Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 347: The Indian in the Cabinet

(+) Yeah! (+)

Saying the far left is radical...fine. By American standards, you're right. However, you're making the claim that both sides are equally radicalized, which is typically the strategy of someone who supports the ideals of the lesser option. If both sides are the same, then it doesn't matter if your side is fucking terrible.

The thing is though...the radical right that has grown increasingly militant in the wake of the tea party movement, to the point where they elected Trump and spent four years near-unanimously kowtowing to his desires, because they didn't want to piss off his base, who might primary them or otherwise feel disillusioned by the political process and not vote. The right isn't really combating their most radical elements, and are instead embracing them in their lust for power.

Say what you will about the Democrats, but again, this is a conservative nation and the Democratic establishment is center-left/center-right. The people in power, much to the annoyance of a progressive minority, are not bending over backwards to adopt every "radical" progressive policy being offered up. They're trying to be centrist and compromise so as not to drive off the moderate base that still makes up a majority of the party. So yes, both sides have "radical" elements, but only one side is actually acting on those elements. And it's not the party that nominated Joe Biden of all people to the presidency.

---

masterplum posted...

But regardless if you want to make changes in America you have to make changes Americans want. The rest of the world doesn't vote in American elections.

So do you want to be the old man yelling at clouds or do you want to get something that Americans will support

it's very misleading to claim that universal healthcare is "not something americans want." 95% of this predominantly american topic probably supports it.

seems like the question you should be asking is "do i want to convince you" and the answer is... not really? probably nothing i can say will convince you anyway. there's nothing radical about the opinion that universal healthcare is good and i'm not going to sugarcoat this opinion to make it more palatable to you. if you want to go "WAHHH UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IS SO RADICAL IT'S COMMUNISM," whatever. i'm used to this kind of rhetoric from arguing with muffin for years.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Will feel weird posting this after just pointing out that it's common for large portions of a country to be dumb, but...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/

On the ground level, the support is there.

Still need to package it and present it well. Lots of social changes have died as soon as they have been labeled communism

---

Inviso posted...

However, you're making the claim that both sides are equally radicalized

I literally never said this

---

Comparing plum to SmartMuffin is not fair. Muffin is a looney and talking to plum is significantly better.

---

masterplum posted...

I mean, my political beliefs are fairly centrist, but I wouldn't say I have any GOP affection. I'm extremely annoyed in the radicalization of both political parties.

And to preempt your statement, given they 80 million people voted for Trump and are therefore more right leaning than I am, I am certainly centrist.

Your first paragraph implies otherwise, Plum. Fact is, the Democratic Party has next to no radicalization. You can see it in the annoyance of the progressive wing that they're not getting more of their agenda pushed forward...the party is not embracing the unfettered "radical" ideas of the left wing the way the GOP did with the tea party.

---

not saying plum is muffin. the "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IS RADICAL" take is definitely very muffin-ish, though.

---

Inviso posted...

You can see it in the annoyance of the progressive wing that they're not getting more of their agenda pushed forward...the party is not embracing the unfettered "radical" ideas of the left wing the way the GOP did with the tea party.

I fucking wish the Democratic party was half as left-wing as FOX News claims it is.

---

masterplum posted...

I am more left than at least 80 million Americans and I am apparently still too conservative to talk to. That's how the Democrats are radicalized. You see it everywhere on the internet

You keep saying "80 million Americans". Biden got 80,000,000 votes. Not Trump. Trump only got 73,000,000 votes.

---

Inviso posted...

Your first paragraph implies otherwise, Plum. Fact is, the Democratic Party has next to no radicalization. You can see it in the annoyance of the progressive wing that they're not getting more of their agenda pushed forward...the party is not embracing the unfettered "radical" ideas of the left wing the way the GOP did with the tea party.

Yeah I didn't explain what I meant very thoroughly.

I think the supporters of both parties are being radicalized. The far right is obvious, but the far left are a different kind of radicalization where it is becoming less and less ok to have centerist views. The extremes of that is people being labeled racist or homophobic if they don't share identical views.

I'm trying to avoid using stereotypical phrases like safe spaces or triggered but those stereotypes are representative of the sort of radical isolationism in the far left

---

Dancedreamer posted...

You keep saying "80 million Americans". Biden got 80,000,000 votes. Not Trump. Trump only got 73,000,000 votes.

I mean, given half of america didn't vote I don't think I'm wrong, but I was rounding. I don't think it changes my point

---

masterplum posted...

Yeah I didn't explain what I meant very thoroughly.

I think the supporters of both parties are being radicalized. The far right is obvious, but the far left are a different kind of radicalization where it is becoming less and less ok to have centerist views. The extremes of that is people being labeled racist or homophobic if they don't share identical views.

I'm trying to avoid using stereotypical phrases like safe spaces or triggered but those stereotypes are representative of the sort of radical isolationism in the far left

Again, I think the problem is that you're looking at vocal progressives being annoyed at centrists, and you're assuming they're the face of the Democratic Party. They're not, largely because, as I've said in the past, they've done a very good job of alienating the moderate and centrist majority of the party by behaving the way you just described. It's not radicalization if it's being rejected, and it IS being rejected on the left in a way that the right has easily embraced.

---

Inviso posted...

Again, I think the problem is that you're looking at vocal progressives being annoyed at centrists, and you're assuming they're the face of the Democratic Party. They're not, largely because, as I've said in the past, they've done a very good job of alienating the moderate and centrist majority of the party by behaving the way you just described. It's not radicalization if it's being rejected, and it IS being rejected on the left in a way that the right has easily embraced.

I guess the question is trajectory. It's definitely MORE like that then it was 10 years ago for example, so is the democratic party going to continue to push against that or not?

I think the trend will continue, but I would love to be wrong

---

Stated before but bares repeating: nobody in this topic series is a Centrist. Anybody claiming to be is right wing and just ashamed to admit it.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Stated before but bares repeating: nobody in this topic series is a Centrist. Anybody claiming to be is right wing and just ashamed to admit it.

I would say myself and LotM are centrists, and we're absolutely not right wing. But I concede the point that MOST of the time in this topic series though, when someone goes out of their way to claim moderate status, it's someone who parrots right-wing talking points and wants to paint themselves as the reasonable one while anyone to the left of them is a radical.

---

Also I'm going to push back a bit against the 'Democrats are bad at messaging progressive policies' thing. I feel like progressives are actually fairly good at messaging their policies. The issue comes from the Democratic establishment, the majority of who simply don't want progressive policies and will never adopt them unless there is overwhelming support, and sometimes not even then. The establishment isn't bad at messaging progressive policies - they don't message them in the first place and will often go against them when possible.

The establishment is, however, bad at messaging their own stuff. So hey.

---

Inviso posted...

Your first paragraph implies otherwise, Plum. Fact is, the Democratic Party has next to no radicalization.

This is as equally wild of a take as "both sides are equally radical"

unless by "democratic party" you mean the people who are currently in seats of democratic power, in which case I guess that's right.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Stated before but bares repeating: nobody in this topic series is a Centrist. Anybody claiming to be is right wing and just ashamed to admit it.

I'm also going to have to disagree on this one too. I consider myself a Centrist, but definitely not right wing.


---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Stated before but bares repeating: nobody in this topic series is a Centrist. Anybody claiming to be is right wing and just ashamed to admit it.

I am referring as an american voter. I think talking about world political centers is kind of meaningless and is usually used by the very liberal as a way to try to explain how they are the ones who are mainstream.

Which regardless of truth, is irrelevant imho

---

Centerist is also really hard to define. If you're fiscally conservative and care about human rights what are you? Fiscally you're farther right than republicans but socially you're farther left than democrats. Technically thats the center right?

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Also I'm going to push back a bit against the 'Democrats are bad at messaging progressive policies' thing. I feel like progressives are actually fairly good at messaging their policies. The issue comes from the Democratic establishment, the majority of who simply don't want progressive policies and will never adopt them unless there is overwhelming support, and sometimes not even then. The establishment isn't bad at messaging progressive policies - they don't message them in the first place and will often go against them when possible.

The establishment is, however, bad at messaging their own stuff. So hey.

Progressives are great at messaging their policies to the voting minority that already wants said policies. But they alienate moderate VOTERS with that same messaging. I feel like the constant blaming of the "establishment" removes any onus from the progressive wing to adapt or change to the political climate. The "establishment" is able to thrive because that's what the majority of voters WANT. The majority of the Democratic Party's VOTERS are moderates, and they're the ones who turn out year after year, so of course they get catered to by the party.

The progressive wing needs to do two things: 1, message to the MODERATE VOTERS, not the progressives who are already on your side. Play politics and take the small victories when you can't win the war in one shot. And 2, progressives need to turn out and vote Democrat EVERY election, no matter what. Because even if they're going to maintain the status quo, that's still better than reversing existing progressive policies that the GOP wants to do. Maybe if the Dems can run roughshod over the GOP for a good string of elections, then we start yanking the GOP back towards the center and shifting that Overton window so progressive policies aren't viewed as "radical" and "frightening".

---

These polices are something that 95% of americans want, it's just that they can't pass them because the electorial college and our current voting system unfairly benefits the conservatives. Also, packing the court is a direct response to the conservative side being hypocrites and d-bags, not letting our president choose and citing a reason, and then throwing that reason out when it's convenient for them. There are all reasons for the left being 'radical' and they are all direct responses to the right being batshit-insane.

By the way, I'd like to point out that the election took place over a month ago.

It's still been a long month but it feels like it's been leagues faster than the rest of the year. Funny how waking up each day is easier now!

---

KamikazePotato posted...

By the way, I'd like to point out that the election took place over a month ago.

It's still been a long month but it feels like it's been leagues faster than the rest of the year. Funny how waking up each day is easier now!

No, it didn't? <_<

---

Speaking of Republicans turning face when they're about to be out of a job and it doesn't matter anymore, looks like Barr had abandoned Trump.

---

almost over a month ago!

also known as a little under a month ago

---

It did for me, at least. There's still COVID but that never went away in the first place, and Trump's is splitting his bed-shitting between the country and the Republican Party instead of just the country. All his attempts at grabbing more power have failed and he'll be out...not soon, but there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

---

Inviso posted...

Progressives are great at messaging their policies to the voting minority that already wants said policies. But they alienate moderate VOTERS with that same messaging. I feel like the constant blaming of the "establishment" removes any onus from the progressive wing to adapt or change to the political climate. The "establishment" is able to thrive because that's what the majority of voters WANT. The majority of the Democratic Party's VOTERS are moderates, and they're the ones who turn out year after year, so of course they get catered to by the party.

The progressive wing needs to do two things: 1, message to the MODERATE VOTERS, not the progressives who are already on your side. Play politics and take the small victories when you can't win the war in one shot. And 2, progressives need to turn out and vote Democrat EVERY election, no matter what. Because even if they're going to maintain the status quo, that's still better than reversing existing progressive policies that the GOP wants to do. Maybe if the Dems can run roughshod over the GOP for a good string of elections, then we start yanking the GOP back towards the center and shifting that Overton window so progressive policies aren't viewed as "radical" and "frightening".

Do you get how the establish opposing the progressive policies makes that harder? For example, we know that support for M4A fluctuates based on how it's framed, so we know for a fact that vocal opposition from mainstream figures will hurt progressives. It's not like progressives have perfect messaging, but you are ignoring that they're already doing this.

The only exception is probably Bernie himself, who was gambling way harder on just overruling normies. Others aren't really following that model, and are moreso applying his voter outreach strategies. Bernie is not the entire progressive movement though.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Do you get how the establish opposing the progressive policies makes that harder? For example, we know that support for M4A fluctuates based on how it's framed, so we know for a fact that vocal opposition from mainstream figures will hurt progressives. It's not like progressives have perfect messaging, but you are ignoring that they're already doing this.

The only exception is probably Bernie himself, who was gambling way harder on just overruling normies. Others aren't really following that model, and are moreso applying his voter outreach strategies. Bernie is not the entire progressive movement though.

The problem is that the progressive movement really has two faces: Bernie Sanders and AOC. And while WE like them, because they address US in manner that appeals to us, having spoken regularly to moderate Dems, those two do come across as aggressively combative and intent on destroying the entire system (which they might be, and the system probably SHOULD be destroyed and rebuilt...but that's not a message that's going to resonate well with moderates).

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Stated before but bares repeating: nobody in this topic series is a Centrist. Anybody claiming to be is right wing and just ashamed to admit it.

About centrists in this topic: I tend to think of "centrist" as meaning "both sides are equally wrong and the right answer is always a compromise between the parties". The (not right-wing) people here who call themselves "centrist" are actually moderates (that is, they reject radical views on both sides but don't insist that both sides are equal). Historically there's no difference between moderates and centrists, but now that one party has gone insane the "center" has shifted enough that moderates aren't really in the center anymore.
---

again, from a global perspective, american "centrists" are actually on the right because american politics is so slanted to the right. if you position yourself on the american center, you're really between the regular right and the far right. so you're... pretty far to the right but not super radically right-wing.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

These polices are something that 95% of americans want, it's just that they can't pass them because the electorial college and our current voting system unfairly benefits the conservatives. Also, packing the court is a direct response to the conservative side being hypocrites and d-bags, not letting our president choose and citing a reason, and then throwing that reason out when it's convenient for them. There are all reasons for the left being 'radical' and they are all direct responses to the right being batshit-insane.

If this was true you would see state governments be way more progressive. They arent.

---

I missed a discussion thats right in my wheelhouse, but everyone is being so annoying Im gonna sit this out.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I missed a discussion thats right in my wheelhouse, but everyone is being so annoying Im gonna sit this out.

not sure how people calling a person out who is being really dumb is annoying but sure.

---

Xeybozn posted...

About centrists in this topic: I tend to think of "centrist" as meaning "both sides are equally wrong and the right answer is always a compromise between the parties". The (not right-wing) people here who call themselves "centrist" are actually moderates (that is, they reject radical views on both sides but don't insist that both sides are equal). Historically there's no difference between moderates and centrists, but now that one party has gone insane the "center" has shifted enough that moderates aren't really in the center anymore.

This is because this is how you justify yourself. Liberals are just as much polarized and radical as the conservatives.

The center is still the center. The problem is that too many people submit to the idea that it's a war and you have to be on an extreme to support your side utterly or lose. The center is still there. And just where it always has been. It is just dwindling in size as more and more move to the ends of the spectrums on either side.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

By the way, I'd like to point out that the election took place over a month ago.

It's still been a long month but it feels like it's been leagues faster than the rest of the year. Funny how waking up each day is easier now!

And New York still hasn't finished counting.

---

Inviso posted...

The problem is that the progressive movement really has two faces: Bernie Sanders and AOC. And while WE like them, because they address US in manner that appeals to us, having spoken regularly to moderate Dems, those two do come across as aggressively combative and intent on destroying the entire system (which they might be, and the system probably SHOULD be destroyed and rebuilt...but that's not a message that's going to resonate well with moderates).

AOC is pretty diplomatic. Bernie is too, for that matter, but the key distinction there is that Bernie has to maintain his status as an independent renegade. IMO both voters and the Dem establishment can more easily write him off since he isn't a "real" Dem. AOC does not, she approaches everything from working not just with but actually inside the Democratic party.

The fact that she comes off as aggressively combative is more about the narrative around her being manipulated. She has a few spicy takes on occasion, but in reality she is not nearly as radical as people towards the center-left want you to believe. The really hardcore normie libs she alienates are a vocal minority that you can't win over, it's frequently more about the team sports angle than policy. And AOC is absolutely a team player, she just has actual good-faith criticisms that people can't handle. In some ways, that's more threatening to them. Can't win there.

---

Neither AOC nor Bernie come off as combative. Both of them are respectful to their political opponents and know how to disagree with someone without believing they are literally evil.

---

https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1333896865880940544

What a loser

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1333896865880940544

What a loser

Good, he's finally conceding. Sets a good precedent for when Trump is term-limited out of holding further office in 2028.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Good, he's finally conceding.

well, they did say he MAY announce for 2024.

i'll believe it when i see it.

---

He's got to be smart and launch the 2024 campaign before noon on January 20 though. If he tries to go head to head with Biden's inauguration speech all the TV networks are going to cover Biden. He's got to launch while he is still president.

---

Does Trump legally have to announce a 2024 run before he can ask his followers to give him more money for it or something? I don't really understand what he gets by declaring his candidacy so soon.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Does Trump legally have to announce a 2024 run before he can ask his followers to give him more money for it or something? I don't really understand what he gets by declaring his candidacy so soon.

Probably. He announced his 2020 campaign the day after he took office in 2017 or something.

---

late, but plum quotes from this topic will be a new go-to for me when explaining why "centrism" is such a terrible political movement

---

Universal Health Care will destroy the jobs of Health Insurance employees.

Just like transitioning to Renewable forms of energy will destroy the jobs of Coal Mining employees.

.

Those are simply true things. Yes some portion of the health insurance industry can transition into supplemental insurance providers for things not covered by the government, but on the whole there will be a great purge.

And honestly that is just something that we have to be okay with as a country. And plans for universal health care need to address the needs of families that will no longer have income when the insurance companies shrivel. Just like plans for renewable energy need to address the needs of families that will no longer have income when the coal mines/plants/etc close. And it's nice to say "we'll just retrain all the miners to be computer programmers", but historically retraining programs like that are not proven effective.

But whatever the plan is, there will inevitably be some people who slip through the cracks or who for some reason aren't able to fully benefit from whatever the transition plan is. And we just have to be okay with that too.

Because the alternative of never switching to renewable energy in a meaningful way or never embracing universal health care? Well that is far worse.

Progress can carry a price. And sometimes you have to ask yourself if the benefit is enough to justify the price. This is not one of those times.

---