Mod note : this was moved from the Israel/Hamas thread. Two things. 1. Racism is bad. Not SOME racism. All racism. 2. I’m highlighting another data point supporting my increasing apprehension that a Trump of the Left would gain more support than many of you believe.
I know you keep saying this but it still won't make it true. You can't even provide someone close to viable as a Dem candidate.
I absolutely believe that a left-wing populist with some retrograde socio-cultural positions could gain some traction in American politics, but I'm still gonna ask you to show your work--what does a "Trump of the Left" look like, exactly?
I am truly puzzled by this new obsession of a "Trump of the left". This crackpot theory has been discuss at length last week. We went back in decades and could not find not one serious presidential candidate from the "left" that could come close to that profile. Of all the things we should be worry about, that may be the least concerning at this stage. This is so weird and reactionary.
It’s not about policies, it’s about how he would feel about constraints. A Trump of the Left could use the FBI to attack republicans. He could illegally confiscate guns. He could turn federal policy in ways that benefits blue states and punished red states. But really, we should ask @argentine soccer fan . He can tell us all about Peron.
A Trump of the Left doesn't have any policies at all, any more than the Trump of the Right did. He'd be guided by the wants of the people who could put him into office. A left mirror of Trump doesn't get enough support to win anything on a national level. I pointed out a few pages back what I think a Trump of the left would be like, and it wouldn't fit any definition of Trumpian anything. The whole idea is so unrealistic as to be unworthy of even the most narrowly focused academic discussion. And no, "Could" just isn't good enough a hedge to make any of this worth the keystrokes. Dave has allowed himself to be triggered so by about four posters here (I could name them, but I don't think I'm among them) that he imagines a scenario where a far-left authoritarian Democrat somehow reaches the damn Convention. His work showed a guy who'd never win.
Can you imagine that while we are facing an immediate and massive threat of facism, openly promoted by the GOP and his potential presidential candidate, while republicans in states after states are trying to strip people of their fundamental rights, we should be really concerned about an imaginary Trump of the left, an American Peron? Actually, I can't. I do not have those feverish and absurd dreams.
I think it's very difficult for a 'Trump of the left' to emerge in the US, because the hard left (as I've experienced) is intrinsically anti-US, they see the US as the enemy, the symbol of everything that's wrong in the world, so if you try to do it in the US itself, I'd think to appeal to the heartland you'd have to reinvent leftist rhetoric and find a new symbol of evil. Extreme leftist appeal begins with injustice. My scenario is probably influenced by the Argentina/Chile/Venezuela experience. I see if as farfetched in the US, but if I was to write a novel about it of how it could happen, I would start with some sort of financial crisis that brings back something like the occupy movement, where people feel like they lost the American dream, and they've been betrayed by the system, by capitalism, by the banks, the corporations etc. This already started to happen to some extent a few years ago, but it never took off, not like the Tea Party did. Over time it fizzled. I think it's hard in the US for such a movement to prosper. But, lets say it comes back, fueled by a worse and more pervasive and lingering economic crisis, and that a charismatic leader, like a Bernie Sanders but more radical and cynical than Bernie, claiming to be their champion (the Trump of the left) starts working on the legitimate grievances of those people who are economically discontent. This could be combined with other grievances that people rightfully already have in the US and have also led to protests, like racism, homophobia, police brutality, unfair immigration practices, abortion regulations, US involvement in foreign wars etc. This could also include grievances by anti-Israel Americans against US support for Israel (to tie it to this thread's topic) So, this champion of the left would then fuel all these grievances, (some more legitimate than others) and use them to rise politically and eventually start attacking the institutions justified by his purpose as supported by the angry masses. He or she could potentially exploit the crisis and anger to act as a Chavez, an Allende, an Ortega, a Peron, a "Trump of the left". "Leftist" things they can do? Confiscate private property, starting with the very rich (the hated one percent). The rich would be the first target, but of course it wouldn't stop there. Nationalizing private corporations, starting with the largest ones but eventually attacking all businesses, even small businesses, except the few that "play by their rules" and get preferential treatment. Outlaw political and religious freedoms, change the constitution etc. This would lead to significant human rights violations, arbitrary jailings, killings, turtures, persecution of political dissidents, and so on. Basically a Cuba, a Venezuela, a Nicaragua, but on a larger scale.. And when the economy and the fabric of society really goes to hell, the problem would be that they wouldn't be able to blame the US, like other far left regimes do, because they are the US. They'd have to find a new boogeyman. Of course, I don't expect this to happen. The so called far right is much more of threat in the US than the so called far left. It has the huge advantage that it can call on US patriotism, pro-US feelings, claiming to stand for "American values" in a way that the intrinsically anti-American far left can't. But since I was asked, drawing on my own experience, if it was to happen, that's my answer. If we want to come up with a scenario, that's how I would imagine it happening.
I will repeat myself again. My point is about US, not Democratic leaders. And let’s face it, some of the posters in this thread, but moreso some of the public events we’ve discussed in this thread, pretty much prove my point. Illiberalism on the right has been increasing for a while, accelerating since the elevator ride from hell. And that has led to an increase in illiberalism on the left. Americans have been staring into the abyss for 8 years, and the abyss has been staring back at us this whole time, with negative effect.
Let me put it another way. Trump is a revolutionary. We are all counterrevolutionaries (with one or two exceptions, and not counting the wingnuts who pop in from time to time to troll.). But how do we act as counterrevolutionaries without being reactionary?
You've just described MAGA. The MAGA voter is beset with injustice. Democrats are out to get them, Hollywood is out to get them, the elites are out to get them, the courts are trying to jail their candidate, the FBI is going after their candidate, the military is against their candidate, the media is against them, and the illegal immigrants are taking their benefits. Everybody just takes, takes, takes from them. So while they wave the flag, they despise most of America. There reason there can't be a Trump of the left is that Trump has occupied that territory. He has captured most of the America haters. Yeah sure there are a few non-MAGAs who fit that description hanging out in college campuses and such, but for the most part those people are MAGA. OK not Hamas/Israel. Sorry.
Right. In Argentina far leftists like Che never got traction, because Perón stole their thunder. In some ways Trump is doing that. But Perón was able to appeal to the left, and ended up stealing their rhetoric and even championing many leftist causes. I don’t see Trump doing that. He is a populist, but he is not appealing to the left (for example the Occupy crowd). His fake boogeyman is not “US capitalism” but “European socialism”, which obviously is what sells better in the US than in Argentina.
Not that I didn't read the rest of it... but this is right on: the far left in the US is largely disengaged from electoral politics. The far right (save the super-loony "Nazis Are Too Weak" right) will vote. And they vote for Trumpy candidates. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I don't see a candidate emerging who can get the far left in the US to register and vote. That would taint their ideological purity through participation in the oppressive and hegemonic system of domination.
Yeah, that was my point--SD often objects to rhetorical points made by others because they are not based in reality; yet his theoretical American Peron has no real-world path to power I can see. So scolding others for being insufficiently vigilent about an unrealistic hypothetical seems a bit pot-calling-kettle-black, IMHO.
I fully recognize it's not about policies--which is the premise behind my question. Where is the base for this hypothetical American Peron going to come from? The closest we've had to a left-wing populist winning the Democratic primary was Sanders in 2016, and while I'm no fan of Bernie's campaign rhetoric and had serious concerns about the people he surrounded himself with (more in 2020 than in 2016, to be fair), I just don't see him ever diving into the abyss like that. Sanders has always been solid on defense and national security, and his base is too young and multi-cultural to go for full-fledged populism. It really seems like you're scolding people for potential support for an impossible hypothetical.
Just wanted to address this bolded part. Just from an historical standpoint, the Tea Party didn't technically fizzle. It, instead, morphed into the MAGA movement. Both from a "personnel" standpoint and a philosophical one, that was the natural path. The Tea party under the cover of fiscal and social conservatism was nothing else than an astroturf, bigoted and xenophobic movement created in reaction to the election of Barack Obama. No surprise they found their leader in TFG.
Errrrrr....What? Trump is a revolutionary? What does that suppose to mean? " We are all counterrevolutionaries"...what are you talking about?
Trump breaks norms that were previously thought unbreakable. Like not divesting from profit-making businesses when he took the Presidency - Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm, but Trump continued to own hotels, which were a vehicle for bribery by foreign governments. Or telling his advisors not to obey subpoenas. In demanding that Trump obey the norms that have been previously established, we're conservative or reactionary - we want the status quo to be restored. I think that's what Dave is saying. I don't agree with it - I think it's just semantics, that holding criminals accountable is not inherently reactionary - but Dave's doing Dave.
And he continued to stay in those hotels at taxpayer expense. And have his security details stay in those hotels (after inflating the rates) at taxpayer expense. He literally profited from his business as President.
Your last line is accurate. It is how SD rolls. Similar to his no true Christian thing. There are things he believes that differentiate his political views and religious views from us so he will dive into this anti group think swamp and pull out this Trump of the left gator no one asked him to fight.
It was a gigantic grift wrapped in America first and hating on his enemies, perceived & real. It's a low point in 'Merican democracy and tens of millions want it back.
But somehow we're the defenders of the Bastille fruitlessly trying to hold back the revolutionary tide by saying that.