29
   

Why I left the Democratic Party

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 04:58 pm
@edgarblythe,
In retrospect, you were very rarely wrong. 🙂
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 05:02 pm
@Lash,
I only wish I could be wrong about nearly everything these days.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 05:12 pm
@izzythepush,
Lash: Bernie is a Democratic Socialist.

Quote:
Your endorsement speaks volumes. The only people who use democratic socialism as a phrase are authoritarian regimes. Jeremy Corbyn would never use the phrase. If he did he would lose the trust of the people. Sanders' use of the phrase makes him suspect.


Again, your knowledge of the English language and of actual world realities is the problem here. In essence, you are right out to lunch.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 05:13 pm
@izzythepush,
Again, this just illustrates how little you know.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 08:51 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I did not read the article in question and I may be flying off the handle, but if any Sanders supporters are racists, it not only is news to me, it also means they don't know **** about Sanders and just tried to ride a bandwagon. I understand that establishment Dems try to label Sanders as anti woman and not a real friend to blacks, but it's pure bullshit.

Three things to keep in mind, I think.

One -- but I'm repeating myself -- the number of Sanders-Trump voters identified here was relatively low. Significantly lower than the comparable number of Clinton-McCain voters in 2008. So that speaks against perceiving these findings as "pure bullshit" cooked up by "establishment Dems".

Two -- I think there were probably significant differences between active Sanders supporters and the broader universe of Sanders voters. The latter will have included people with a greater variety of motivations.

That was also clear from the geographical spread of his primary vote and some of the exit polls, which IIRC both suggested that his candidacy pulled votes from not just (more obviously) traditional lefty constituencies, but also (less intuitively) blue-dog Dems. In terms of the latter, you could think of voters with ancestral ties (and more specifically, voter registrations, which could determine which party's primaries a voter was able to participate in) to the Democratic party, but little affinity with its cultural liberalism. Bunch of them will have voted for Bernie out of an antipathy to Hillary rather than out of agreement with his overall ideology, though his focus on bread-and-butter issues will have helped pull them in.

For example, Bernie won big in Champaign County, IL (full of very liberal college students) and Minnesota's 8th congressional district (which still has a lot of old-school, trade union Dems); but also in Harlan and Letcher counties in Appalachian Kentucky, which would give Trump 80%+ of the vote in the general election, and similar counties in West-Virginia, Oklahoma, etc. In Florida, the only counties he won were in Blue Dog Democrat territory in the Panhandle.

Three -- there's just all kinds. Voters are weird, and there's a lot more inconsistency and incoherence going on in voter behaviours than most of us, as various degrees of politics junkies, are ill-wired to understand or appreciate.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 09:14 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
The only people who use democratic socialism as a phrase are authoritarian regimes. Jeremy Corbyn would never use the phrase. If he did he would lose the trust of the people.

This is utter nonsense.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party explicitly calls itself "democratic socialist" in its very constitution ("The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party"). In fact, it introduced the label in its constitution in 1995... when Tony Blair was party leader. The sentence about Labour being a democratic socialist party is literally printed on the back of its membership cards, apparently.

Former Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock argued in favour of "democratic socialism, deeply rooted in the history of Labour and Parliamentary democracy". Former Deputy Leader Denis Healey, no radical, recounted having "fought to try to keep democratic socialism alive in Europe" as the party's International Secretary, trying "to advocate [for] democratic socialism, and oppose [the] influence of the Soviet Union".

New Zealand's decidedly non-authoritarian Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern calls herself a democratic socialist. Sweden's most famous Prime Minister ever, Olof Palme, told a TV audience, "I am a democratic socialist, with pride and with joy".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  4  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2018 09:41 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I suspected as much when you used the term 'democratic socialism,' it's not a term a real socialist would use, not someone who actually understands what socialism is.

Let's add Michael Foot, another former leader of the Labour Party, to Kinnock and Healey as famous Labour politicians who apparently didn't "actually understand what socialism is":

Quote:
For the men and women who made the Labour Party Constitution, and who insisted on seeking to establish a Labour Party inside parliament as well as outside in the country, were not mistaken. [They understood] that the words democratic Socialism should never be separated, that one was impossible without the other.

Tony Benn, too:

Quote:
The general election of 1983 has produced one important result that has passed virtually without comment in the media. It is that, for the first time since 1945, a political party with an openly socialist policy has received the support of over eight and a half million people. [T]he 1983 Labour manifesto commanded the loyalty of millions of voters and a democratic socialist bridge-head in public understanding and support can be made.

Nye Bevan, father of the NHS, spoke glowingly of it as well:

Quote:
Democratic socialism is a not a middle way between capitalism and communism. If it were merely that it would be doomed to failure from the start. [...] It is based on the conviction that free men can use free institutions to solve the social and economic problems of the day, if they are given a chance to do so.”

Can probably do this forever..
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 02:17 am
@Lash,
We have a long tradition of socialism over here dating back to Kier Hardy and beyond. It's not an affectation, something used to shock, it's sacred. When those without a similar history start adding qualifiers it raises the hackles. Democratic Socialism, sounds a lot like National Socialism, the minute you start adding qualifiers you diminish it, insult it. Socialism is by its nature democratic, and if you need to say that then you're really a Socialist because you don't really understand it. It's not a game, it's a serious political ideology whose vision is utopian in scope based on common humanity and international brotherhood and sisterhood.

I was reminded of this quotation from The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, substitute Socialist for Human and you're there.

But in general, take my advice, when you meet anything that's going to be Human and isn't yet, or used to be Human once and isn't now, or ought to be Human and isn't, you keep your eyes on it and feel for your hatchet.

If nothing else my eyes have been opened and I'm grateful for that.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 04:22 am
@izzythepush,
You’ve lost an argument. It happens.

This type of reaction should be beneath your dignity.

nimh
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 05:53 am
@izzythepush,
This is the risk of putting people on ignore... Izzythepush has me on ignore, so he didn't see my quotes from Bevan, Healey, Foot, Benn, Kinnock and the Labour Party's current constitution above, all invoking the values of "democratic socialism".

That's why he's still solemnly pontificating about how the "sacred" tradition of British socialism, dating back to the founder of the Labour Party, illustrates that people who use the qualifier "democratic socialism" aren't "really a Socialist" and "don't really understand" socialism. That the label "democratic socialism even "sounds a lot like National Socialism".

Now, to be sure, I wouldn't blame anyone for being ignorant of the various, often contradictory applications of ideological nomenclature in the history of the socialist left. It's not like I just pulled all those quotes from the top of my head! Hell, I used Wikipedia to source a few of them -- like anyone could.

In particular, I've personally never liked the label "democratic socialism" much because it's been used to denote such different things at different times in different countries that it's become fairly meaningless. People from the right of mainstream socialist parties have used it to push back against more left-wing peers who seemed too tempted by revolutionary socialism. People from the left of mainstream socialist parties have used it to push back against more right-wing peers they felt had drifted off towards all too reformist social-democracy. And people in the former Soviet bloc have used it to mask or justify oppression and dictatorship. I don't understand why Bernie doesn't just call himself a social-democrat, which in any case seems to describe his politics better.

So nobody can be blamed for ignorance of some of this convoluted history. I have only a fragment of my dad's grasp on the debates and definitions of socialism myself - barely enough to know where to look to find out more. Does get a little harder to countenance when someone is so aggressively, smugly cocksure in their ignorance though. Never any shame in using 'the google' to double-check what you're about to claim.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 05:59 am
@nimh,
I've had a committed leftist (from the UK no less) argue to me in real off-line life that democratic socialism is the way to go.

I was unconvinced. I can see the argument for taxing the rich to provide a social safety net for the poor. But without capitalism the iPhone never gets invented.

But they were definitely a committed leftist defending their viewpoint. It wasn't an attempt to make socialism look bad or anything like that.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 06:22 am
I never had the patience to decipher all the nuances of the different socialism definitions. I just know I support a system democratically arrived at and democratically maintained. Any authoritarian moves, such as communists employ, rejected.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 06:58 am
@Lash,
Have I bollocks. I don't care what Edgar calls himself but he's no Socialist. A Socialist would condemn everyone else who does not share his religious viewpoint. That type of intolerance is straight out of the 16th Century.

I'll be damned if I'm going to read any more of his Putin inspired horseshit. I'm just angry with myself for letting him pull the wool over my eyes for so long.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 09:01 am
Is a 'democratic socialist' what on the 'continent' we call a social-democrat?
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 09:13 am
@Olivier5,
http://www.dsausa.org
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 09:24 am
@Lash,
Okay so there are social democrats. Nothing new there, and certainly nothing to get all angry about... Social democracy is THE main leftist ideology all over Europe. It dates back to the likes of Jean Jaurès and the early 20th century... The demise of communism in the 1990s only strengthened the social democrats' dominance on the European left.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 09:50 am
Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq after he thought Saddam humiliated his father. 9/11 gave him that excuse, he launched a crusade, something hugely offensive to all Muslims, and his father's old gang Cheney et al were happy enough to go along with the profiteering.

They created a climate of fear and paranoia like that of McCarthyism. A compliant media went along with it, anyone who opposed the Patriot Act or the illegal war was vilified as a traitor in the press. Not only that Bush knew Saddam had no WMDs but he continued with that lie long after the illegal invasion proved otherwise.

To misrepresent that level of coercion, bullying and intimidation as bipartisan support is nothing short of obscene, and its only purpose is to let Bush, Cheney and all the other war criminals, (including Blair,) off the hook.

Now I won't say any more on the matter. I've got Edgar on ignore and I can only assume he's done the same to me. Suits me fine.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 09:52 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn wrote:
The presence of "money" the NRA and the stoking of fear and resentment though informs your intuition sufficiently to warrant an accusation that people who hold a conservative viewpoint on the 2nd Amendment, have blood on their hands. However, these factors are only "superficial because the true cause of these horrendous acts is our pathological culture

Well, if gun violence is not a cultural phenomenon, what other explanation do you have for the huge discrepancy between our rates of school shootings and those in other countries? If it's the huge number of firearms then it would stand to reason that laws affecting the supply of weapons and their ease of purchase might not be as useless and ineffective as the gunbunnies contend.
Quote:
Democrats spend as much money or more as their opponents on elections.

You're always quick to bring this up, as if campaign spending is the only money in the picture. It isn't.
Quote:
As far as stoking fear and resentment, what do you call the claims of Democrats that Republicans are trying to kill people with their policies, are waging war on women, the poor and every other “minority” interest group in America, literally want to control women’s reproductive systems, consider blacks and Hispanics inferior to whites, and, oh yeah, care more about their guns than their children?

I thought we were discussing gun violence and how right-wing rhetoric might have an effect on it. Why are you bringing up standard Democratic campaign positions which have nothing to do with the discussion and manifestly don't stoke the sort of fear or resentment which leads to school shootings?
Quote:
Do you frequently make truly damning accusations about people, despite the fact that you cannot draw a clear line from them to the tragedy for which you blame them; which are based upon an intuitive conclusion which you admit centers on three factors that are “superficial” (and only one of which, whether or not you admit it, can be considered uniquely “owned” by them) and which, when pressed, you discard and offer up an entirely different causation?

I didn't realize you were this thin-skinned. I simply suggested that the long held right wing positions like nationalism, hostility toward non-white immigration, and hyper-individualism tend to complicate any discussion of solutions to gun violence. Many conservatives don't hold these beliefs but the ones that do tend to predominate in this debate.
Quote:
Do you image that conservatives are so cold-hearted and devoid of empathy that they would not, quite reasonably, find being accused of having the blood of innocents on their hands to be deeply insulting?

Aww... <sniff>

I think before I took offense I'd look at the source of the charge. In this particular case I defy you to point out where I said that "conservatives have the blood of innocents on their hands"? If a similar charge were made against me I'd question the accuser's motivation. I don't subscribe to the notion of "collective guilt" and would simply discount such a specious accusation instead of getting all butt hurt because maybe someone doesn't like me or my politics.
Quote:
Talk about “fighting words” Do today’s liberals have any concept of what this term means other than voicing opinions like marriage should be between a man and a woman, men who simply feel like women should not be permitted to use the same public bathrooms as young girls who are only biologically female, all lives matter, men on campuses accused of sexual misconduct should not be deprived of due process, or hunting and killing animals is good fun?

Now that you've had time to cool down maybe you can reformulate this so it's comprehensible. What's it have to do with gun violence and school shootings?

"marriage should be between a man and a woman" — why?

"men who simply feel like women should not be permitted to use the same public bathrooms as young girls who are only biologically female" — you think it's so "simple" — what about people who have a complex relation to the gender attributed to them at birth and have lived as the opposite gender for a good portion of their lives?

"all lives matter" — except that this feel-good platitude is pretty hollow when contrasted with human history. All lives should matter, sure — but they don't, which is why we have this nifty little slogan.

"men on campuses accused of sexual misconduct should not be deprived of due process" — if they're singled out because they're white sports heroes?

"hunting and killing animals is good fun" — you know, I've killed a number of animals in my life. Some were euthanized, some were raised by me for slaughter, and some were hunted and harvested in the wild. I've never considered killing to be "good fun". In fact, the people who do are often people who end up killing other people. There's a word for those types — "creeps".



Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 09:56 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
To misrepresent that level of coercion, bullying and intimidation as bipartisan support is nothing short of obscene

What's obscene is to let the fools who voted for this horror off the hook. That includes many dems, and important media institutions such at the NYT. Yes Bush lied, but far too many people were eager to be fooled and much too happy to jump on the war band wagon.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2018 09:56 am
@Olivier5,
Social democracy is not Socialism and has never pretended to be. Americans, unlike Europeans, have no history of Socialism, other than to vilify it under McCarthy.

If they want to call themselves Social Democrats they can go ahead with my blessing, but if they want to be Socialists they shouldn't try mucking around with it by adding qualifiers. It didn't work with National and I can't see Democratic faring any better.

If anyone wants to know what Socialism is, real Socialism, not ersatz bullshit, they should read this.

https://cdn.waterstones.com/bookjackets/large/9780/1411/9780141187693.jpg
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:24:24