.

 

[unimackpass]

ROBERT CHARLES: Obama is right -- Dems' circular firing squad is set to give Trump a 2020 landslide

Former President Obama declared concern Saturday that Democrats are creating ”a circular firing squad” by embracing progressive socialists. He is right. Democrats are setting up a 2020 landslide -- for President Trump.

Some hope former Vice President Joe Biden will save the day, but it's unlikely. When he does declare his candidacy, what happens next will be fascinating.

What remains of the Kennedy-Truman-Clinton Democratic Party is in tatters. They imagine with relief that Biden, a seasoned — albeit perambulating, out-of-step candidate — can rise to the top. They are likely wrong.

The progressive-socialist wing of the new Democratic Party is powerful. But that will be the party’s downfall.

This new wing of the Democratic Party has no time for aging Joe Biden, a onetime law-and-order, anti-drug, pro-free speech, gun-owning, far-too-familiar Catholic. Biden is not hip, and could not be if he wanted to be. Biden is not woke. He is not lit, turnt, or fire.

Biden will be out-gunned and undone by the anti-American history wing of his own party. They are already out-raising him on mobile apps, using pro-socialist, anti-free market, pro-drug legalization, free college, free health care, anti-history rhetoric.

The new Democratic Party has contempt for Biden’s “white privilege,” faith, good fortune, old ways and salute of our flag. This ignorance and indifference will almost surely sideline the Democrats’ best shot. He has lived long enough to love his country, even if he borrowed a speech in 1988 from British Labor leader Neil Kinnock.

As Democrats feel their oats, they will coalesce around a photogenic pair of candidates. The majority of their party — labor unions, church-going minorities (of which there are many), hard-working and heartbroken parents of kids lost to drugs, families of pro-American veterans, cops and those who believe in Bill Clinton, never mind John Kennedy and Harry Truman — will be left behind.

Traditional Democrats will be left speechless, leaderless and party-less — sandcastles washed to sea by uninformed socialists.

Despite historical discriminators, this unchecked rush to an ill-informed, over-centralizing, oppressive ideology is exactly what happened in pre-1917 Russia, early 1930s Germany and Italy, Maoist China, 1950s North Korea, 1960s North Vietnam and Cuba, with violent leftists in Europe during the 1970s, Angola, Nicaragua and Grenada in the 1980s, and most recently the Socialist paradise of Venezuela.

Socialism invariably fails, spectacularly. Sadly, Democrats over 50 years old know this, but are not speaking up. As in all countries listed above, traditional Democrats hope what they see is not true, project their old values on new leaders, and ignore the reality around them.

Some may believe "powers that be" — such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — will sort this mess out. Others hope for the best, trust in old party labels, assume intergenerational party continuity, and think even if the worst happens, they will not be affected. Wrong. Restrictions on freedom, once begun, seldom retreat.

This is why historians say we are destined to err if we ignore history. So the Democratic Party is at an ideological tipping point. That endangers America. Americans are not socialists, progressive or otherwise. Americans are — by way of the Bill of Rights — anti-socialists. We are resilient, cussed individuals, not disposed to becoming a take-orders monolith.

Historically, we hate one thing — government or any force (including big data companies, overreaching states and runaway federal bureaucracy) telling us what to do, how to run our lives, or taking away personal choice.

That is why the 2020 race is shaping up to be a landslide. Beyond President Trump’s orchestration of stunning economic results, less regulation, lower taxes, reassertion of sovereignty, national security, emphasis on free speech, second amendment rights, energy independence, and renewed moral compass, Trump is authentically defending individual liberty against accelerating centralization.

A coalition of level-headed, historically grounded, less emotional Democrats — sensitive to American "heartland" values — may yet emerge. They may show the courage to stop this horrific slide left. But time is short.

An ideological recovery would re-center national debates — on everything from common sense health care and fiscal policy to traditional American concerns, including national, community and personal security. That would be good for America, for every American. Again, don’t count on it.

Democrats are ignoring American and world history, trying to remake us into socialists — which we will never be. That is why a Trump 2020 landslide is increasingly likely. The Democratic Party is on a beeline to nowhere, except wilderness. Obama is right.

- Robert Charles is a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush, former naval intelligence officer and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses.


>>> TLDR version :

Trump will win BIGLY if the Democrats do not remove their heads out of their asses and start talking POLICY instead of Get-Trump.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

1999 dem- id like to invest govt funds in infrastructure and social welfare.
2019 dem- FUCK YOU YOU PIECE OF SHIT RACIST WHITE MALE ASSHOLE, (what an awesome person I am for calling all those racists out)

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

My disagreement with the article is the "What remains of the Kennedy-Truman-Clinton Democratic Party is in tatters." Statement.

Clinton was a Neo-Con and nothing remotely like Truman or Kennedy. In fact, Clinton was a stab in the heart of the Democratic party and we are seeing its decaying corpse today.