• retrospectology@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    The technical distinction are becoming less and less compelling. The whole “Things will get better if you just vote for our chosen establishment democrat one more time.” starts to wear thin after decades of 0 substantial results and, more often than not, straight up complicity in the worst crimes of the far-right.

    Establishment democrats support the corporate aristocracy and banks just the same, they barely fight for really basic stuff like civil rights and only enough so they have something to point to, not to actually fundamentally change anything in a way that the right can’t just reverse. That’s why we are where we are right now, the Conservative Democrats’ greed and lack of spine has allowed the far-right to capture the courts and undermine our institutions, unopposed over the course of 40-ish years.

    The Democratic party is the only one with potential to change, but that’s never going to happen if they can just keep doing the pied piper shit and getting re-elected. For all intents and purposes they are identical.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Here’s the problem, people don’t vote down ticket, and they only vote every 4 years instead of every 2 years.

      The president is more of a cheerleader than a person of substantial power. That’s not to say the office of the president isn’t individually powerful, but you need strong margins in the house and the senate to actually get stuff done.

      We kind of had that for 2 years when Obama and we got the affordable care act… Even then the margins weren’t that great; I don’t think Obama was the problem so much as they couldn’t find the support to do something bigger in Congress.

      Even with those thin margins Democrats come across the aisle regularly to actually get governance done (e.g. fund fixing infrastructure). They’re not even close, we’ve got one party that actually governs, and another that prints money for the rich, attacks people based on their bedroom preferences, and doesn’t give a shit about the environment.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The president is more of a cheerleader than a person of substantial power.

        You’re literally using tactics developed by fascists in your argument here. Somehow, the president is little more than a “powerless cheerleader” if we’re talking about Dems but “the end of democracy” if talking about Trump/Republicans. Both can’t be true.

        We kind of had that for 2 years when Obama and we got the affordable care act… Even then, the margins weren’t that great; I don’t think Obama was the problem so much as they couldn’t find the support to do something bigger in Congress.

        Even with those thin margins Democrats come across the aisle regularly to actually get governance done

        The ACA was a plan written by Republicans. Obama and the Dems chose this over any sane single-payer option to allegedly “appease Republicans” and yet none of them voted for it (and then spent years trying to repeal it). This means we could have had single-payer all along instead of further cementing the private healthcare market that continues to bankrupt Americans to this day.

        In another attempt to appease Republicans, they allowed them to steal Obamas SCOTUS appointment while also allowing Trump to steal what should have been Biden’s SCOTUS appointment, stacking the Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority which lead to the end of abortion rights in the country and who knows what else in the coming decades.

        Neither party is interested in fixing the absolute train wreck that this country has become. Both serve the rich. One party is just better about messaging and branding. There are many good Dem politicians but the party leadership and party as a whole is just as rotten as the other. That’s why we’re here with Trump having a 50% chance of being president for the third time in a row and why we’ll continue to have candidates like him in the future.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          30 days ago

          You’re literally using tactics developed by fascists in your argument here.

          [citation needed]

          Somehow, the president is little more than a “powerless cheerleader” if we’re talking about Dems but “the end of democracy” if talking about Trump/Republicans. Both can’t be true.

          They’re over simplifying the problem. Trump is a cheerleader for fascism inside of the United States, a vote for Trump is a vote for every Republican in congress to be emboldened to do Trump like things (and even if they don’t agree with them, fear their own removal).

          There’s certainly a different aspect for international issues and relations as well. However, ultimately, congress has all the power in this country. If Democrats had solid super majorities in the house and senate, or there was a super majority that was willing to side with Democrats to protect from Trump, there would be very little reason to worry.

          In fact, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion because congress would have held Trump accountable and convicted him during the impeachment hearings preventing him from holding office.

          Obama and the Dems chose this over any sane single-payer option to allegedly “appease Republicans”

          [Citation needed] see the majorities at the time, they could not get single payer past the majority of the Democrats in congress let alone Republicans. There was not a sufficiently progressive majority.

          In another attempt to appease Republicans, they allowed them to steal Obamas SCOTUS appointment while also allowing Trump to steal what should have been Biden’s SCOTUS appointment

          They “allowed” that to happen? What could they have done?

          They didn’t have control of congress.

          I’d go on but I don’t have time to say “they didn’t have control of congress” all day. If you want something done in this country, you need congress (either via super majority) or via a slim majority and an aligned president (and even then in the latter case, results may very due to personal votes/perspectives of representatives).

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Here’s the problem, people don’t vote down ticket, and they only vote every 4 years instead of every 2 years.

        In no small part due to DNC suppression and interference. This is why people say the neoliberals need to be allowed to fail until they have no option but to tlstop suppression tactics (or leave and go to the GOP where they belong)

        The base cannot reform the DNC they can only starve the power structure until it’s desperate enough to stop sniping progressives. It worked after Clinton’s failure, we got a ton of progressives in office after that.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      You speak as if the democrats cooperating with republicans is a flaw on their part. They don’t exist in a vacuum — they have to deal with the American public. And when half this fucking country is voting for the disgusting shit the republicans are all about, the democrats aren’t going to stay in office if they always do the right thing. Politics sucks.

      And just to clarify: I’m not saying they’re innocent. They do protect a lot of the same institutions that drive inequality, etc.

      Also I don’t really hear "Things will get better if you just vote for our chosen establishment democrat one more time” much lately. It’s more like stopping the bleeding or putting down the gun against your head before you can start making improvements. Trumpism is just that bad.

      • retrospectology@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        You speak as if the democrats cooperating with republicans is a flaw on their part. They don’t exist in a vacuum — they have to deal with the American public.

        The majority of Americans are for basically all progressive policies, particularly when asked directly about a policy rather than a party or politician.

        The issue is not the American people (of who MAGA chuds are 30% at best) the issue is that Democrats and Republicans work in concert to rig the system and deny the people access to politicians who are actually willing to implement popular policy.

        This corporate circle jerk game (fueled not inconsiderably by Citizens United) is why the fascist roght is able to keep pushing our institutions further t9 the right. Establushment Democrats and Republicans are so busy gorging on lobby payouts and shoving AIPAC money ip their asses that they literally put up no resustance except when it comes to changing the status quo. Which is when they turn and will snarl and bite at anyone who tries to interrupt them.

        So no, it is not “dealing with the American people” it’s deliberately side stepping and suppressing them to loot our nation’s legacy.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, and the media is complicit in all of it.

          But I still feel comfortable putting a chunk of the blame on the voters. You’re absolutely right about progressive policies being popular on their own, but the fact that people don’t vote accordingly is the fault of both the communicators and the public. The public who just rolls with the team sport of politics and don’t care to look into actual policies and their effects on people.

          I don’t think the public carries most of the blame though, because being ignorant is not nearly as bad as all the intentional bad faith bullshit done by those more involved in the system.