You're conflating what is best for the country vs. what wins elections.

People have been pretending the Democrats are communists since I've been following politics. Obama was supposed to "fundamentally change America". His signature achievement was a middle of the road healthcare reform. We were told his re-election would be the end of America. We survived fine, with less debt than a Republican would've accrued. The flight 93 argument happens every election. I view the talking point about as seriously as those who say Republicans are just one election away from bringing forth fascism. It's an argument that only works on dumb people.

Also Bogie, is there any post from you pre-Trump asking for the Republican party to start appealing to the working class? Or did you come to this realization after Trump got popular?

This post was edited by IceMage on Jul 19 2020 08:46am

Democrats are constantly pulling the country to the left on social/cultural issues, while Republicans are constantly pulling it to the right on economic policy.
In reality, what the country really needs is the opposite: move to the left on economic issues/taxes and to slightly to the right on cultural/social issues.

At the end of the day, both major parties (or at least their party establishment) are just two heads of the same hydra, and this hydra is serving corporate interests, not the American people.

And yet Obama did precipitate a sharp move to the left on cultural issues. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and the Ferguson riots were precursors to what the country is currently going through. Hyper-partisan reporting, race-baiting by Democratic officials, and the wholesale adoption of false narratives. Obama exacerbated that trend (see his comments in both instances) in a way that fundamentally damaged racial discourse in the country. You see that reflected in American views on race before and after his presidency.

Economically, Obama was relatively moderate in what he set out to achieve. Whether that was him accepting political reality, or fundamentally what he believed, I don't know. But the Democratic party today is not the Democratic party of 12 years ago. Obama's platform at this point is solidly to the right of what Biden is proposing, let alone the myriad of new Democratic voices to his left.

I don't know, my views on the economy have moderated over the years, and I'm far more to the center economically than where I was 10 years ago. I've always been a civic and economic nationalist, and when I look outside, a need for that is what I see. What I've always wanted is a robust, competitive economy that rewards according to what you contribute. As times change, what that looks like is going to naturally morph as well.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jul 19 2020 09:21am

I don't think it's as easy as saying left and right.

Economic conservatism isn't wrong, per say, but in American terms it has often meant allowing multinational corporations to have unbridled power. The tax system is a mess, and complicated efforts to obtain tax revenue from well-connected and well-represented companies. "Free trade" is great in principle, but it has often meant American concessions to partners who are either exploitative (e.g. China), or who extract far too many concessions to protect privileged industries (e.g. Canada, Japan). The damage to American industry has gone overlooked.

The solution isn't to move left and adopt the policies of spendthrifts like AOC, for whom financial literacy is a concept they're unfamiliar with privately, let alone on behalf of a 20 trillion dollar economy. It's to address fundamental structural flaws that have opened up over the course of the last 40 years of economic growth and globalization. Competitive meritocracy is the ideal, but we can't very well allow the entire country to develop into an upper and underclass.

When I said that the country needs to move left a bit on economic issues, I dont mean going full AOC, I mean moving towards where other industrialized countries are in terms of social security and taxes, and pushing back the neoliberal kind of globalization that we have seen over the past decades. (The one where the entire world is thrust into an increasingly cutthroat struggle of everyone against everyone else in terms of tax rates, worker rights, wages, environmental protections, to the benefit of a few multinational megacorporations.)

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 19 2020 10:18am

We need to move further left on social issues with the help of a reasonable opposition.

The right is to busy with their "people will pretend to be trans to rape your daughter" to actually contribute a reasonable opposition.

We definitely do not need more of 'gender race class quotas', policed speech and cancel culture, safe spaces, third and fourth wave feminism, transgender delusions, deconstruction of the nation's history and cultural heritage, excuses for violent or destructive behavior, granting special treatment and privileges to even the tiniest and most absurd of special interest groups, and so on and on.

At the moment, white, but they are a rapidly declining demographic. In addition, there's no such thing as the "white vote" or "Hispanic vote" like there is with the "black vote." Blacks really do vote in unison (something like 85%+). Unfortunately, Hispanics are trending towards "voting in unison" which is incredibly dangerous for the GOP.

Both Romney and Trump had pathetic shares of the Hispanic vote compared to GWB. Of Latinos, 32% identify as CONSERVATIVE, 28% identify as liberal, and 36% identify as moderate (2016 data). The GOP is REALLY dropping the ball on this demographic. Yes, their wants and needs are diverse and often contradictory depending on if you are speaking with Guatemalans or Puerto Ricans. However, there's no reason why the GOP couldn't create a MAJORITY COALITION of Hispanics.

I'm not convinced that you can grab a similar percentage of the "white vote" given that white women and white men vote quite differently. At the moment, Biden is obliterating Trump because his coalition is really strong. The reason? Suburbanites.

I've said it before, but given the state of the American education system and the disdain towards public sector unions, the correct path forward would be for the GOP to become the party of performance and outcomes when it comes to education. There's nothing more important to suburbanites than a quality education for their children. Alas, the proof is in the pudding and the GOP doesn't give a fuck about outcomes.

This post was edited by thundercock on Jul 19 2020 12:07pm

I wish you wouldn't put "invalidate the identities of transgender people" with the rest of the admitted indicators of excessiveness and degeneration. It really isn't. Transgender inclusiveness is a sign of sexual maturity as a society and beneficial. Rejecting it is rejecting biology and making it subordinate to ideology. You're teaching that inner experience is wrong and you just cannot teach that in good faith, only bad faith. Don't act in bad faith.

This is a pretty hateful sentence honestly.

I'd be willing to bet money that 10 years ago you would have included gay rights in that list.

If you really believe all of these things you're supremely ignorant of what's happening in the United States.