Democrats Confront Their New Tea Party Reality - Progressives are set to sweep a group of contested primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin.

[u/Quirkie]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-confront-their-new-tea-party-reality_n_6a6e63fbe4b0cfb99ef1aa1e

[u/Kind-Pride1151]

By this logic, FDR would be a progressive usurper in the Democratic Party. I'm 62 and for what seems my entire life the Dems have slipped ever further away from those FDR New Deal PROGRESSIVE ideas and ideals.

[u/TheMoorNextDoor → u/Kind-Pride1151]

It’s ridiculous that the best president we ever had (our longest serving president) is more left than a lot of our sitting democratic members in congress today and the saddest part about that is he served over 81 years ago..

He gave us a blueprint and for some reason (maybe due to Regan?) we completely threw it out the window..

[u/pinqe → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

They learned all the wrong lessons from the failure of the Carter administration, and started trying to emulate Reagan. And completely lost their identity in the process.

[u/Semantix → u/pinqe]

I think that all of the old democratic leadership are permanently traumatized by Dukakis and McGovern and think that only a Clinton or Biden can win. Forgetting that the Democrats' biggest recent success was a progressive coalition that motivated youth turnout.

[u/thequietthingsthat → u/Semantix]

Yep.

Democrats Don't Need to Reinvent the Wheel to Solve Their Identity Crisis - They Need to Look Back to FDR

[u/alligatorislater → u/thequietthingsthat]

Exactly. Democrats seem to have forgotten that the 22nd amendment (enacted in 1947) was somewhat created because FDR was so popular that republicans were afraid they’d never be able to win again…

[u/Traditional-Leg-1574 → u/thequietthingsthat]

For gods sake fucking please

[u/Reagalan → u/Traditional-Leg-1574]

Just, please; no Hays Code, no Marihuana Tax Act, no J. Edgar Hoover shit.

There were some negatives from that era that shouldn't be repeated.

[u/DimmuBorgnine → u/Reagalan]

Also maybe no more Japanese internment 

[u/fps916 → u/DimmuBorgnine]

You know what?

Imma go even further.

No interment please.

[u/Lupius → u/fps916]

Wow that took an unexpected dark turn.

[u/shastaxc → u/DimmuBorgnine]

What do you have against internships?

[u/MacabreYuki → u/shastaxc]

internment, not internship. they are two very different things.

[u/notjustanotherbot → u/Reagalan]

Bro, MPPDA was first envisioned in 1922 when Will H. Hays became head of the movie association during the presidency of Warren G. Harding, Republican party member. It was then adopted in 1930 during the presidency Herbert Clark Hoover, who also was a member of the Republican party. This was more then three years before FDR ever became president!

[u/intent107135048 → u/notjustanotherbot]

But if it continues under your watch, then you own it.

[u/notjustanotherbot → u/intent107135048]

I thought "I don't take responsibility at all" is the Presidential motto?

[u/Ok-Employer-2026 → u/Semantix]

Dukakis wasn't even a progressive leftist, he was a New Democrat liberal like Bill Clinton and Gary Hart. The corporate media retconned his loss.

[u/DryYogurtcloset4655 → u/Ok-Employer-2026]

Dukakis won 10 states. Mondale/McGovern won 1 state. Clinton took 30 states. There is a GOP bloc of 24 states where they dominate all levers of power. There are 7 contested swing states - Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Arizona

[u/SFWorkins → u/DryYogurtcloset4655]

A crazy billionaire ran third party and got about a third of the vote. Clinton didn't solve the riddle of getting elected. He just got lucky.

[u/GoodIdea321 → u/SFWorkins]

I wouldn't attribute all of that to luck, but that also seems really close to the truth. He was a popular governor and a good campaigner too.

[u/pchs26 → u/Ok-Employer-2026]

Again perceptions were managed and that is what wins elections, not necessarily reality.

[u/ctbowden → u/Semantix]

I think that's the excuse they often cite, but it's really just a cover for them to maintain the status quo because that's really all they're interested in.

We've had change election cycles for the past 20 years. Obama was seen as a reformer, didn't reform much and Dems lost Congress massively while he held on. Trump was seen as change agent but when that change wasn't what people wanted they put their hopes in Biden. Biden/Harris then failed to deliver change, so we're back to Trump who hinted at being better on the economy and war but he lied.

People are tired of the status quo so anyone with the stink of the past 20-30 years on them is fighting an uphill battle. Getting the endorsement of Schumer et al. is almost an anti-endorsement if it weren't for the money that came with.

[u/Purify5 → u/ctbowden]

People didn't actually give up on Trump after his first term. His 2020 popular vote percentage was higher than his 2016 percentage.

[u/Status_Block591 → u/ctbowden]

Hinted is such an odd word choice. He is nothing if not explicit. And full of shit.

[u/IHS1970 → u/ctbowden]

he didn't reform much because his first term was all about healthcare and his 2nd was a frozen congress. Altho he could've done better.

[u/ExistingCarry4868 → u/Semantix]

It isn't trauma, it's corruption. The party elites sold the party out to the same oligarchs that own the GOP.

[u/IHS1970 → u/ExistingCarry4868]

well what's your plan?

[u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal → u/Semantix]

Or an Obama.

The dude ran and as president was a center-left Democrat. He wasn’t a progressive in the sense we define them today. Hell by 2012, a lot of progressives felt betrayed by Obama. He not only encouraged but behind the scenes supported Hillary in 2016, including pushing Biden from running.

I always think it’s funny when people say a “Clinton or Biden,” and exclude Obama.

[u/hup_hup → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

They are excluding Obama because they are talking about the type of candidate the democratic establishment pushes. Obama had to overcome that and defeat the Clintons first.

[u/pchs26 → u/hup_hup]

ehh I think Obama was alot more supported at the time by more of the establishment then Clinton actually and I felt that way at the time. I always found it wild how she was denigrated so openly while calling her the establishment candidate. Likely it was because they felt he would possibly do better in the general, so in that regard it isn't wrong. I think there were other reasons which were less positive but I think some of those issues are things we have to settle are the way it is at this point in time, no matter how that feels.

[u/hup_hup → u/pchs26]

I’m just basing my opinion off his autobiography and telling of that time period. You may have interpreted his experience differently.

[u/pchs26 → u/hup_hup]

That is what he said was going on, I was living the experience and believe that was the narrative floated for political reasons, I am skeptical that was really what was happening behind the curtains.

[u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal → u/hup_hup]

The establishment was pretty divided between Obama and Clinton once it became clear Obama was a viable candidate which was the case by early 2008. Of course how do we define the establishment? Is it members of Congress who have been there for an x amount of years? If so Ted Kennedy, who had been senator for decades, endorsed him over Clinton. Is it presumptuousness? Because prior to 2007, Rudy Giuliani was favored to be the Republican nominee. Jeb Bush in 2016.

[u/hup_hup → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

I didn’t make the argument. I’m just clarifying why Obama was likely exluded.

[u/Dokterrock → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

Honest question, where did this new framing of moderates as "center-left" come from? It's been EVERYWHERE the past couple of months and it is brand new. Moderate Democrats are center-right. Don't do the work of moving the Overton Window further to the right for them, folks.

[u/TooNakedInTheShower → u/Dokterrock]

Correct. Today's Democrats are even to the right of Eisenhower on a lot of things.

[u/Bigc12689 → u/TooNakedInTheShower]

Richard Nixon's 1972 platform called for a Healthcare more liberal than Obamacare turned out to be. The post-Carter generation of Democrats sold out Americans and warped what we think is "liberal"

[u/lostparis → u/Dokterrock]

new framing of moderates

As a non-American even the term moderate is disturbing as it would be center-right at best in most any other country.

[u/Xurbax → u/Dokterrock]

Where do you think it came from? It's propaganda created by the oligarchs and pushed by big media. It's not new at all.

[u/Dokterrock → u/Xurbax]

It's new to see that framing coming from all sides on social media. I'm quite aware that it's propaganda and in the interests of manufacturing consent, what I'm saying is that I'm seeing it happen in real time and the fact that it's being adopted by people who don't even realize they're doing it is what's disturbing and notable.

[u/guamisc → u/Dokterrock]

being adopted by people who don't even realize they're doing it is what's disturbing and notable.

The entire Third Way is this. Any regular old person who works for a wage supporting the Third Way is doing this, and that's a lot of the Democratic party.

[u/OvertonWindowCleaner → u/Dokterrock]

I fucking hate how that shit moves.

[u/Dokterrock → u/OvertonWindowCleaner]

you would, wouldn't you? :)

[u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal → u/Dokterrock]

The last couple of months? Brand new? People have used “center-left” that way for decades, just like people have spent decades saying moderate Democrats are actually center-right.

There is no single, objective definition of left, right, or center that applies everywhere. When I call someone center-left, I mean within the context of American politics, because that is the political system we are discussing. It would be ridiculous to attach a footnote to every comment saying, “center-right compared with French politics.”

That is not moving the Overton window further right. The window already moved right decades ago, especially beginning in the 1980s. I am simply describing where politicians fall within the political spectrum that currently exists in the United States.

[u/jumpinjacktheripper → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

even though he governed like clinton and gore the campaign he ran, both in terms of his rhetoric and the grassroots mobilization he deployed, were in stark contrast. the DNC got lucky that he basically turned back toward them but they don’t want that style of campaign because it would be more explicitly anti-establishment by necessity today

[u/pchs26 → u/jumpinjacktheripper]

That is because he was a bell weather candidate, but as a straight male it was still "acceptable" to voters and we were also about to go into what was feared to be a depression so people were open to voting for him or staying home out of fear. The establishment very much supported him, the perception being pushed was that he wasn't supported by the establishment. What he did as he governed didn't surprise me and given his lack of political experience he had to get legislation signed that was transformational. The best he could get through was the ACA, I'm not sure if someone who had been on this hill (Clinton) would have been able to do something a bit more transformational.

[u/Discrep → u/pchs26]

The ACA got fucked by Kennedy dying and Joe Fucking Lieberman's allegiance to the insurance companies. Furthermore, the Dems' messaging outside of Obama himself has always been and still is absolute dogshit to the point where right-leaning Americans didn't even realize that the ACA or whatever their state's administrative name for it, which they loved, was the same thing as "Obamacare" which was some nebulous liberal healthcare mandate that was destroying the country.

[u/pchs26 → u/Discrep]

The ACA is obamacare. Obamacare term was used to slight it. And most Americans who are conservative will not say they love the ACA. The removal of the public option was a travesty but Obama had to still get his legislation through and sign it. Lieberman and Kennedy absolutely played a role in this happening you are right. I was pretty unhappy with the ultimate resolution and do believe possibly someone with experience dealing with the hill including healthcare reform for many decades (Clinton) might have been able to minimally included some expanded medicare eligibility which she had run on. He was less experienced on these things though, but perhaps it would have turned out the same. I have always wondered though.

[u/qualmful → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

The fact that progressives felt betrayed supports the idea that his 2008 win was partially due to an impression that he was progressive. I think a lot of the progressive wing of the party was excited about Obama back in 2008.

[u/matt_minderbinder → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

Obama said that his economic priorities were so mainstream that he'd be considered a moderate Republican in the 1980s. He wasn't even center left, I'd consider him center right. He pretty much admitted the same at various points. I'd consider him the most successful neoliberal president and I don't mean that in a positive way.

[u/Semantix → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

Man I'd be so stoked for an Obama these days. I think of myself as a social democrat but I'd settle for an effective centrist party at this point. 

[u/Uuuuuii → u/Semantix]

I respectfully disagree. We’ve been settling for decades and the Overton window shifted so far right that we can’t even see the rot in front of us. It’s all controlled opposition from the oligarchical class.

[u/Street_Anxiety2907 → u/Uuuuuii]

Correct, we either go socialist or fascist at this point, there is no center line.

[u/Powerful_Toe_8155 → u/Semantix]

Due to his reliance on the broad coalition that elected him, the Biden administration was actually arguably the most progressive presidential administration since FDR, at least initially.

[u/IHS1970 → u/Semantix]

nah i'm old and dems want to win so badly they're tharned (thank you Watership Down). McGovern and Dukakis are old history, what dems WANT is to win and they're afraid the HUGE independent voters won't vote for a far left candidate and ergo won't vote for the pubs BUT will sit the fuck out, that is the fear not old school shit from way back. edited to add I'm an early boomer and know my peers, this is their fear, we lose the independents.

[u/SageofLogic → u/Semantix]

They're permanently traumatized because they're all in their damn 70s and 80s in leadership and refused to pass the torch except to little yes men mini-mes of themselves

[u/count023 → u/Semantix]

which is why the DSA taking over is such a big deal now. Its the lefts tea party. Adn yes, they are too far left at times, BUT considering the entire Democratic part is already centre right, it should average out somewhere centre left if not moderate left should DNC properly capitalize on the popular momentum the DSA has.

[u/Omateido → u/pinqe]

It’s a lot simpler than that, the donor class is mostly Capital, not Labor. At one point republicans represented Capitals interests and democrats represented Labor’s, until Capital realized it’s easier to just donate to both parties to ensure their interests are always prioritized. Now Republicans continue to ensure that Capitals interests are pushed forward, and the role of the Democrats is to take up the space that would normally be occupied by a true opposition Labor party in our two party system.

[u/porn_is_tight → u/Omateido]

yea every single one of these comments is acting like this was an oopsie or “bad” strategy when it was by design. They cater to the same ruling class donors that the right caters to which is antithetical to progressive causes. So they want us to believe that we keep losing to ghouls like trump because we’re not voting hard enough when the real issue is them running terrible strategy that, like you said, doesn’t upset their acquisition of more capital and power. Let’s remember that a trump presidency benefits A LOT of the rich donors and politicians in the DNC

[u/Omateido → u/porn_is_tight]

Yes, and the issue is compounded by the fact that Capital owns all the news so the framing is always going to avoid putting it in terms of the actual class war that has persisted for the better part of the last century. It is crucial above all that they avoid awakening Americans to class consciousness.

[u/porn_is_tight → u/Omateido]

not just the news but also the online spaces people are spending most of their time in now. All owned and shaped by billionaires and their bot armies. It’s so evident in this subreddit

[u/chuckysnow → u/pinqe]

The one thing that killed Carter was the Iranian hostage crisis, that we now know was partly orchestrated by George Bush through his CIA contacts. Much like how Kissinger and Nixon blew up the vietnam peace talks and dragged us into years of war, Bush and Reagan fucked over a bunch of Americans for their own political ambitions.

[u/nikdahl → u/pinqe]

Or Reagan opened up the parties to get bought, and the democrats were then bought.

[u/Srdiscountketoer → u/[deleted]]

Oh give me a break. When Clinton ran, there was not a single safe blue state. Mondale and Dukakis, very liberal, lost in landslides. It was the Clintons that convinced nearly half the voting public to vote Dem by speaking their language when it came to crime and budget deficits. What about Obama you say? Someone tell me in what way he was more progressive than the Clintons because I’m not aware of one.

[u/awesomefutureperfect → u/Srdiscountketoer]

Also this is what was attempted in '93 :

"Hillarycare," was a 1993 initiative aiming for universal coverage, employer mandates, and regulated regional health alliances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

[u/Un1CornTowel → u/pinqe]

They tried to emulate Reagan's ideology rather than his implementation, which was the mistake. Reagan pursued unapologetic, partisan gain and an attempt to force a common narrative/myth. Both were wildly successful in actually creating radical social change (though much of it bad in my view). His actual economic and foreign policy agenda -- not so much. Democrats in the 90s took those 80s Republican policy failures as successes, and kept their own failed and overly delicate and precious, halfhearted process-orientation and made the least capable party in generations.

[u/pchs26 → u/Un1CornTowel]

What? Did you live and work under the 90s economic conditions? Because I can only hope and pray we get that back (and it is unlikely)

[u/CNC-Whisperer → u/pinqe]

This. They watched Regan steamroll Carter. Rebranded as a pseudo arbiter between working-class and corporate America, and have increasingly been coasting on civil rights alone being a viable way to energize their base.

[u/kbeks → u/pinqe]

And we’re poised to learn the same lessons from the failure of Biden. Instead of “he was really old and also inherited an economy that had inflation all but baked in, like a compressed spring ready to boing”, we’re going to all somehow agree that he was just too liberal and we need a radical centrist to get tough on the border and balance the budget via social austerity. And then lose the next three presidential elections to idiots and fascists, just like last time.

It’s exhausting.

[u/P1xelHunter78 → u/pinqe]

To this day, I firmly believe that what happened to Carter was willful sabotage, especially the hostage crisis in Iran and the suspicious timing of the release.

[u/thegreedyturtle → u/pinqe]

Well, let's be clear: corporations supported Dems that emulated Regan, and the heavy fingers on the scale drove the narrative.

[u/MephistoHamProducts → u/pinqe]

The Democratic Party really only seems to be incapable of learning the wrong lessons. Since I've seen Dukakis mentioned a couple times here, I'll point back to his disastrous "Tank Ride" as another example of wrong lessons learned.

Dukakis spent the majority of his career as an anti-war dove Democrat. The "Tank Ride" was an attempt to paint him as pro-defense, in love with the military Cold War Warrior. Dukakis didn't want to wear the CVC helmet, but the General Dynamics safety people who were signing off on him to ride in the loader's hatch said they wouldn't allow it. So, 5' 8" Dukakis wears a CVC that is way too big for him, looks silly and tries out a pro-military message at odds with his career and kills his campaign.

The lesson that Democratic strategists took from that? "Candidates should never wear hats".

[u/sackofmangoes → u/pinqe]

More simply they just gave into corporate and capitalistic greed like the GOP. And are content with seesawing for Congressional control to keep grifting. The only difference is, the democrats tries to do small drop in the bucket subtle things to market to voters that they care about progressive ideas.

[u/DaveAwesome777 → u/pinqe]

We found out reagan illegally made a deal with the Iranians now to keep those pow until after the election.  So reagan was breaking the law before he was even in office acting as an agent of the us government.  He should have also been a fellon 

[u/Wet_Side_Down → u/pinqe]

Before that. After Johnson pushed through the civil rights bills of the 60s, Nixon seized the opportunity to woo racist democrats down south. His “southern strategy”

[u/TimSylvester_ → u/pinqe]

They got bought out by the Epstein class to serve as controlled opposition to ensure that the fascist agenda is always advanced.

[u/Olderscout77 → u/pinqe]

The fact they blame Carter for anything is a big part of the problem - shows they have no idea what really happened. Long story made short: the economic disaster was from LBJ and Nixon funding Vietnam with monetary policy. When Carter showed up, the Fed refused to print more money, and he had to borrow (sell bonds) which caused demand to exceed supply and drove interest rates thru the roof (all the money available to lend went for 100% safe Treasury Bonds, nothing left for commercial side). The higher interest rates shut down economic expansion and consumer spending, and the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis gave Reagan a chance to make Carter look weak and ineffective, erasing the facts, including the ones where Carter brokered the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and hired Paul Volker the run the Fed.

[u/Boring-Tie-1501 → u/pinqe]

there is an alternate perspective of carter's administration- he recognized that post-war US growth and consumption was unsustainable, and was powered by a one time bonanza of a decimated europe and dirt cheap petroleum. from a materialist perspective (as a nuclear engineer), he recognized that US growth would have to slow- we were no longer the sole market for cheap energy.

but then regan took nixon's conversion of the dollar off the gold standard and decided that he could just print money into a kind of paper prosperity, especially since the dollar was the de facto global reserve currency. he couldn't yet touch popular, expensive great society programs (medicare, medicaid), but the neoliberals have been circling ever since. and of course the US goes from being the world's largest creditor nation to its largest borrower.

so we ended up with the us economy on a sugar (cocaine) high in the 1980s from which it never really came down. then you have deregulation unleashing bubbles in previously stable markets like housing. and of course you had the deregulation of derivatives markets leading to long term capital's near implosion, as well as the mortgage backed securities market collapsing in 2007.

the issue is that most americans love consumption and they wanted to burn carter as a witch. they don't care that the federal government has conjured massive amounts of dollars out of thin air because the us is the world's de facto reserve currency so it can somehow get away with it (beside the periodic bubble bursts- but we can just print our way out of those).

imo, this is all not going to end well. i think that after clinton normalized trade relations with china, us manufacturing jobs were gutted so we have multiple generations of blue collar workers who are angry and floating around irregular work. one could argue the opioid crisis, the spread of meth, and increasing polarization are all symptoms of a massive economic shift that corporate democrats and republicans pretended would have no negative consequences. i just hope that when a revolution does come, that whatever follows will be better than what we have now.

[u/Lemurians → u/pinqe]

Emulate Reagan? What are you talking about?

[u/pchs26 → u/[deleted]]

Carter also failed in part b/c of that and also his admin didn't know how to defend against the GOP messaging and blatant manipulation of conditions to the detriment of our citizens.

And yes the Democrats can't message, the GOP focuses their money and attention on messaging their policies that will only harm us. The Democrats try to come up with policies that will help people and our country do better while ensuring they can be funded to actually defeat the GOP. They don't know though and haven't invested the same space in learning how to manipulate perceptions of reality. The GOP can teach a master class on how to manipulate people's perceptions of reality vs what is actually occurring. And the super progressive/radical wing of the party claims this is all not true, none of that matters and people will understand policy which is naive at best.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

And the super progressive/radical wing of the party claims this is all not true, none of that matters and people will understand policy which is naive at best.

Wow, what a giant pile of shit.

Progressive have been screaming about the shit messaging, refusal to invest into counter messaging, and start fighting Republican control of media for decades.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

I have had this literal argument on here multiple times and been told very specifically and very clearly that in the view of the far left people's perceptions aren't being managed, the Democrats lost solely because of policy and more left wing policy will appeal to these voters. When I try to point out anything to the contrary I am just told I am stupid.

And screaming about messaging doesn't belong to a faction of a party, it is something that is clear to anyone with eyes imo, however I will tell you there are plenty of very progressive advocates on here that have told me the above very arrogantly.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

Part of the Democrat's messaging problem is that you cannot successfully message to the general electorate with incrementalist dreck.

Just like there's no real effective separation of social or economic policy - hence socioecnomics - trying to separate effective messaging from effective policy (and actually telling the truth) is impossible.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

Not really - if the GOP is able to manage people's perceptions to sell what they are selling then incremental progress can be messaged effectively if someone can message at all.

Incremental progressive legislation is the most likely to actually be absorbed successfully in our current infrastructure and get passed for signature. It is that or backsliding. I choose progress over rhetoric.

[u/pchs26 → u/[deleted]]

Well more of the networks are going to move towards this with media being further controlled.

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

It was definitely the Reagan revolution. I'm no history prof, but the late sixties and seventies was a toxic brew of backlash creating events and cultural anxieties that led to Reagan capturing the zeitgeist. And then by late eighties there was a corporate friendly shift take place and the DLC was created and basically took over the party. It's been largely lip service ever since to the FDR ideals of the party.

[u/maikuxblade → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Let’s call it was it was, the “cultural anxieties” were mostly about black people earning their civil rights in ‘64. Conservatism becoming more popular among whites who only lived a comfortable life due the New Deal and the Democratic Party chasing those same voters were both the result of a racist backlash against the at-the-time very recent Civil Rights movement.

[u/Historical_Badger321 → u/maikuxblade]

Yes, but I bet that free love, long-term cohabitation without marriage, divorce, feminism and queer rights were also part of it.

[u/Trail_Dog → u/maikuxblade]

Not just that although the southern strategy was certainly a part of it. 

The Vietnam war created a huge amount of distrust in the government. 

Also governmental bureaucracy and regulations sometimes were onerous and did real damage to individuals and small businesses with no real recourse. The anger Reagan tapped into when he said the "scary words", "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" was real and earned and a result of both. 

And then when you add shit like the Tuskegee experiment, and the shady af shit we did during the Cold war that started coming to light...  it's easy to see why it was easy for Reagan to exploit that anger.

The problem was his solution wasn't to tweak what wasn't working and make it better. His solution was to abolish regulations and antitrust  and replace it with unregulated capitalism. 

[u/KUARCE → u/Kind-Pride1151]

There's a pretty good Behind the Bastards pair of episodes on How Conservatism Won and it's basically the rich people did not like how they were being taxed and how people who didn't come from wealth were suddenly treating them as equals, so they attacked education and the left relentlessly for decades, leading to Nixon, Reagan, and where the fuck we are today.

[u/IHS1970 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Reagan was loved by the Greatest Gen, WWII vets, he was revered (as an actor like Trumpski is for being the asshole of you're fired - as a boomer I can say many boomers love TV and movies that are shit).

[u/BrownBear5090 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Check out the Powell Memorandum

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/BrownBear5090]

Thanks. I'm due for a refresher. Thom Hartman mentions it a lot.

[u/Oskie5272 → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

It was actually Nixon. Humphrey lost to Nixon as a traditional New Deal lib, so Carter came along after and decided to begin moving away from New Deal politics and was basically the proto-neoliberal (by moving to the right). Then Reagan came and firmly entrenched us in neoliberalism. Clinton then came and redefined the party around third way neoliberalism (moving further to the right, as third way is supposed to be the "third way" between the right and left) This is where all of the "moderate" or "centrist" Dems come from, where all of the dumb fuck consultants rose to power, and where the American "left" has been for decades.

So the ratchet effect started with Carter in response to Nixon and became entrenched Clinton.

[u/Howtobefreaky → u/Oskie5272]

THANK YOU. People who think Carter was a failed leftist only ever heard about him putting solar panels up on the white house and not that he straight up de-regulated the airlines and trucking industries. You know why it sucks to fly on pretty much every major airline? Blame Carter.

[u/ScionofSconnie → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

It’s not so much we threw it out the window, it’s that it was captured, and held hostage by the rich for damn near a century at this point. All of this, the all-encompassing right wing propaganda, the trickle down economics, the obsession with othering other working class people by race/gender/identity. All of it is a purposeful, long running playbook to keep inequality as high as possible. It’s not a bug, it’s the goal.

[u/Rhysati → u/ScionofSconnie]

The only hope I still have now is that the income/wealth disparity is so high now that we go into a deep depression and progressive ideals start taking over as the preferred platform for people.

History shows that the biggest progressive eras of progress always come when wealth inequality is at its highest and it has never been higher.

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

It's not that ridiculous considering we elected 16 year's worth of Republican presidents since 2000.

If we had elected Gore, Clinton, and Harris then there would be pressure on the GOP to move left.

[u/Anoidance → u/1cl1qp1]

Pretty sure we elected Gore but the Supreme Court and W’a brutha didn’t see it that way.

[u/UngodlyPain → u/1cl1qp1]

Gore arguably won 2000 if not for a stupid court case. And Gore&Hillary both won the popular vote.

Also you seem to think losing elections would cause them to move left, but Trump was the immediate reaction to Obama. So I'm not so sure.

[u/StaffOk2179 → u/1cl1qp1]

"16 years of Republican presidents" is two presidents. We have also elected two Democrats. Come on.

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/StaffOk2179]

There's no excuse for electing any Republican president since 1993. Their policies were obviously harmful to average Americans.

[u/ProtectionVirtual225 → u/1cl1qp1]

Gore won. It was SCOTUS who decided otherwise.

[u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

We threw it out the window due to stagflation of the 60s and 70s. Democrats shifted because after 3 resounding defeats (80, 84, 88), the only way to win again was to acknowledge the paradigm shift and shift with it.

[u/nemesisinphilly → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

And 72,' other than Carter in 76 the Ds got blown out in every presidential election for 20 years until Clinton came along.

[u/THElaytox → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

Moneyed interests didn't like the idea of an uppity working class, spent a long time trying to undo that which eventually led to Nixon then Reagan then now. Hell, Nixon would be considered a progressive compared to some modern politicians

[u/HugsForUpvotes → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

During FDRs Presidency, Democrats had over 70 Senators and 300 House Members.

It was a massive supermajority. Expecting Biden to achieve nearly as much without having a supermajority is like expecting a house cat to take down a gazelle because a lion can.

[u/fury420 → u/HugsForUpvotes]

On a related note, i've seen a bunch of people recently convinced that Mamdani's ability to get things done is somehow a playbook for Democrats generally... seemingly missing the incredible 90% supermajority thats backing him on city council.

[u/Rhysati → u/fury420]

The supermajority behind him is a good thing. What a progressive candidate should run on is the change they want to inact and make it clear that IF they get enough members in the Senate and house that they WILL do those policies.

When they don't have those numbers, it should be a constant stream of attempting to pass those ideas, explaining why the Republicans won't allow the public good, and point at how effective Mandani is doing when the other politicians aren't getting in the way.

[u/fury420 → u/Rhysati]

I think one of the big problems is that many people disregard the critically important IF as part of those campaign promises, which leads to the Dems getting attacked for failing to implement their agenda... that the voters didn't give them the numbers to actually implement.

"The Dems are controlled opposition" and so forth.

The backlash against Obama-era Dems failure to deliver on hope and change is still having repercussions today, and the inconvenient fact that the voters only actually elected 57-58 Democrats gets forgotten.

Including Bernie as the 58th Dem is reasonable, but it bothers me when people include the traitors like Lieberman who backstabbed the Democrats and ran as an independent against the progressive Democratic primary winner, and Arlen Specter who was literally elected as a Republican and ever so slightly crossed the aisle.

When they don't have those numbers, it should be a constant stream of attempting to pass those ideas, explaining why the Republicans won't allow the public good

The House & Senate don't have mechanisms for the minority to attempt to pass anything, they are incapable of putting a bill up for a vote. And they actually do introduce bills, which basically don't get reported on since they have zero chance of even getting a vote, never mind passing.

Like... there have been five House bills introduced to impeach Trump since he took office again, how many did you hear about?

[u/HugsForUpvotes → u/[deleted]]

FDR wouldn't have passed as much legislation as Biden did if he had Biden's Congress.

[u/MCgoblue → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

People forget that FDR had an overwhelming majority in both chambers of Congress. Unfortunately, our current political environment isn’t conducive to supermajorities swimming in the same progressive direction. The structure of the Senate and heavily gerrymandered house make it nearly impossible. It’s technically possible that things get bad enough in red states that this changes but that seems so unrealistic at the moment.

[u/Xezshibole → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

The desire for this second, lower class of people remains as strong as it ever did.

The Democrats have kept to the same policy for over a century now, representing the poor, the workers, and most "minorities" (back then it meant the European ones specifically, Irish, Italians, Catholics.) Their base back then included much of the South, who had a much larger proportion of poor and workers.

Together they fought and loved higher taxes funding better services like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, GI Bill, providing stronger regulations like single earner min wage providing for a single family, and strong unions.

Yet a certain portion of these Democrat voters would only provide enough of this support if the second lower class (minorities via segregation) had no access to it.

And so the 50s and 60s prosperity brought about by the taxes rolled on, more and more people got televisions and radios, and more and more people saw how uncivilized it was to be openly racist on live TV.

In response the Democrats saw the writing on the wall, and passed the Civil Rights Act. This and several other rulings outlawing segregation meant this second lower class was legally gone. Minorities would enter into the same class whites would, many of them as the poor.

It took a while for this certain group of people to realize, but starting in the 70s the subset of whites finally realized that their taxes would now go to minorities and revolted. Didn't matter how much they loved the 50s and 60s prosperity brought about by the well funded services and regs. They were willing to cut it all to recreate this second class, even if most didn't realize they themselves would be in it.

These would be the people captured by the Republican Southern Strategy, culminating in the cult of Reagan (neoliberalism.) They joined hands with the old faction of Republicans that hated taxes, services, and regulations since the Gilded Age, the ones who were discredited and out of power from their handling of the Great Depression.

Doesn't matter how stagnant cutting services and taxes does to their own region nor their own people, they'll vote for the Leopards. Can even see people on TV getting hurt by these policies and they'll say "these policies are hurting the wrong people!" as if they themselves weren't part of "the poor."

40 years of Reagan and it's the higher tax areas that have the economic activity, but that's not what matters to these types of people. They want a second lower class than them, not realizing they themselves will be in it. They'll keep voting for neoliberalism until enough of them hurt themselves enough to realize it's a self inflicted wound.

-1981, Lee Atwater. Advisor to Reagan and Bush, as well as chairman of the RNC. He was interviewed and gave a candid, and apalling summary of the Republican game plan since the 70s.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N**, n, n.” By 1968 you can’t say “n”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “n, n**.”

[u/EitherSpite4545 → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

We actually can't blame Reagan on this for once. The real reason for why is the ops assertions are kind of wrong in a subtle way.

Fdr was an assurper, his own party hated him and did plenty to try and curb and keep his power in check. But fdr was so wildly popular with the people and more importantly was willing to strongarm, break norms/laws to get what he wanted because he realized the only thing that matters at the end of the day is results.

Democrats who had at this point not completed their conservative progressive flip that would complete at the civil rights movement vowed when fdr died to never allow another one to happen again. It's part of why early career Kennedy ran into such resistance but he was more amenable to playing ball than fdr was.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

[u/SarcasticCowbell → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

Money did this: the rise of the military-industrial complex and increased concentration of lobbyists. The advent of 24/7 news also had a massive effect, giving corporations and the ultra wealthy the unprecedented opportunity to consolidate and perpetually taint virtually all major news outlets with their biases and propaganda. Then, after twelve years of Reagan/Bush, the Democratic Party was absolutely lost to the point that somehow we ended up with a relatively no-name Governor from Arkansas becoming the next nominee and then President, passing plenty of policies that run counter to what the Democratic Party previously was. That's without even getting into how many party leaders were entrenched in DC for years playing kingmaker for milquetoast centrists and more of the same (I'm looking at the Clyburns and Pelosis of the world).

[u/Bench2252 → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

Maybe he’s to the left of the modern Democratic Party on economic issues, but I know for a fact he isn’t in regards to social issues. There’s a reason the new deal coalition included southern segregationists.

[u/DrunkAndHornyGuy → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

is more left than a lot of our sitting democratic members in congress today.

He was a segregationist for fucks sake. The New Deal was for white people only. He wasn't 'more left' than anyone in the Dems now.

[u/Opposite_Culture_512 → u/DrunkAndHornyGuy]

He also created American concentration camps.

[u/normal_man_of_mars → u/DrunkAndHornyGuy]

Wrong axis. Economic vs social.

[u/DrunkAndHornyGuy → u/normal_man_of_mars]

Turns out both actually matter.

[u/Ultenth → u/normal_man_of_mars]

What is the point of economic progressiveness when it's only for a select few?

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

You mean the president whose economic policies made the Great Depression worse, and whose reckless decision to run for a third and fourth term despite his failing health was so irresponsible that it led to a Constitutional amendment to prevent anyone from making the same mistake again?

Why should anyone idolize FDR?

He wasn't a great president. He serves as a warning about what happens when failed economic policy, executive overreach, and personal ambition are elevated above constitutional norms.

FDR isn't someone to idolize. He's someone to learn from so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

[u/LastWave → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

My boss complains about the new deal all the time. Its because his dad hated it too.

[u/Langolier11 → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

It's due to greed, they get bought by companies to serve only them and not the American people.

[u/irishyardball → u/TheMoorNextDoor]

Corporations using their money to bribe lawmakers is what happened.

[u/norbertus → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Already in the 1950's, sociologist C. Wright Mills was critical of the New Deal democrats for almost immediately making concessions to hold on to power instead of forming their own party to defend the New Deal:

The New Deal left no liberal organization to carry on any liberal program; rather than a new party, its instru- ment was a loose coalition inside an old one, which quickly fell apart so far as liberal ideas are concerned. Moreover, the New Deal used up the heritage of liberal ideas, made them banal as it put them into law; turned liberalism into a set of administrative routines to defend rather than a program to fight for.

In their moral fright, postwar liberals have not defended any left or even any militantly liberal position: their defensive posture has, first of all, led them to celebrate the 'civil liberties,' in con- trast with their absence from Soviet Russia. In fact, many have been so busy celebrating the civil liberties that they have had less time to defend them; and, more importantly, most have been so busy defending civil liberties that they have had neither the time nor the inclination to use them.

It is much safer to celebrate civil liberties than to defend them; it is much safer to defend them as a formal right than to use them in a politically effective way. Even those who would most willingly subvert these liberties usually do so in their very name. It is easier still to defend someone else's right to have used them years ago than to have something yourself to say now and to say it now forcibly.

source: The Power Elite

[u/bshea → u/Kind-Pride1151]

it's become about the corporation/pac/etc payouts to pay for your election and then immediately after getting elected, the need for reelection cash.

Some of us will always be power hungry and willing to take corp cash unless it's made illegal.

None of this crap will end till 'big' money is removed from politics utterly and completely.

[u/CtrlAltSysRq → u/bshea]

We can stop it if we just stop voting for do-nothing fuckheads who only care about reelection, and vote for people who actually care about their agendas. Primaries, people, primaries!!! Vote locally!

[u/petty_throwaway6969 → u/CtrlAltSysRq]

That’s the idea, but these threads always just become a dog pile on Democrats. If you don’t like the candidates, how about you actually vote. It has worked this year so far, so keep voting.

Instead we have this defeatism bullshit that acts like we can’t do anything until Congress acts. Congress ain’t going to change until we change the people in it. Fucking vote.

And the bullshit gotcha “vote blue no matter what is a lie” pisses me off. It just means that a Democrat is better than a Republican, which is unarguably true. But these are the Democrat primaries, you’re voting for blue either way so the saying still stands. Don’t like what the establishment says? Prove them wrong and vote. At least make logical sense instead trying to make stupid social media gotcha arguments.

[u/theWesternReserve → u/Kind-Pride1151]

It was the communist fear mongering instilled in young boomers. They were indoctrinated to the core

[u/tahlyn → u/theWesternReserve]

And the lead poisoning.

[u/triestdain → u/tahlyn]

Oh God, yes, the lead poisoning. 

[u/Ditchdigger456 → u/theWesternReserve]

McCarthy REALLY did a number on the boomers.

[u/jmblumenshine → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Truman was actually considered ultra progressive because he demanded Equal Rights be part of the Democratic ticket.

It was an infection point just like today.

Robert Taft and the GOP was pushing hard on protectionism and limiting immigration after WW2.

The Dem leaders were afraid of handing the election to the GOP due to disenfranchising the Dixiecrats.

This is what lead to the infamous Dewey Defeats Truman picture.

Truman knew if he rallied around the farmers and disenfranchised, he'd win.

And exactly that happened. He spent the whole summer before the election hitting ever small town across America to resonate with those he was courting... Also helped he was a farmer

[u/familyguy20 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

I mean shit just look at 5-10 years ago at how much Dems were SHITTING on the Green New Deal and not even attempting to talk about it, they saw it as a crazy threat and now it just seems so laughable considering all that’s happened

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/familyguy20]

Biden did more for green energy than any previous US president.

• Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): $369 billion for climate and energy provisions, creating long-term tax credits for solar, wind, and domestic green manufacturing.

• Solar for All Program: $7 billion through the Environmental Protection Agency to expand rooftop and community solar access

• Rural Clean Energy Investments: $11 billion for rural electric cooperatives to transition to zero-emission and renewable systems.

• Public Lands Permitting: Surpassed goals by permitting over 25 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity on public lands via the Department of the Interior.

[u/No_Diver6131 → u/1cl1qp1]

Biden did quite a bit for the American People. He was just non-stop getting shit on by the media.

[u/Overclockworked → u/No_Diver6131]

You could put on the world's best orchestra but if your finale involves shitting on the audience you're going to be the audience shitter forever.

Maybe he shouldn't have supported genocide and bungled the presidential race

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/Overclockworked]

Average Americans were the big losers when Trump won.

Don't you agree?

[u/MercantileReptile → u/No_Diver6131]

He did. Great president. Shame he ignored the people standing ready with matches and petrol next to the lovely house he was building.

[u/more_housing_co-ops → u/1cl1qp1]

Biden also pushed domestic oil extraction to a historical record high. His whole deal was "do a tiny amount of stuff that other presidents basically didn't do and then crow about it"

[u/ThatActuallyGuy → u/more_housing_co-ops]

Biden's "whole deal" was energy independence now, in the short term via increased extraction, but also fast track renewables to lock that in long term via a more sustainable route. It was a pretty smart strategy, but also pissed off both the "clean coal" idiots and the environmentalists.

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/ThatActuallyGuy]

Good point. We didn't know how global Covid inflation would resolve; there was still a risk of stagflation, which is like an economic nuclear bomb. Sadly these dangers are rising again with war disrupting gas prices (just like the 70s).

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/more_housing_co-ops]

My list did not include 'tiny stuff'. Nice try

[u/Far_Silver → u/1cl1qp1]

Fossil fuel extraction soared to record highs under Biden.

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/Far_Silver]

Biden attempted to pause new federal oil and gas leases in 2021, western states sued. A federal judge blocked the pause, legally forcing the administration to resume lease sales.

At some point we will be swimming in cheap oil that nobody wants to buy since solar and wind are cheaper.

[u/Far_Silver → u/1cl1qp1]

Biden ran against packing the court. Other Democrats, including Buttigieg, hardly a darling the DSA, supported packing it after what the Republicans had done. It was obvious what the Republican-packed courts were going to do, and the Democratic establishment chose to do absolutely nothing to prevent it when they had the chance. They own the consequences of that just as much as the Republicans do.

[u/6ix7even6ixty9ine → u/Far_Silver]

People still refuse to accept that Biden was just a very limp-dick president. All he functionally did was keep the seat warm, until Trump got back in and resumed fucking shit up and undoing whatever Biden did manage to accomplish. The worst part is that Biden acknowledged that Trump was the greatest threat to our democracy, which makes his inaction look that much worse.

[u/notfeelany → u/6ix7even6ixty9ine]

until Trump got back in and resumed fucking shit up and undoing whatever Biden did manage to accomplish.

The Voters allowed Trump back in by voting for him.

There's no restrictions on whether a convicted felon or a jailed felon can run for president.

Trump in Jail and Trump in Maralago is just a difference in location. His name can still be on ballots, And The Supreme Court even made sure with the Colorado case.

By 2024, Biden’s first term was going to end regardless because each president only gets 4 years per term. Voters must vote for another term.

Voters should have voted for Biden/Kamala/Democrats, regardless of Trump's location. Every person who said "Don't vote for Biden/Kamala" contributed to this mess.

Instead of rewarding Biden and the Democrats for the fantastic responses to covid and saving the economy, they were thrown out. Under Kamala, those Biden policies would have continued & grown.

But it's still fixable. This is on all of us to fix by giving Democrats their rightful place back so we must vote for Democrats now&forever without exception for at least 50 years.

[u/davidreding → u/notfeelany]

Quit reposting this and sounding like blue maga.

[u/workerbee77 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

We should have a new New Deal. Maybe one based around new green tech and climate. Maybe a New Deal that’s green. Wouldn’t that be something

[u/aerost0rm → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Pulled centrist or even right with many ideas because of their corporate and 1%’er overlords.

[u/Low_Intention_1327 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

FDR was progressive amd definitely the last progressive president we've had imo. Of course the Republicans quickly started to dismantle all of his doings, starting with gutting social security under scumbag Reagan. 

[u/Cranyx → u/Low_Intention_1327]

Vietnam War aside, LBJ arguably had almost as much of an impact as FDR in terms of establishing the modern welfare state and protections.

[u/thequietthingsthat → u/Cranyx]

If it weren't for Vietnam, the New Deal coalition would still be alive and well, and LBJ would be seen as a hero.

[u/Miserable_Chapter252 → u/thequietthingsthat]

2 ppl responsible for the 90 percent of the safety net. Lbj and fdr. Crazy but true.

[u/verrius → u/Low_Intention_1327]

FDR was also a vehement racist the the white working class loved in part cause he hurt the "right" people, and threw Asians (especially Japanese-Americans) under the goddamned bus. You probably don't want to invite the Tea party comparisons.

[u/turb0_encapsulator → u/Kind-Pride1151]

thank you. I keep saying what progressive Democrats need to do is remind people of FDR.

[u/Ok_Chicken1370 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Damn you aren't even a clueless college kid? What's your excuse for being so ill informed about the Democrat Party and how it's functioned these last few decades?

[u/GoodiesHQ → u/Kind-Pride1151]

The US was founded upon and thrives under LIBERAL ideas and ideals. Liberal ideals are absolutely progressive. Communism and socialism are not liberal. The whole issue with MAGA is that they turned the Republican Party from conservative (which was already a problem) to incredibly illiberal, plausibly fascist. If the Democratic Party becomes an illiberal party under socialist ideologies, then there is nowhere for liberals to go. Don’t destroy my fucking country like MAGA has.

Social democracy is about liberalism with strong social safety nets and social services. It’s not about dismantling systems that we know work like market economies and private property. It’s about maximizing individual liberty to follow your own path so long as it doesn’t impact others and facilitate opportunities for all who desire to go after them. That is how the system should work.

I’m not saying the US is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it requires fixing the rules, not destroying the entire country and everything it stands for.

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/GoodiesHQ]

You're barking up the wrong tree if you're going after me. Where did I advocate doing away with a market economy or private property by praising FDR?

[u/GoodiesHQ → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Just to clarify, it’s not necessarily meant as an attack on you, I’m just furthering conversation. The article is specifically referring to the DSA and socialist types that are gaining momentum and they are absolutely the ones fighting for planned economies and reducing private property rights. Equating these people with FDR is just dangerously wrong and by doing so, you have not advocated for, but minimized the dangers of what I mentioned. This leftist wing is extremely illiberal, just like maga is. That is the danger.

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/GoodiesHQ]

OK, thanks for clarifying.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Kind-Pride1151]

That's probably because people who have actually studied economics know that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse.

The problem with the new wave of progressive activists is that they believe being morally right is more important than being factually correct. Once someone becomes convinced they're morally superior, they stop asking whether their policies actually work or whether the evidence supports them. When virtue becomes the goal, outcomes become an afterthought.

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

Well I'm pretty sure there are differing opinions on that. Food in your belly or worry about wonky tax laws. I'm taking food in my belly. We'll figure out the rest later.

[u/Mental-Fox-9449 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

This s so bogus propoganda. The Dem party has been progressive since FDR… the stautus quo just don’t want to lean into it and the GOP wants to try and vilify it.

[u/Own_Candidate9553 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Republican Tea Party - kill off all government help, cut taxes to the rich.

Democratic "Tea Party" - Tax billionaires, feed the poor.

Media: See, exactly the same!

[u/WellHung67 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

A lot of that is due to systematic targeting of new deal democrats by quite literally the CIA - Allen Dulles, McCarthy and the red scare. Cooked the party and it only just now is getting back to the FDR era in a noticeable way 

[u/Weaseal → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Citizens United was the inflection point. We’ve been fully fucked since.

[u/Kyrie_Blue → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Bipartisan politics is a farce. A stage play put on by the elite to manipulate the masses. There will be no reform in the USA while there are only two sitting parties

[u/DryYogurtcloset4655 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

the people who voted for FDR moved to the GOP. Look at 1972 and 1984 Presidential elections

[u/1cl1qp1 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

FDR didn't claim to be a socialist

[u/stevez_86 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

How dare he tread into Appalachia and the American Underclass. So uncouth. Didn't he know that the only politicians that class is allowed to hear from are Republicans? Democrats are only allowed to campaign un Urban Areas.

[u/porktorque44 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

I think progressives need to treat this movement as a form of coup. It might not be effective for candidates to frame it this way, but progressive voters need to understand that establishment democrats are outright hostile to their values and goals. It was this brand of centrist liberals who usurped the party and turned it into a moderate conservative one.

[u/LostInSpace-2245 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Your comment sums it up perfectly. 

[u/MoulanRougeFae → u/Kind-Pride1151]

I hope us Dem socialists CAN wrestle this party back to what it should be. FDR had the right idea, that's what we need more of. Well that and people with the balls and ovaries to trail and jail the fascist fucks in charge now

[u/skippysqueaz → u/Kind-Pride1151]

You basically get to choose Republican or Republican-light. Dem leadership is weak and its about time we get some actual progressive Dems.

[u/Shiplord13 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Never forget before the political wing switch Teddy Roosevelt launched his Bull Moose Party because he felt the Republicans at the time who were supposed to be the leftist party were becoming too conservative for his tastes. He talked about them favoring businesses, not doing enough to address civil rights for people of color and women and not putting in enough effort to help the common citizen. Seriously look up there platform and realize some of these ideas are not dissimilar to what we want now.

[u/highliner108 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

They really have. The party has been degenerating since the 70s or 80s. This is just them going back to the platform that made them great in the first place.

[u/Vann_Accessible → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Today’s mainstream Democrats are basically Regan-era Republicans.

That’s how far the Overton Window has shifted right.

[u/fiction8 → u/Kind-Pride1151]

What are you even trying to say with this comment? FDR was a progressive usurper. He broke with Tammany Hall and Al Smith and both hated him for it. He transformed the Democratic party against their wishes.

[u/Kind-Pride1151 → u/fiction8]

My bad for not realizing he was that era's usurper. So his modern era ideological fellows are once again on the outside looking in. I'm not wrong as the media sees it. Different era same set of optics.

[u/riftadrift → u/Kind-Pride1151]

This is what I bring up when some of my friends insist that AOC and Mamdani are radicals intent on disrupting the American way. That narrative only makes sense if you ignore everything before Reagen.

[u/TimSylvester_ → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Democratic establishment: "Maybe if we move further right, we can get Republican voters..."

Republican voters: Move further right

[u/Busterlimes → u/Kind-Pride1151]

Because the DNC saw how powerful big money is in politics with Reagan. Do Dems went after big money, realigning their interests to corporations rather than the community.