The Democratic Party in Trump's Fascist 2nd Term. Commentary, Ideas & Strategy (+ non Woketicism)

I refuse to hold idealistic if unrealistic young people to a higher standard than the tens of millions of Americans who actually voted FOR fascism.

 

I like it--it's a good first step.

By acknowledging how far we've actually fallen, you can make a case that "first, we need to stop digging" which addresses the issue of asking for people who never had much faith in the neoliberal economy or the broken political system to begin with to fall for "Trust us, we'll get around to fixing things someday" one more time. This is a good way to square that circle and begin rebuilding a broad, pro-democracy coalition.

People who blame young people for not showing up in November 2024 forget how many of them did show up in November of 2020. Stop blaming them for not trusting Lucy with the football.

 

Because without a grander scope, it makes them seem like they are MAGA. They are not MAGA, they are for their best interests, which to them seemed to be Trump. I would guess that they'd be much more favorable to Harris if she had promised to stop the anti-monopoly investigations/charges.

That, but I think the anti-monopoly issue is bigger to them. Alphabet was being forced to separate Chrome, and thus hurt their ad business. I think there were efforts to separate Amazon.com from AWS. And others I think were in the works as well (possibly Instagram and Facebook, though not sure). This EU action, while significant to you (and Europe), and something we here understand, relative to their overall business model I think is less important to them than the anti-monopoly efforts.

He wants to rule the world though isolation. He is so smrt.

Yeah, it will take a long time and Presidents of both major parties to repair relationships.

 

To a greater degree, this is our complaint about getting the old people out of Dem leadership. I also think it was a failure of imagination to not select Ben Wikler as DNC chair. Once (if) the old generation leaves (and that means far more than just Schumer) and we have younger people in Congress, then there will be a "for" possibility. But right now, it's a "not them" series of elections.

 

Can you explain who the "far-left" are, as you see them?

 

"We are for your life, your liberty, and your pursuit of happiness. It will be a challenging road, but one that, together, on which we can remove road blocks and achieve and move forward!"

I like his idea of "life." That covers so much and will have so much meaning to people who are disillusioned.

 

One of the big things that went wrong is the misunderstanding of 2020 by the Biden admin IMO

There never was a Biden coalition, just like there isn't a Trump realignment.

As you say, the race is on to define the post-liberal era and what comes next

 

Agree. I think he's on to something.

 

And, yet, you blast those who you consider being "far-left." Since you are saying that Democrats are not the enemy of the far-left, this is confusing.

I'll ask if you talk in generalities to have you clarify.

 

Haven't read the book but I did read her article about it in the Atlantic, summarizing her life experiences behind it.

 

For a lot of us, you had Reagan who is given a lot of credit (wrongly, IMO) for ending the Cold War. That had an impact. Then B Clinton for opening up the economy. Then Bush II for the invasion of Iraq. The first two had something that the younger voters could vote for. The latter has something that would turn off younger voters and moved them to overwhelmingly vote for Obama (who really did have a message to vote for). The difficultly for getting people to vote for somebody is that that person has to be charismatic and a good orator. That fits Reagan, B Clinton (though he tended to speak too long), and Obama. Trump is charismatic, but a terrible orator, thus he convinced people to vote against the other person. And he was so bad that Biden was able to get people to vote against Trump. Then Trump did the vote against thing, again. So we've had 3 elections of voting against, and that is going to wear on younger voters.

 

This is all over the place, so let me try and unpack.

Yes, all hands on deck, though I'm not necessarily in the "vote blue no matter who" camp. Mostly I am, but not entirely. Because I can't be for somebody who is not aligned with my core values (efforts to combat violence, valuing choice - general term, social equality, etc). The other part I have issue with is people who are not really fighting for what I believe in. Schumer is a good example, but far from the only one. Schumer does the Charlie Brown again and again and has done so for years. And he does not fight back (constantly think of that time in the Oval with Pelosi and Trump where he looked lost). I don't have time for somebody like him.

But the question of uniting the left is a difficult question. The easy answer, which is only partially correct, is being against fascism, and a lot of what Republicans stand for. But, largely, people want hope, not hate. Yes, we need to identify what to be against, but we also need to identify what to be for. So, saying we can be against fascism is uniting, but saying what we are for is much, much more regional and local, and will be contradictory in one regional to the next. The problem, though, is who the machine runs. I'm not really a fan of my Rep, Neguse, but I don't think anybody else will run. He's okay, but he doesn't wade into anything controversial, and comes across as trying not to lose rather than trying to win.

For me, the center-left Democrats are fine, as long as they fight back. I don't want to see any crowing about changing the name of a bill when the bill is horrendous. Negotiate for health care and then give up? Fight for me, but make a strong fight for the people who have less of a voice. Don't cave so easily, and don't willingly negotiate with people who want to remove (have die) those who have less of a voice.

The problem I have with your position is that you want to exclude those who are fighting for people they represent over some terminology.

 

I wanted to be clear that he was talking about socialists and not some other group. He talks in generalities sometimes, and specifics other times, and there is some cross-over and some hypocrisy, so I want him to be clear.