And I mean, the Democratic party doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won’t even try that because “it’s a lost case”…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it’s always “the most important election ever.” Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It’s clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than “the left was to whinny”, but that’s beside the point being made here.
People here keep using that word uncomprehendingly like they’re a dumb AI matching & associating on the root liberal.
Neoliberalism is free market capitalism, a conservative ideology embraced by Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan.
Democrats are for many things: environmental regulation, social safety nets, market regulation, spending on social programs, etc.
That’s a far cry from free, unregulated markets.
The Democratic platform is a far cry from proper safety nets and regulations.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal. Now that Trump is going with protectionism, they are in essence more neoliberal than the Republicans.
In the most recent elections, Kamala talked good shit initially, until her corporate allies talked her down, and like the good little neoliberal she is she started sputtering out market-based “solutions” to everything.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal.
Nah: they passed the ACA, expanded Medicaid, passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tried to ban non-compete clauses, tried to enact rules for “click to cancel” subscriptions & end junk fees, standardized disclosure of fees for finance services, voted in the FTC to enforce right to repair, sustained social programs.
That & much more happened after Clinton (whereas Republicans defunded Medicaid, added restrictions, defunded SNAP, defunded school lunch programs, rolled much of this back).
The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton’s attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.
The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.
In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama’s use of drones is legendary).
In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.
Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based “solutions” to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.
Only during Biden’s term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.
Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don’t go far enough, not that they aren’t market regulations & interventions, which they very much are.
If they weren’t social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn’t have anything to cut & deregulate, which they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they’re restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs).
Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don’t know the meaning of words.
Market intervention & regulation isn’t free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism.
Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.
Thank you. I really don’t get those people.
And I mean, the Democratic party doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won’t even try that because “it’s a lost case”…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
Well that and ranked choice, right?
He won majority first round. Granted, I’d love to see ranked-choice in our federal elections, but that didn’t matter in Mamdani’s case.
Would people have felt empowered to vote for him first if it wasn’t ranked choice?
I believe so. The massive increase in zero prime voters (people who haven’t voted in a primary before) was due to his grassroots campaign.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it’s always “the most important election ever.” Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It’s clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
Literal accelerationism. Jesus fucking Christ.
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than “the left was to whinny”, but that’s beside the point being made here.
People here keep using that word uncomprehendingly like they’re a dumb AI matching & associating on the root liberal.
Neoliberalism is free market capitalism, a conservative ideology embraced by Margaret Thatcher & Ronald Reagan. Democrats are for many things: environmental regulation, social safety nets, market regulation, spending on social programs, etc. That’s a far cry from free, unregulated markets.
The Democratic platform is a far cry from proper safety nets and regulations.
Every Democratic president since Clinton was a neoliberal. Now that Trump is going with protectionism, they are in essence more neoliberal than the Republicans.
In the most recent elections, Kamala talked good shit initially, until her corporate allies talked her down, and like the good little neoliberal she is she started sputtering out market-based “solutions” to everything.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250126160126/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/us/politics/harriss-economic-pitch-capitalism-for-the-middle-class.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20250213014747/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/business/harris-economic-plan-wall-street.html
Nah: they passed the ACA, expanded Medicaid, passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, started the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, tried to ban non-compete clauses, tried to enact rules for “click to cancel” subscriptions & end junk fees, standardized disclosure of fees for finance services, voted in the FTC to enforce right to repair, sustained social programs. That & much more happened after Clinton (whereas Republicans defunded Medicaid, added restrictions, defunded SNAP, defunded school lunch programs, rolled much of this back).
You just have a memory deficiency.
The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton’s attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.
The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.
In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama’s use of drones is legendary).
In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.
Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based “solutions” to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.
Only during Biden’s term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.
Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don’t go far enough, not that they aren’t market regulations & interventions, which they very much are. If they weren’t social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn’t have anything to cut & deregulate, which they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they’re restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs).
Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don’t know the meaning of words. Market intervention & regulation isn’t free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism. Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.