General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So can we get rid of the stupid "progressive vs establishment" false dichotomy now? [View all]JCanete
(5,272 posts)only one with agency? They are certainly the only major party not entirely bought and paid for, which doesn't rely on such propagandized and compassless voters that there is no such thing as surviving in the party on principle. GOP politicians have ceded the driver seat long ago.
I can make a distinction between what we can do at any given point versus what we campaign on and advocate for, which is how you ever get there. It is because of, not inspite of, continued advocacy over the years and decades(coupled sadly to the reality that wages have been stagnant, costs of living have risen, and the rich have become ridiculously richer)that there is finally a public shift of opinion on what can and should be done. And I don't think taxing the rich is among bugaboos at this point among a large swath of the American population.
At this point attempting to make compromises with the GOP gets you a couple of extra days back in your home state for 8 confirmed Trump justices. When we have power again, doing what they do, threatening to roll out something big, is how we get them to come to the table for something less drastic. And if they still don't, how is that different than when they refuse to come to the table for something incremental? Making the argument that our rhetoric has to be soft, that our proposals have to be mild, so that we can appeal across the aisle is basing a strategy on fantasy. Hell, Edwards knew this back in 2008 and Obama's attempt to reach across the aisle proved Edwards right. Not saying Obama could have done things differently because there are all kinds of factors that I think he was saddled with, among them, the great weight on his shoulders as the first black president, but again, we know how that all went down.
I was highlighting differences across a spectrum of Democrats and other progressives. I don't personally want us to end capitalism in our economy because I have never heard an alternative presented that has yet to make sense to me in terms of how resources are distributed, what sorts of services, research and tech will be privileged, and who will make these decisions, etc. But I think its a dangerously regressive precedent to stop the intellectual exercise of looking outside of that box with the tired cliche of simply saying "capitalism is the worst economic system there is except for every other system." Period...full stop. No need to dig deeper or challenge our implicit assumptions further...
Personally, I think the best option to pivot to is Basic Income Guarantee. Interestingly somebody pointed out that Hillary Clinton had considered presenting this for her 2016 campaign, which is surprising to me, and certainly would be the kind of move that muddies these waters quite a bit, since even Sanders was not promoting this idea, and pretty much only ever entertained it as an option among many options. But either way, it has yet to be championed by a major candidate, so we'll see if it ever gains traction.