Had me at hello.

Like x 10.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
Had me at hello.

Like x 10.

??

I see his point. I agree with it.

Yes. Go straight to the people any way possible and get the ideas out there with quick sound bites. Most of the green new deal and other 'lefty' ideas are supported by many normal people on both the right and the left when the ideas haven't been shaped by the propaganda news.

Ideas that are gaining wide acceptance because politicians pushed the envelope...(unthinkable a few years ago)

Medicare for all
College without debt

Hopefully more ideas get traction as we move ahead.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel:
I see his point. I agree with it.

Can you explain it to me?

I can't make any sense out of his argument, and I've read it twice now.


I guess this is a question for anyone who read the DeLong piece.

This is what I perceive as DeLong's argument:
1. The old way of working around the "centrist" position worked because both sides have people who are willing to find middle ground.
2. That old way stopped working because one side (and DeLong says its the "right" side) stopped having enough people willing to support the "centrist" middle ground.
3. Because the old way of working the "centrist" middle ground cannot work any more, let's support the new way that the new lefties are pushing for, which is to start firmly from the left and just duke it out with the righties who have been starting firmly from the right.

I'm very torn on this whole question. First and foremost, you can't lead if you're not elected, and I'm not convinced that a far left candidate will get elected.

Second, I think the current crop of GOP are opportunistic bullies who will go wherever the wind blows, should Trump not be re-elected. In other words, I think that many of the current GOP will swing more to the middle if the Dems have the executive branch and house, claiming that they always felt that way.

So one scenario would be to elect a left-leaning president (and that is virtually everyone who's announced at this point), and then start to draft legislation once elections are over.

History has also taught us that large-scale change takes a long time, and runs the risk of further division. I think we need to rebuild consensus and compromise, for the long-term health of our country. Start the process, but don't take on world peace as your single measure of success.

And for heaven's sake, don't elect a white guy who's over 70 years old.

My 2c.

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:
This is what I perceive as DeLong's argument:
1. The old way of working around the "centrist" position worked because both sides have people who are willing to find middle ground.
2. That old way stopped working because one side (and DeLong says its the "right" side) stopped having enough people willing to support the "centrist" middle ground.
3. Because the old way of working the "centrist" middle ground cannot work any more, let's support the new way that the new lefties are pushing for, which is to start firmly from the left and just duke it out with the righties who have been starting firmly from the right.

But the "stopped working" in your step 2 just means "stopped getting GOP support". How does that make any sense as an argument to move left? Forget anyone's personal politics here, I'm just talking about DeLong's argument.

It looks like this:

"The center-left thing didn't get GOP support so lets try the far-left thing"

But no one expects the far-left thing to get GOP support. So why is the far-left thing w/ no GOP support ok but the center-left thing with no GOP support is not ok?

That's the part that I don't get.



It's almost as if he's saying 'we tried to get GOP support with moderation but they blew us off so fvck them we'll show those assholes!'

But that's indicative of an end goal that is punishing the other tribe for not being reasonable in the 90s and 2000s.


Shouldn't we at least *pretend* that the end goal is instituting the policies that one thinks would lead to a better society?

I would understand (intellectually) these arguments:

1) 'The center left thing doesn't win elections anymore, so lets try the far left thing'


2) 'The center left thing didn't solve our problems so lets try the far left thing'


(1) Would be pragmatic. (2) would be indicative of DeLong himself shifting policy preferences.


But he's not making either of those arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by rontuner:
Yes. Go straight to the people any way possible and get the ideas out there with quick sound bites. Most of the green new deal and other 'lefty' ideas are supported by many normal people on both the right and the left when the ideas haven't been shaped by the propaganda news.

Ideas that are gaining wide acceptance because politicians pushed the envelope...(unthinkable a few years ago)

Medicare for all
College without debt

Hopefully more ideas get traction as we move ahead.

Well said.

I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to support the Social Security Act and public education. But that's just me.

I'm not necessarily accepting voting advice from him. But, young people are new generations and will have their own voice. The last thing I think they'll do is accept e.g. Joe Biden's argument that they merit no respect or esteem.

Also, the Obama years are past and the Clinton years were a long time ago.

quote:

It looks like this:

"The center-left thing didn't get GOP support so lets try the far-left thing"

But no one expects the far-left thing to get GOP support. So why is the far-left thing w/ no GOP support ok but the center-left thing with no GOP support is not ok?

That's the part that I don't get.

You don't get it because Brad wasn't making much sense there.

I read his argument on twitter last month. His diagnosis of the failure of middle-ground compromise struck me as quite accurate:

Extreme left, left, moderate left, centrist democrats ... rubble .... rubble ... GOP.

That much I buy. The rubble on the old centrist portion of the Republican spectrum might be just tactical behavior by people who fear the current "regime." But the rationale doesn't matter. Centrist Democrats have no potential partners on the GOP side in crafting sensible middle ground policies that would probably win substantial popular support. The days are long gone when Bill Bradley could compromise with Ronald Reagan to produce a bi-partisan reform of the tax code that gave each side some of what it wanted, or George HW Bush could compromise with the Democratic Senate in 1990 to raise taxes when that was needed.

The only working strategy in the Trump era is to obstruct anything that comes out of the GOP if it doesn't meet clear and politically salient Democratic goals. I mean obstruct just about everything, and publicize the hell out of each and every GOP inanity. That worked very well in the midterms, and it elected an awful lot of .... centrist Democrats. You know, the ones whose twitter feeds aren't quite as watched as Bernie's or AOCs, but whose districts require them to be moderate or they may not be in Congress after 2020. The ones that AOC and the people who call themselves "progressive" seem to want to drum out of the party, but whose support is essential if the Democrats are to become a real majority instead of a Democratic version of the current GOP.

So, I buy DeLong's diagnosis of the low chances for compromise and for centrist governance in today's political environment. But he offered no real case for why the party's centrists should suddenly see the light and move substantially leftward in their suburban purple districts. If the party's leadership begins to issue progressive litmus tests to centrist Democrats, the progressive base will be enthralled about the future nirvana they're about to create. The likely effect, however, will be to splinter the party as it's on the cusp of taking real power.

quote:

But he offered no real case for why the party's centrists should suddenly see the light and move substantially leftward in their suburban purple districts

I don't think he's saying they should.

quote:

No. It means argue with them, to the extent that their policies are going to be wrong and destructive, but also accept that there is no political path to a coalition built from the Rubin-center out. Instead, we accommodate ourselves to those on our left. To the extent that they will not respond to our concerns, what they’re proposing is a helluva better than the poke-in-the-eye with a sharp stick.

"AOC" sounds like an airport. We have our own AOC in Hawaii. I forget his name. He lost to Ed Case in the primary. I guess AOC is the new Nancy Pelosi in the sense that she represents an easy target for people who need or want to be afraid of liberalism. For the record, I don't like, follow, and subscribe when it comes to Ed Case, Alexandria Octavio-Cortez, or to any other politician.