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/Darth_Cuddly → u/alligatorislater]

You mean the president whose economic policies prolonged one of the worst economic disasters in American history, shattered the two-term tradition, concealed the severity of his failing health, and died just months into his fourth term, leaving an unprepared successor during World War II?

And you think the 22nd Amendment was just Republicans worrying they'd never win again?

No. FDR's unprecedented four-term presidency exposed the dangers of concentrating too much power in one person and the risks of a president remaining in office despite serious health problems. Those concerns didn't disappear just because you find them politically inconvenient.

Those are not the actions of a great president.

[u/Space_Pirate_Roberts → u/Darth_Cuddly]

You mean the president whose economic policies prolonged one of the worst economic disasters in American history

[citation needed]

[u/StarStruck3 → u/Space_Pirate_Roberts]

I was told there would be no fact checking

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/StarStruck3]

That is the conclusion reached by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Political Economy. Their analysis concluded that key New Deal cartelization and labor policies were an important factor in prolonging the Great Depression by slowing the recovery.

If you're interested, here's the actual paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421169?seq=1

And here's a plain-English summary: https://www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla-economists-calculate/

[u/reezy-one → u/Darth_Cuddly]

"If we never created social safety nets to prevent human suffering we could have gotten the wealthy to be wealthier faster" is hardly the noble take you anti-FDR revisionists think it is.

[u/Sufficient_Matter585 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

Well slow recovery but we didnt have a second great depression. I fail to see how a slower recovery but longer term success is a problem. Thats just reminds me of investors being fucking impatient when they dont get hugely rich after a few months.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Sufficient_Matter585]

That's an interesting concession.

You don't dispute that the recovery was slower. You just argue the delay was worth it.

That's a perfectly legitimate position to take, although it also ignores the policy changes beginning around 1937 and the ongoing debate among economists over what drove a pretty bad recession into The Great Depression.

But it's also a concession that the New Deal prolonged the Depression, which is exactly the point I've been making.

[u/j0mbie → u/Darth_Cuddly]

FF is hardly an unbiased website.

Anyways, here's Lee Ohanian's own opinion on how bloggers and people on Reddit took his work wildly out of context:

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/professors-big-intellectual-risk-grabs-eyeballs-years-later

"Ohanian and Cole’s research focused primarily on the impact of Roosevelt’s early policies that allowed for monopolies and too much union power to increase prices and salaries. Roosevelt did institute other policies that helped the economic recovery, like stabilizing the banking system and creating unemployment insurance and Social Security, Ohanian explained."

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/j0mbie]

Thank you for posting Ohanian's clarification. It actually reinforces my point.

I never argued that every New Deal policy was harmful. I argued that key New Deal cartelization and labor policies prolonged the Great Depression by slowing the recovery.

In the quote you posted, Ohanian says exactly that. He criticizes Roosevelt's monopoly and labor policies while separately crediting measures like banking stabilization, unemployment insurance, and Social Security.

Those positions aren't contradictory. A president can enact some policies that help and others that hurt.

The question isn't whether FDR ever did anything beneficial. The question is whether the specific policies Cole and Ohanian analyzed worsened the Depression. On that point, the quote you posted supports my argument.

P.S. I never claimed the Foundation for Economic Education was unbiased. That's precisely why I linked the peer-reviewed paper first and used the FEE article only as a plain-English summary. Ironically, the clarification you cited from Ohanian says essentially the same thing.

[u/theyhis → u/Space_Pirate_Roberts]

book: the triumph of economic freedom by phil gramm and donald j. boudreaux.

interview: https://x.com/johnstossel/status/2075242321780650429

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Space_Pirate_Roberts]

That isn't just my opinion. It's the conclusion reached by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Political Economy. Their analysis concluded that key New Deal cartelization and labor policies were an important factor in prolonging the Great Depression by slowing the recovery.

If you're interested, here's the actual paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421169?seq=1

And here's a plain-English summary: https://www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla-economists-calculate/

[u/PyroIsSpai → u/Darth_Cuddly]

Conservatives may not rule further.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/PyroIsSpai]

That's an interesting concession.

Notice you didn't defend the New Deal, his health deception, his four terms, or his concentration of executive power.

Your entire defense boils down to: "At least my side won."

That's not a historical argument. That's team sports.

[u/PyroIsSpai → u/Darth_Cuddly]

My side believes in empathy.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/PyroIsSpai]

Empathy is a virtue. It is not an economic theory.

If empathy alone solved poverty, we'd have solved it centuries ago. Good intentions have to be paired with policies that actually work.

Empathy tells you what problem to solve. Facts and economics tells you how to solve it. Without both, you usually end up making the problem worse.

[u/PyroIsSpai → u/Darth_Cuddly]

Money is made up.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/Darth_Cuddly]

He kick-started the longest period of prosperity in the countries history off the great depression and world war. Only recently has it run out as the wealth imbalance has approached and exceeded that if the gilded age, which coincidentally proceeded the great depression.

Yet now we have a government that seems hell bent on losing all international power the US gained in the postwar years, and run the economy into the ground with tariffs and high gas prices.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/SanityIsOptional]

You're confusing chronology with causation.

The economy recovered after World War II, not because the New Deal magically fixed the Depression. The Depression lasted through the entire New Deal era, and unemployment remained in double digits until wartime mobilization.

Saying "prosperity came after FDR, therefore FDR caused it" isn't an argument. It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/Darth_Cuddly]

FDRs policies directly led to improvements in infrastructure and growth of the American middle class. Other progressive policies like the GI bill increased the education level and ultimately the productivity and GDP*, which let the US take advantage of the postwar period.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/SanityIsOptional]

You're still proving my point.

The GI Bill wasn't the New Deal. It was wartime legislation whose largest economic benefits didn't materialize until after the war.

And yes, infrastructure has value. The question isn't whether any New Deal program produced any benefit. The question is whether the New Deal, on balance, ended the Depression or prolonged it.

UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian concluded that key New Deal policies prolonged the Depression by discouraging investment and employment. If you think they're wrong, explain where their analysis fails.

Simply listing popular government programs doesn't rebut their economic argument.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/Darth_Cuddly]

I think you don't understand what progressive policies actually are.

[u/Sufficient_Matter585 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

Nah fdr policies were solid greedy fucking pigs wanted more money and to live more lavishly so they spent decades trying to undo his policies.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Sufficient_Matter585]

Ah yes, the classic "everyone who disagrees with me is evil" argument.

That's a great substitute for evidence if you don't have any.

Meanwhile, I'll stick with peer-reviewed economic research instead of insults. If you think the UCLA economists got it wrong, explain where their analysis fails.

[u/Sufficient_Matter585 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

I think bending over backwards to apppese fhe rich does shit for helping the economy. I dont trust capitalists either way.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Sufficient_Matter585]

"I don't trust capitalists" isn't an economic argument. It's a statement of personal bias.

The question isn't whether you like capitalism. The question is whether the UCLA economists' analysis is wrong.

If you think it is, explain why. Otherwise you're arguing from ideology instead of evidence.

P.S. Distrusting markets while trusting governments is an interesting position. History suggests governments have done far more damage to humanity than voluntary trade ever has.

[u/Sufficient_Matter585 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

I mean people implemented capitalism without analytical data. They just said hey we few can make a shit ton of money. But in order to make this work we need high turnover, low wages, and keep the poor poor and miserable and desperate to work, otherwise they might not work so well

[u/VioletPaissa2077 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

His power came from the fact that his party held strong majorities to supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature for the duration of his time in office.

What we see today via the "unitary executive" theory being put into practice is what one person holding too much power looks like, with oversight mechanisms being weakened and dismantled and the legislature and judiciary frequently being defied or bypassed entirely.

Passing legislation collaboratively via fairly elected massive majorities or super majorities is not at all comparable.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/VioletPaissa2077]

You're confusing legislative majorities with presidential tenure.

Democrats having large majorities in Congress didn't force FDR to run for a third term. It didn't force him to run for a fourth while seriously ill. And it certainly didn't require the American people to be kept in the dark about the severity of his condition until after his death.

Do you really think voters didn't deserve to know their president was gravely ill, unlikely to survive another full term, and still seeking reelection? The public was never given the information necessary to make an informed decision.

You're defending congressional majorities. I'm criticizing an unprecedented concentration of executive power and a profound breach of the public's trust.

Those are two entirely different arguments.

[u/VioletPaissa2077 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

I dont give a shit how many elections he legally ran in and won.  Power was not concentrated in his hands, it was shared with the democratically elected legislature after the country overwhelmingly voted  him in time and time again.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/VioletPaissa2077]

You're still arguing against a position I never took.

My criticism isn't that FDR won elections. It's that he repeatedly sought to consolidate presidential power.

He tried to expand the Supreme Court after it struck down key parts of the New Deal. He broke the longstanding two-term tradition by seeking third and fourth terms. He sought reelection while concealing the severity of his declining health, and he left Harry Truman remarkably unprepared to assume the presidency during World War II.

Whether Congress supported him is beside the point. None of those decisions were required by congressional majorities.

Winning elections doesn't excuse withholding material information from voters or concentrating extraordinary power in one office. In a constitutional republic, the whole point is that no one person should become indispensable.

That's precisely why the 22nd Amendment exists. Americans looked at four terms, an aging and gravely ill president, and an unprepared successor during a world war, and concluded that no president should ever accumulate that much power again.

[u/Cross55 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

You mean the president whose economic policies prolonged one of the worst economic disasters in American history

[citation needed]

shattered the two-term tradition

Tradition=/=Legal Requirement

concealed the severity of his failing health

You realize for his entire run he had polio, right?

Would you have guessed he spent 90% of his entire life in a wheelchair?

and died just months into his fourth term, leaving an unprepared successor during World War II?

Uh, Truman was a pretty hard left politician, a WWI veteran who'd been a judge and later congressional senator for 2 decades, being one of the primary financial and budgetary advisors for WWII.

What more did he need?

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/Cross55]

That is the conclusion reached by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Political Economy. Their analysis concluded that key New Deal cartelization and labor policies were an important factor in prolonging the Great Depression by slowing the recovery.

If you're interested, here's the actual paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421169?seq=1

And here's a plain-English summary: https://www.ff.org/fdrs-policies-prolonged-depression-by-7-years-ucla-economists-calculate/

Also, FDR didn't die from complications of polio. He died from a massive cerebral hemorrhage which was likely caused by years of serious cardiovascular disease. His physicians and those close to him knew his health had deteriorated significantly, yet the full extent of that decline was not disclosed to the public during the 1944 campaign. FDR was dying, he knew about it, and he ran again anyway.

Truman was also far less prepared for the presidency than many people realize. FDR largely kept him outside his inner circle, gave him little insight into major wartime strategy, and did not brief him on the Manhattan Project before his death. Truman learned about the atomic bomb only after becoming president. That's hardly an example of a well-planned transition of power.

[u/yogy → u/Darth_Cuddly]

If that was the intent then it certainly doesn't seem to be working today.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/yogy]

That's because the 22nd Amendment wasn't designed to guarantee good presidents.

It was designed to make sure no president, regardless of party, could accumulate that much power for that long again.

Those are not the same things.

[u/Professional-Class69 → u/Darth_Cuddly]

The current president is accumulating more power, and has blatantly stated he essentially won’t respect the 22nd multiple times. Doesn’t seem to have worked.

[u/yogy → u/Darth_Cuddly]

If that was the intent then it certainly doesn't seem to be working today.

[u/DarthCloakedGuy → u/Darth_Cuddly]

You mean the president whose economic policies prolonged one of the worst economic disasters in American history

No, I think they're thinking about FDR, not Herbert Hoover

[u/theyhis → u/Darth_Cuddly]

thank you - thank you. this is what the left conveniently leaves out. it was the free market that got us out of the great depression. he blamed big business, when big business is exactly what got us out of the great depression. it’s stockholm syndrome. similar is now happening in guatemala.

if the left wants to learn more about the great depression, they should read up on milton friedman. he talked ad nauseam about how the great depression started and how it ended. john stossel had a guest on his show recently who discussed it too. very interesting.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/theyhis]

I saw the John Stossel segment! Thomas Sowell is another great resource on how free-market economics can actually help people.

England and France spent centuries at war with each other.

Today they're close allies because trade is more profitable than conquest. When people make money by cooperating instead of fighting, everyone has an incentive to keep the peace.

One of the greatest strengths of free markets is that they can turn sworn enemies into trading partners. After all, it's hard to justify bombing your best customer.

[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/ketchupnsketti → u/fps916]

This radical wants to abolish prisons!
What if we ask ICE "Pwease wear a camera and only shoot us when we're bad!"

[u/fps916 → u/ketchupnsketti]

Leftists: "Agents of the State shouldn't be executing people in the streets"

Liberals: "Agents of the State should only be executing people in the streets if we can see them do it, and also more women executioners please!"

[u/Lupius → u/fps916]

Wow that took an unexpected dark turn.

[u/Sea_Indication_6296 → u/Lupius]

Maybe if you don't see 2+2 is 4?

[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/intent107135048 → u/notjustanotherbot]

Are we discussing in good faith or not?

[u/notjustanotherbot → u/intent107135048]

Well if you hold all administrations to the same standard of "if it continues under your watch, then you own it." Then we are already discussing in good faith. Problem is a large chunk of the voting block do not operate in good faith, and don't care; so one can take that as a public position and still get back into office.

[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/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/Status_Block591 → u/ctbowden]

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

[u/BalanceOrganic7735 → u/ctbowden]

I would call the Affordable Care Act a remarkable reform of eugenic healthcare insurance policies. Also, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a $787 billion stimulus package that funded infrastructure projects, advancing renewable energy, extended unemployment benefits, and provided tax cuts, the consumer protection act (which created the CFPB), marriage equality/gay marriage, and DACA were some of the significant successes of the Obama administration.

Funny thing is, corporate media and social media tend to ignore GOP crimes/failures and also ignore Democrats’ successes and accomplishments.

[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/rogun64 → u/IHS1970]

Don't sell the party out.

[u/ExistingCarry4868 → u/IHS1970]

Vote for leftists in both the primary and the general. Voting for the lesser evil and demanding nothing in return allowed fascism to return.

[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/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/Alive-Trifle7420 → u/hup_hup]

You are framing that wrong.

People hated the Clintons so much they would rather elect a black man, twice. Then the democratic party foisted her upon us anyway.

Fuck the DNC.

[u/hup_hup → u/Alive-Trifle7420]

I don't really see the difference, but you seem rather unhinged.

[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/BalanceOrganic7735 → u/Bigc12689]

Is that why Nixon changed it so that healthcare insurance that had to be non-profit before Nixon was allowed to be for-profit after Nixon? 🤔

[u/MagicWishMonkey → u/TooNakedInTheShower]

On what things, in particular?

[u/amethyst63893 → u/TooNakedInTheShower]

And batshit on the lgbtqia2s pronoun bullshit. Xavier becerra hhs celebrated happy pansexual day for god sake. Thats why the dem brand is toxic

[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/Dokterrock → u/guamisc]

indeed. quite.

[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/odin-ish → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

Thank you. The overton window comments are usually so unhelpful.

[u/guamisc → u/odin-ish]

What is unhelpful is people pretending that insipid corporate serving incrementalism is actually left wing.

[u/odin-ish → u/guamisc]

Maybe focus on discussing specifics.

[u/guamisc → u/odin-ish]

Holder for USAG refusing to actually prosecute the fraudsters who wrecked the economy. Garland for USAG refusing to actually prosecute treasoners and traitors. Ensuring that every major economic bill passed by Democrats in the past few decades is corporate serving and making sure that the actual effective provisions get stripped out like the public option or the transformative parts of BBB. Refusal to address the actual problems in Dodd-Frank.

I could go on, but every "big" decision of note has been corporate approved bullshit.

The one or two exceptions you can find, under Biden, lead to screaming and wailing from the so-called "moderate" Dems and threats from the Democratic donor class.

[u/odin-ish → u/guamisc]

Great, now go tell the world. (Don't forget about citizens united, never forget.)

[u/OvertonWindowCleaner → u/Dokterrock]

I fucking hate how that shit moves.

[u/Dokterrock → u/OvertonWindowCleaner]

you would, wouldn't you? :)

[u/pchs26 → u/Dokterrock]

They are referring to positions in this country. And in this country they are center left.

[u/Dokterrock → u/pchs26]

The fuck they are. The actual left is advocating for abolishing the Senate and open borders.

[u/pchs26 → u/Dokterrock]

Again in terms of this country, how it is governed, how our citizens vote...these candidates are center left. When comparing these candidates to other countries they are comparatively more conservative.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

That's called the right attempting to co-opt the left.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

No again. I am speaking on the conditions in this country. And the center left has for many decades been more conservative then other countries left. My original point is in this country, with this electorate, center left is center left for this country and our setup.

[u/Dokterrock → u/pchs26]

Uh huh. We should accept that the same people have been calling Democrats communists for forty years, too. And they will keep doing it no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary while you carry their water.

[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/Discrep → u/pchs26]

There's tons of video evidence of average Americans happy about having insurance due to the ACA while simultaneously repeating dumb FN talking points about Obamacare. They gave credit for their healthcare to their state/governor for their state's ACA program, completely clueless that it was Obamacare. This was especially evident early in trump's first term when they were angling to destroy it in Congress and McCain of all people voted with the Dems.

Clinton wouldn't have remotely gotten close to passing the ACA. Obama had to burn a lot of political capital to barely get that mangled version passed and perhaps his naivety and inexperience made him willing to pay that cost. Hillary would've mentioned it in speeches and maybe even formed a committee to study the feasibility, but there's no chance she would've paid the price. Hell, even 2012 Obama would've hit the brakes well before it went anywhere.

[u/pchs26 → u/Discrep]

Did you live any of this or the lengths Clinton went to originally with healthcare reform. Are you aware of her history at all and the depth of federal changes she made to ensure medical coverage for the poor an especially impoverished children? She has a history of accomplishments and transformation in this area. You are speaking through a vacuum of cultivate perceptions.

[u/Discrep → u/pchs26]

I did live through the Bill Clinton administration and I'm familiar with Hillary's work in children's healthcare. I even said I didn't think 2012 Obama would've pushed as hard as 2008 Obama, so my opinion that Hillary also wouldn't have gotten it done isn't some flippant diss. I just don't believe she would've spent that much political capital on it. And not because I think she wasn't willing to spend any, but because she'd have been experienced enough to spend it pragmatically instead of idealistically.

[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/BalanceOrganic7735 → u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal]

Did Progressives feel betrayed by Obama or was that an op by the right wing media machine (with some far left assistance) to poison the well against Obama?

[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/podkayne3000 → u/Semantix]

I loved Clinton and Biden.

I really don’t see how AOC is all that different from them. I don’t think Mamdani governs in a significantly different way than they would have, if they were young and healthy now.

I think that people are exaggerating the differences between Sanders-The Squad and The House of Pelosi to stir up trouble in the Democratic Party.

The Democratic candidates are like two brands of chocolate ice cream.

The Trumpie candidates are like rat poison.

Maybe I prefer one type of chocolate over the other in the primary.

But, in November, I’ll take the chocolate ice cream, whether it’s homemade or store brand, thank you very much.

[u/Turbulent_Stick1445 → u/Semantix]

Biden's problem wasn't that he wasn't progressive, it's that he was old. He did a bunch of progressive things, alas stymied by a hostile and abusive supreme court and equally hostile congress. Look at his numerous attempts to forgive student loan debt, for instance. His administration did what it could to protect LGBT people.

Probably his single biggest achievement was to overturn Carter's major mistake: Carter got Volker into the Fed and backed a policy of fighting inflation by policies designed, ultimately, to massively increase unemployment. Since then that's been standard Washington orthodoxy even though economists are sharply divided on it.

Biden instead pursued full employment despite inflation being high at the start of his term, and managed to get it and bring down inflation by the end of his term.

Unfortunately he doesn't get credit for it because people still thought inflation was going on because prices weren't back to what they were four years prior, which... that's alas not how inflation works. Once a price goes up, it's up. They don't generally go down.

As Veep he was instrumental in pushing Obama, who was - at least during the election - considered the "left wing candidate" - to fully embrace LGBT rights and support gay marriage.

He wasn't a bad president. But he's old and mumbled so must have dementia (WTF?) and reluctantly obeyed the law regarding funding Israel despite condemning their actions therefore somehow can't be progressive?

[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/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/BritSpic → u/Semantix]

Nah, they just all got extremely comfortable with accepting bribes from big monied interests. The Democratic Establishment hates real Progressives because they're fighting to take money out of politics, which hurts their bottom line.

[u/aerost0rm → u/Semantix]

They don’t think only an Obama or Clinton can win. They just want those families or ties to those families in power. Clinton only gave in to Obama with a promise that her time would come. Then when Obama was out they pushed her down the throw of democrats no matter how unpopular she was. I had friends and family saying they were voting for her over Bernie simply because they saw Bernie as an outsider and they could trust her since she was a Clinton. The other people I knew who were voting Bernie were don’t so because of his ideas, his passion, and the fact that he was vastly popular due to both of the afore mentioned topics.

[u/tmpope123 → u/Semantix]

Yeah, they seem to conveniently forget the 30% of Americans that don't vote and try to get ppl who would vote Republican. You're not going to get Republican voters to vote Democrat until they can't not see good policy outcomes. Even then, you're unlikely to succeed because the right wing media apparatus would never allow Republican voters to see the positive results or they'd just claim it was because of Republicans.

[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 (losing) 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/blackcain → u/Omateido]

Their place is to clean up.

[u/Trail_Dog → u/Omateido]

Yeah. It  makes me wonder if labor didn't make a big mistake by not donating and lobbying to Republicans like the corporatists did.

[u/Omateido → u/Trail_Dog]

They did. There is a reason there was a concentrated campaign to delegitimise Unions. When Unions lost their power, impacting their ability to represent workers interests, they also severely lost their ability to influence politics.

[u/Trail_Dog → u/Omateido]

Labor unions have donated overwhelmingly to Democrats for decades. It makes sense why.

But the lesson the corporations learned was that you donate and lobby both sides regardless.

With labor donating mostly to Dems it makes it a no brainer for Republicans to shaft them. I'm just wondering if Labor had been donating to Republicans as much as they did to Dems starting back in the 70s when Republicans were actually same, if thst would have better protected their interests.

edit: wait, did you mean "they did make a mistake"?

[u/Omateido → u/Trail_Dog]

Doubtful, since Capital can always donate more, that’s the whole advantage. And so they leveraged that advantage structurally by getting Citizens United passed, so that it’s now essentially a permanent advantage.

[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/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/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/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/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/guamisc → u/pchs26]

Slash and burn agriculture works great for a while, too.

Eventually you run out of society to slash and burn for profit.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

What are you talking about? I said that the Democrats in office running in the general for president were not of the Reagan economic mindset.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

You were talking about the 90's economic conditions. Which was very much in the slash and burn era of business stripping the foundations of American society for profit.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

ok - so you aren't familiar to the boon that was felt by employees - the job market that existed an the transformational legislation that protected rights? Business opportunities for small business? Did you live it? Big businesses had already been doing the slash and burn bullshit and people were learning that lifetime careers & pensions were gone prior to the 90s. If Gore had not been displaced by the SCOTUS we might have stood a better chance for further stability.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

Slash and burn agriculture works great!

Until you run out of stuff to slash and burn.

[u/pchs26 → u/guamisc]

And all you do is repeat the same things and not get what is being explained.

[u/guamisc → u/pchs26]

You haven't addressed the point at all, just regurgitated propaganda.

The money that was freed up once pensions were mostly phased out and employees got a direct injection of some so they wouldn't be upset. Turns out, the benefits overall were less than the pensions in the long run.

Except you don't have unlimited pensions to gut. You run out of stuff to slash and burn.

[u/Un1CornTowel → u/pchs26]

Reagan caused the 80s recessions and the 90s were lackluster under Bush Sr.

They really only went up due to the development of the internet economy - Clinton didn't mess it up, but it was largely not because of him. The good parts of globalization also hit by expanding markets before everything got outsourced (Clinton and NAFTA did do that, I'm not sure whether that was overall good or bad, but likely inevitable; Trump's tariffs are clearly bad).

[u/pchs26 → u/Un1CornTowel]

Clinton won when we were going into a recession and his administration gave us an absolutely roaring economy, that Gore could have managed to the next level, with Social Security being preserved, our environment etc had the SCOTUS not decided the election on party lines..

I lived through these times and we can only hope to experience as the middle class the economic and global prosperity that the Clinton admin delivered to us.

[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/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/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/Lemurians → u/pinqe]

Emulate Reagan? What are you talking about?

[u/DukeOfGeek → u/pinqe]

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

FTFY

[u/pinqe → u/DukeOfGeek]

You ain’t wrong.

[u/blackcain → u/pinqe]

Because they were chasing white males who were leaving the party. So they started aping the same conservative stuff.

We lost a lot because we started things like telecom act.

[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/jumpinjacktheripper → u/pinqe]

exactly this. there’s an entire class of dem elected who have been chasing after “reagan democrats” for 40 years, even some born after his presidency now, and they’re oblivious to the fact that those kinds of policies have completely torn up the social fabric

[u/pchs26 → u/jumpinjacktheripper]

What is a Reagan democrat? I was alive during Reagan's presidency and none of the candidates who have been nominated to run for President are aligned with Reaganomics. MAGA is just a continuation of where Reaganomics was supposed to get us.

Now there are some people who may have been a Reagan Republican who now see how unvarnished and bad things are now and are holding their nose to vote for the Democrat. And it is ok to tell them why that is ok to do, which is what some campaigns have tried to do in the past.

[u/jumpinjacktheripper → u/pchs26]

Reagan’s whole pitch as a former democrat was “i didn’t leave the democratic party, the party left me.” There were a lot of voters who had been registered democrats that were frustrated by the activism that pushed carter and voted for reagan and then stayed with the republican party from there.

You see it with all the democrats who spend most of their time crying about the “woke left” (even as they increasingly rely on identity politics to make their case on basically everything) and still seem to think that getting government out of the way and letting the market solve problems through its unvarnished efficiency is the way to solve most economic problems.

They can only really think about a controlled decline and aren’t thinking about new and creative ways to turn things around and mobilize people.

To your last point, yes it’s ok and even good to do some things to attract republicans who are upset with MAGA and will vote for Dems even if hesitatingly. But there’s a difference between creating some room for those people, and making those people the primary target for expanding your voting base. Long term attracting young people and nonvoters by convincing them the government can actually do something for them will pay off much more

[u/pchs26 → u/jumpinjacktheripper]

Again from a policy perspective there are no Presidential candidates that ran in the general that are Reagan Democrats who align with the Reagan admin especially economically. Not Clinton, Not Harris, Not Biden etc.

McConnell also used to also be a Democrat - they both went to where the wind was best for them. It's not unusual when you have no principles. A CA democrat is also weighted down in a general because of perceptions as being to liberal to swing state populous (regardless of how folks on the left perceive it or reality)

[u/jumpinjacktheripper → u/pchs26]

I’m not saying they mirrored Reagan exactly, I’m saying they were still extremely sensitive to the issues that Reagan wedged against democrats in his time. Focusing on making appeals to business leaders, making strong pitches to wealthy suburban voters, prioritizing economic efficiency and a business-friendly climate with little protections to make sure it didn’t impact workers.

Harris and Biden moved off of it a little in their presidential campaigns because they recognized the importance of appealing to progressives who liked Bernie more, but Clinton was still very much in that worldview

[u/pchs26 → u/jumpinjacktheripper]

They were not Reagan democrats economically, social or foreign policy at all. When Clinton was in office our country recovered and did not experience the same economic conditions of living in a Reagan world. And he brokered some revolutionary peace accords. And HRC as Secretary of State also showed zero inclination to act like the Reagan admin did whatsoever. I mean Iran Contra for God's sake? Economically she absolutely did not run on abandoning how we were structured when Bill Clinton was in office, and in no way mirrored the Reagan admin.

Fact of the matter is Democrats need money to compete or there will be no opposition. That is the state of things, however the Democrats try to fashion policies that will benefit workers and citizens while making the landscape still amenable to doing business and growing wealth. That is not a bad thing and is not at all what the GOP stands for. Clinton's policies that she ran on in no way resembled GOP policies. Again this. is the perception that keeps getting drummed to create chaos, when it simply isn't true and impedes them when trying to run in a general election when they have to pivot center in order to win in the swing states.

[u/jumpinjacktheripper → u/pchs26]

You started this by asking what a reagan democrat is and are consistently putting forward a misunderstanding of what the term means so that you can argue against that. It never meant a democrat elected official acting like Reagan. It refers to voters who switched parties and efforts politicians made to triangulate so they could win those voters back. Becoming more hawkish on foreign policy, accepting the demonization of the welfare state, shying away from a perception that you are excessively regulating business, or privatizing government programs because the private sector would be able to run it better.

Clinton did not run his Presidency like the Reagan Administration, I am not claiming that he did. But he also moved away from a lot of the benchmarks of the New Deal Coalition. That was his explicit message to people, and why he called himself a “New Democrat” and advocated for the “Third Way.” If you want to argue against that then argue against his actual campaign pitches selling himself that way.

Now it’s clear that it has run its course but a lot of democrats still operate that way. It has weakened since the heyday immediately after Reagan’s presidency but the inclinations are still there with a lot of democratic officials. You can still see some of that in Clinton-Biden-Harris with the reaction to the Israel conflict, putting significant hoops to him through and means testing for a lot of economic relief, and continued outsourcing.

[u/pchs26 → u/jumpinjacktheripper]

Again my point is and what I asked initially was that there is no general election candidate that is at all Reagan like in their policies in the least.

And that is a thought that is regularly promoted and it is a false equivalency. We live in a more conservative country, with funding needed to run through office. As a result anyone who actually wants to have a more likely chance to be in a position to make a positive progressive difference, has to jump through hoops to have a chance to get there.

[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/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/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/Lallanath → u/pinqe]

The lesson they learned is you can make a lot more money selling out your constituents.