Moderate Democrats (also liberals)

@maporsche,

Okay so you can't come up with any example of a bold move which you ACTUALLY think would work and be more effective that a long series of tiny steps. QED

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Okay so you can't come up with any example of a bold move which you ACTUALLY think would work and be more effective that a long series of tiny steps. QED

That's not what you asked me.

You asked: "Could you provide an example of a reform or domain where you would favor a bold move forward rather than a series of increments, then?"

I answered.

The question of where I think a bold move forward would be more effective at implementing a policy I believe in is a much different question. I will consider it. Nothing immediately comes to mind, but I'm multitasking while at work, so not wholly focused.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I suspect no example comes to your mind because you never thought in those terms. So do give it some thought.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I suspect no example comes to your mind because you never thought in those terms. So do give it some thought.

In the mean time...

a) bold changes are not possible without significant majorities in our Congress and increasingly our Judiciary and obviously a President to sign the bills. Nothing is more important than getting these majorities. Nothing is more important than voting for every candidate with a D next to the name. From Joe Manchin to AOC. If they are a democrat, they should get every left of center person's vote. Full stop.
b) if those majorities exist, then I support bold change (even if it gets you voted out of office, i.e. Obamacare)
c) if they don't exist, then I support incremental change
d) if they are in the minority, I support keeping what we've gained as much as possible

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's not about "winning". It's about maintaining a functional common market.

What "meaningful concessions" did the EU reject, pray tell?

I think the proper question should be what meaningful concessions did they offer or approve.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

It's not about "winning". It's about maintaining a functional common market.

What "meaningful concessions" did the EU reject, pray tell?

I think the proper question should be what meaningful concessions did they offer or approve.

In any negotiation, one side has to ASK for a concession so that the other side can consider it. So I repeat: what concession did May ask for, which was rejected by the EU?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

a) bold changes are not possible without significant majorities in our Congress and increasingly our Judiciary and obviously a President to sign the bills. Nothing is more important than getting these majorities. Nothing is more important than voting for every candidate with a D next to the name. From Joe Manchin to AOC. If they are a democrat, they should get every left of center person's vote. Full stop.
b) if those majorities exist, then I support bold change (even if it gets you voted out of office, i.e. Obamacare)
c) if they don't exist, then I support incremental change
d) if they are in the minority, I support keeping what we've gained as much as possible

The repukes are only changing things for the worse, so I agree with point a) and d) wholeheartedly.

On b), Obamacare is typical of an incremental approach, which often leads to what us French call a "gas plant policy" on account of gas plants complexity. I think a similar US expression is "spaghetti ball".

c) sounds absurd to me. If you don't have a majority you can't do anything.

The deeper issue is: Nobody who gets excited to vote for incrementalists. Baby steps don't inspire anyone. So in order to get a strong majority you need a well thought and bold platform. Neither a "tiny baby steps" platform nor a totally utopian platform will get you votes. You need to balance ambition and realism in order to get elected in the first place...

The guy who was elected in 2016 was not an incrementalist.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

c) was meant to be when a party has a majority but not the super-majority needed for major legislative changes.

And I’m just tired of people needed to feel “motivated” or “inspired” to vote. Let’s stop blaming politicians for not lying to the public enough and getting them all “jazzed” about some huge initiative that probably won’t happen and start blaming the public for not voting.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Are you now saying that anyone proposing a bold policy move is a liar?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Are you now saying that anyone proposing a bold policy move is a liar?

Not about their goals, but about the feasibility. Yes. I think many politicians make promises that get broken because they are unfeasible in our current climate. There are websites devoted to broken promises.

The difference between “I WILL implement single payer Medicare for all” and “I’d like to...”

2 Replies

@maporsche,

I think we need a balance between the visionary and the tactical. People proposing grand sweeping changes are visionary and that is critical. We need someone be visionary, inspirational. At the same time, we need people who can plot a course that can actually get us there. That course will often include many small steps and I think that is fine. The Democrats last election cycle had someone who was entirely visionary in Sanders against someone who was almost entirely tactical in Clinton. Sanders had big ideas and inspired a lot of voters, but he had no concrete plans and no realistic hope of success. Clinton had a lot off very detailed plans and likely could have moved the needle towards progressive ideals in office but presented no overarching vision and inspired very few. IMO, the best candidate has to be able to play in both fields.

5 Replies

@engineer,

I think Klobuchar is pretty close to that.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I agree with all that.

And I agree with Brand X that I think Klobuchar fits the bill.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I'll be really interested in seeing how she does. I expect she'll get a lot of flak from the left wing of the party. How she handles that criticism will be telling.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I don't know if you guys are still talking about moderate democrats.

Klobuchar is not a moderate. She checks the left liberal boxes pretty much down the line.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

She's said that she's not a "socialist" so right away that distinguishes her from some of those to her left. "Moderate" is only meaningful when compared to positions on either side. It doesn't imply anything on its own.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

She is compared to most of the other candidates.... and that's going to count this election when 'socialism' and 'Vinnizwella' will be Trump's new favorite words to campaign with.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
Are you now saying that anyone proposing a bold policy move is a liar?

Yes.

Well then, it's pretty obvious you don't believe in bold moves....

1 Reply

@engineer,

What Engineer said.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:
Are you now saying that anyone proposing a bold policy move is a liar?

Yes.

Well then, it's pretty obvious you don't believe in bold moves....

You did not quote me or represent my beliefs or statement.

You are a liar with your omission and characterization.

1 Reply

Moderate Democrats (also liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know