It means that a true Democrat or Republican is one who represents the views of their constituents. Not who holds the reins of power in their respective parties. This is a valid definition.
I don’t believe that is a valid definition. A good politician is someone who represents the views of their constituents. A true Democrat (or whatever party) is someone who represents the views of the party. The views of the party may be influenced by party candidates on behalf of their constituents, but those views are decided upon by a group of people that aren’t elected by a public ballot and have no obligation to democratic voters. If you don’t like the platform of the party, you’re supposed to go join a different party (but we’re kinda fucked with that right now). If you’re talking about who represents the views of the democratic party, it’s difficult to find someone who represents them better than Pelosi.
Instead of valid definition I should have said a “good definition”. There is no real definition of a “true Democrat” or vice versa for Republicans. Both your definition and my definition are valid definitions.
If you don’t like the platform of the party, you’re supposed to go join a different party
The other option is to slowly replace the members of the party in positions of power. Why do you think AOC is encouraging young people to run for office? She has the right idea.
The fact of the matter is that the US has a two party political system. This isn’t changing unless one of the parties gains power and essentially gives it up to implement a new system.
Another fact is that young people aren’t running for office so all of our politicians are part of the gerontocracy and all hold particular views from having been born in a generation most of us no longer relate with.
The only way to change things is to get young people into office at the lower levels and work their way up by building political careers until they are the ones in the positions of power in the DNC.
The ones who will hold the reins and make change happen are the ones who actually decide to run for office. This is the system of the United States that allows it’s citizens to control what happens in the higher echelons of government.
Yes voting is a part of it but it sounds like you are unhappy with the choices you are given to vote for and that’s purely because the people you would like to vote for are not running for office and winning. If they are running and not winning that is because they are not popular with the public which is another conversation but I think the majority of you are getting stuck in the “not feeling like doing anything but protesting” phase and not actually running for office.
I still don’t think your definition is valid or good and I didn’t really see any argument that said otherwise. Immediately after the part you quoted I did say “(but we’re kinda fucked with that right now)” which was in reference to our 2 party system, so yes I understand that part.
The other option is to slowly replace the members of the party in positions of power.
This isn’t changing unless one of the parties gains power and essentially gives it up to implement a new system.
in the positions of power in the DNC.
Statements like these reveal why the definition I stated is more accurate. That there’s a party line that politicians in that party are expected to follow. You use those statements to argue that we should be trying to change what that party line is, which I take no issue with and seems to be a goal of AOC and some others. But we’re talking about who is a better example of a Democrat which has zero meaning without the democratic party. And Pelosi is an excellent example of what the party is while AOC is an example of what you would like the party to be. You do need to recognize where the party is before you can figure out how to steer it in the direction you’re hoping for.
And you’re right about this being a different conversation but I still want to say a little something about
If they are running and not winning that is because they are not popular with the public
Because this seems like a pretty naive sentiment. First because a large percentage of the public simply doesn’t vote. Also the current tribalism of our 2 party system is the most important thing for many if not most of those that do vote. But most importantly, having good and popular ideas or even saying good and popular things is not what gets you elected in this country. Our political system relies on the advertising model. If you package it right and put it in front of enough people, it doesn’t actually matter what is being said. That’s how someone like Trump gets elected. Which I guess is a form of being popular, but I don’t think that’s what you meant by it.
My argument for why either definition works is that “true Democrat” is a value judgement and different individuals will have different values. MAGA calls McConnell a RINO because he doesn’t align with their values of perceiving Trump as infallible. Now they might be wrong in their belief but they have the right to define who they want as a RINO just as constituents of the Democrat party have the right to label who they please as a DINO if they don’t meet their criteria of a “true Democrat”.
There is no such thing as a “true Democrat” or “true Republican” since both of these are contrived things.
So when you are arguing over what is the correct definition, it’s a waste of time because there is no true definition.
You can support your argument with what you believe are good supportive evidence but again there is no such thing as an empirical “true -insert-party-here-”.
I may respond to the rest of your post later but I’m in the middle of my workday so please excuse me at least until this afternoon for a more in depth response.
My point is that calling anyone a Democrat doesn’t make sense without the relation to the democratic party, it’s not an ideology. Whether or not they align with your values is irrelevant. Being a Democrat at all means being a member of the party, and a good member is one who defends the party platform. By your logic you might call Bernie a good Democrat even though he is, by his own admission, not a Democrat.
Responding to Boxer’s criticism during that night’s town hall in New Hampshire, Sanders said, “Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination.”
He sometimes considers himself a Democrat. You are correct that being a Democrat means being a member of the party but the party platform can and has changed, usually to meet the views of its constituents. And even so, Democrats like Nancy are notoriously bad at defending the party platform. That’s one of the problems. They promise certain things they don’t always deliver. By your definition that makes her a bad democrat.
When it’s impossible to make whatever happen while being an independent because of the choke hold the 2 party system has. And yes I brought up changing the platform, what about the incongruity I brought up in that comment? And I didn’t say they have to defend the platform well. Though that weak defense is more due to the secret platform of appeasing the biggest donors to the party. That’s why I bring up understanding what the party is vs what you want it to be. Right now all the voting members of the democratic party are upper class serving the interests of the even wealthier class.
It means that a true Democrat or Republican is one who represents the views of their constituents. Not who holds the reins of power in their respective parties. This is a valid definition.
I don’t believe that is a valid definition. A good politician is someone who represents the views of their constituents. A true Democrat (or whatever party) is someone who represents the views of the party. The views of the party may be influenced by party candidates on behalf of their constituents, but those views are decided upon by a group of people that aren’t elected by a public ballot and have no obligation to democratic voters. If you don’t like the platform of the party, you’re supposed to go join a different party (but we’re kinda fucked with that right now). If you’re talking about who represents the views of the democratic party, it’s difficult to find someone who represents them better than Pelosi.
Instead of valid definition I should have said a “good definition”. There is no real definition of a “true Democrat” or vice versa for Republicans. Both your definition and my definition are valid definitions.
The other option is to slowly replace the members of the party in positions of power. Why do you think AOC is encouraging young people to run for office? She has the right idea.
The fact of the matter is that the US has a two party political system. This isn’t changing unless one of the parties gains power and essentially gives it up to implement a new system.
Another fact is that young people aren’t running for office so all of our politicians are part of the gerontocracy and all hold particular views from having been born in a generation most of us no longer relate with.
The only way to change things is to get young people into office at the lower levels and work their way up by building political careers until they are the ones in the positions of power in the DNC.
The ones who will hold the reins and make change happen are the ones who actually decide to run for office. This is the system of the United States that allows it’s citizens to control what happens in the higher echelons of government.
Yes voting is a part of it but it sounds like you are unhappy with the choices you are given to vote for and that’s purely because the people you would like to vote for are not running for office and winning. If they are running and not winning that is because they are not popular with the public which is another conversation but I think the majority of you are getting stuck in the “not feeling like doing anything but protesting” phase and not actually running for office.
I still don’t think your definition is valid or good and I didn’t really see any argument that said otherwise. Immediately after the part you quoted I did say “(but we’re kinda fucked with that right now)” which was in reference to our 2 party system, so yes I understand that part.
Statements like these reveal why the definition I stated is more accurate. That there’s a party line that politicians in that party are expected to follow. You use those statements to argue that we should be trying to change what that party line is, which I take no issue with and seems to be a goal of AOC and some others. But we’re talking about who is a better example of a Democrat which has zero meaning without the democratic party. And Pelosi is an excellent example of what the party is while AOC is an example of what you would like the party to be. You do need to recognize where the party is before you can figure out how to steer it in the direction you’re hoping for.
And you’re right about this being a different conversation but I still want to say a little something about
Because this seems like a pretty naive sentiment. First because a large percentage of the public simply doesn’t vote. Also the current tribalism of our 2 party system is the most important thing for many if not most of those that do vote. But most importantly, having good and popular ideas or even saying good and popular things is not what gets you elected in this country. Our political system relies on the advertising model. If you package it right and put it in front of enough people, it doesn’t actually matter what is being said. That’s how someone like Trump gets elected. Which I guess is a form of being popular, but I don’t think that’s what you meant by it.
Here’s an incongruity that applies to both conversations. A supermajority of democratic voters support government run healthcare, but it’s nowhere to be seen in the DNC platform.
My argument for why either definition works is that “true Democrat” is a value judgement and different individuals will have different values. MAGA calls McConnell a RINO because he doesn’t align with their values of perceiving Trump as infallible. Now they might be wrong in their belief but they have the right to define who they want as a RINO just as constituents of the Democrat party have the right to label who they please as a DINO if they don’t meet their criteria of a “true Democrat”.
There is no such thing as a “true Democrat” or “true Republican” since both of these are contrived things.
So when you are arguing over what is the correct definition, it’s a waste of time because there is no true definition.
You can support your argument with what you believe are good supportive evidence but again there is no such thing as an empirical “true -insert-party-here-”.
I may respond to the rest of your post later but I’m in the middle of my workday so please excuse me at least until this afternoon for a more in depth response.
My point is that calling anyone a Democrat doesn’t make sense without the relation to the democratic party, it’s not an ideology. Whether or not they align with your values is irrelevant. Being a Democrat at all means being a member of the party, and a good member is one who defends the party platform. By your logic you might call Bernie a good Democrat even though he is, by his own admission, not a Democrat.
He sometimes considers himself a Democrat. You are correct that being a Democrat means being a member of the party but the party platform can and has changed, usually to meet the views of its constituents. And even so, Democrats like Nancy are notoriously bad at defending the party platform. That’s one of the problems. They promise certain things they don’t always deliver. By your definition that makes her a bad democrat.
When it’s impossible to make whatever happen while being an independent because of the choke hold the 2 party system has. And yes I brought up changing the platform, what about the incongruity I brought up in that comment? And I didn’t say they have to defend the platform well. Though that weak defense is more due to the secret platform of appeasing the biggest donors to the party. That’s why I bring up understanding what the party is vs what you want it to be. Right now all the voting members of the democratic party are upper class serving the interests of the even wealthier class.