Forward Party

[Beelzebuddy]

...
..
.

Because it's the "Democratic Party" and not the "Progressive Party."

Progressives always, always, always have this "The Democratic Party is so stupid and lame and backwards... and why are they so hostile to us?" attitude. Like the entire Progressive argument is that the Democratic Party doesn't know what it's doing oh and it's useless and hey why aren't welcoming me with open arms ya big meanies.

It's such a bad case of declaring something to be messed up and in the same breath getting huffy because it's not giving you a greater percentage of its messedupedness.

And before you say yes I'm sure the Republican Party does this to, even worse, but it's has the basic common political sense to keep it behind closed doors and present a unified front to the Public.

I'm not stupid I don't doubt for a second that you could take any two random Republicans and odds are they are going to hate each other more than... AOC and Manchin or whatever, but they know not to make it obvious.

But again, they're not the problem. It isn't a Progressive senator refusing to vote for any bill that's further left than center-right, it's Joe Manchin.

 

[ahhell]

Spare me "I'm in the trenches and you're not" act.

This matters. The fact the Republicans can get the Bible Belt to get ready to line up and march into the sea over a man who couldn't walk past a church without bursting into flames but the Democrats can't get 'Eat the Rich' and 'Eat the Rich 99% of the Time" to sit at the same table for more than 10 seconds matters.

This is a truly weird understanding of what happened to the GOP over the last 6 years. The "Republicans" didn't do anything the get the bible belt to line up behind trump. The bible belt lined up behind trump while the "Republicans" stood there stunned into compliance.

 

[Venom]

I get why Progressives don't like mainstream Liberals. I DO NOT get why they hate them more than Republicans or even far Right extremist Republicans.

I can't recall any progressive here who hates mainstream liberals more than Republicans or their opponents enemies in the far-right.

When confronted with their biggest political opponent on paper, see how they react, even if they spend most of their time criticizing the party adjacent to them.

I've seen two or three apparent anti-liberal leftists who seem to really hate mainstream liberals more than right-wingers, sometimes openly defending them against liberals. But these extremists hardly can be called progressive. Unless you consider the Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore crowd progressive. Hell they spend half their time attacking neoliberals, a quarter complaining about other progressives, and the remainder simping for fascists. Once in a blue moon they'll attack the rightwing.

 

[Donal]

We're not talking about time spent debating in Congress.

Ya, this ain't Congress.

We're talking about what you spend the most time complaining about.

Same thing, really. I know a lot of folks here enjoy bogging down discussions with snarky replies to trolls thinking "maybe this will be what gets him", but that seems pretty damn unproductive.

But again I'm not going to prove that there Progressives on this board who hate mainstream Democrats more then they hate Republicans (or the Taliban or toe fungus.) It's obvious, I'm not going down a rabbit hole.

In other words, "Trust me, bro."

I actually have produced proof of Democratic leadership attacking progressives harder than they attack Republicans, but that gets dismissed as "that doesn't count". But hey, progressives are wrong for pointing that out.

Hey, in a totally unrelated note, how did separating Build Back Better from the infrastructure bill work out?

If you have a problem with that just consider me.... ahem.... "reconsidering my priorities of where to invest my mental energy based on who is worth my time."

Going around in circles with trolls?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because Progressives are a political minority. I don't get why this concept confuses them so much.

The Democratic Party is the biggest party in the US. Not "The Progressive Party."

It's this "I'm obviously right by fiat, ergo the major political party who is closest to me has moral obligation to step aside and let me run it" attitude that's the problem.

 

[Donal]

This is a truly weird understanding of what happened to the GOP over the last 6 years. The "Republicans" didn't do anything the get the bible belt to line up behind trump. The bible belt lined up behind trump while the "Republicans" stood there stunned into compliance.

It also goes back further than 6 years. The GOP has been running around with the far-right super-Christians since after Watergate. The Crazy Christians started taking over the party with George W Bush and became the dominant force in 2010.

 

[Donal]

Because Progressives are a political minority. I don't get why this concept confuses them so much.

Yet their policies are among the most popular. And are you telling me Joe Manchin is a majority?

The Democratic Party is the biggest party in the US. Not "The Progressive Party."

Aren't progressives part of the Democratic Party?

It's this "I'm obviously right by fiat, ergo the major political party who is closest to me has moral obligation to step aside and let me run it" attitude that's the problem.

It's more like "they should keep the promises they made". And a little "stop relying on strategies that haven't worked in ages."

 

[Random]

Because Progressives are a political minority. I don't get why this concept confuses them so much.

The Democratic Party is the biggest party in the US. Not "The Progressive Party."

It's this "I'm obviously right by fiat, ergo the major political party who is closest to me has moral obligation to step aside and let me run it" attitude that's the problem.

Because we are not a minority. Universal health care, gun control, better wages and benefits, stopping global warming, regulating and breaking up big banks, having the rich pay more in taxes, these are all core Progressive issues that are supported by broad majorities of the American people.

But somehow, whenever our most popular policies are put through the political sausage grinder, we always seem to end up with juuuust enough pro-bank, pro-rich, pro-business, pro-fossil-fuel votes to stop progress.

 

[Suddenly]

Compromise as a tactic is fine. Compromise as a strategy, not so much...

I mean, that's the clear and concise version of what I was trying to say, but using bombast and more words than necessary was far more cathartic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because we are not a minority. Universal health care, gun control, better wages and benefits, stopping global warming, regulating and breaking up big banks, having the rich pay more in taxes, these are all core Progressive issues that are supported by broad majorities of the American people.

But somehow, whenever our most popular policies are put through the political sausage grinder, we always seem to end up with juuuust enough pro-bank, pro-rich, pro-business, pro-fossil-fuel votes to stop progress.

Then why not start your own party if you're so goddamn popular?

Again it's the loop. If you don't need anything from the old white male in bed with big business dinosaurs, don't demand you use their history and name recognition and political.... inertia (not the exact word but close, probably get my meaning) to make your policies.

That's my point. This walking the line between "We know better than the mainstream Democratic Party but still can't get anything done without them" and never realizing the irony and double standard of that.

It's still nothing more than "Man those Democrats are losers and need to die off" out of one side of your mouth and "Wah! Wah! The Big Mean Demmies aren't letting us run the clubhouse!" out of the other.

WHICH IS IT? Do you need the mainstream Democrats or not. You're trying hard to have it both ways.

 

[Suddenly]

That still doesn't explain while "Centrisim" (scarecord) gets more hate.

If I'm a room with a person who thinks 2+2=35,643,245 and a person who thinks 2+2=5 I'm not on either one of their side, but I'm sure who the bigger threat is.

In the long term the "centrists" are enabling the 2+2=35,643,245 people by giving them moral cover. They start out at 2+2=10 and the "both sides are equally valid so meet in the middle" sensibility is how they can just keep adding numbers without meeting much resistance. Which makes them more dangerous because without that attitude the 2+2=35,643,245 people are roughly as relevant as the tankies that are saying 2+2=-56,000,000. Rather than those people now running the Supreme Court.

I get why Progressives don't like mainstream Liberals. I DO NOT get why they hate them more than Republicans or even far Right extremist Republicans.

Okay fine you hate Biden because he's just another old white man part of the system. I don't get why you hate him MORE than Trump.

That's a minority viewpoint even among progressives. It's more about being an accelerationist than being a progressive. I don't as things sit today hate Biden more. I'm going to criticize him more because when you take a side that's what happens. It's like in a basketball game I take as read the other team is trying to beat my team. If a member of my team is jacking up bad shots and not trying to defend that's the person I need to address if I want my team to win. Maybe that gives the impression that I dislike Biden more, but that's an illusion caused by not considering context.

Also, the so called moderates seem to get far madder at progressives "moving left" then when the GOP slides "right." Which is the same exact mechanic and I would hope the same illusion although sometimes I wonder.

 

[Suddenly]

This. For a third party, we need some sort of ranked choice or instant runoff system and we desperately need some sort of third party.

I'm curious about the animus expressed by some of the progressives about Yang and his forward party. I just don't understand. Until we get rid of first past the post, third parties are a curiousity at best. Sure, they can spoil the election for one of the major parties but, its not at all clear which side Yang's party would throw things at this point, if at all. The answer is probably not at all. Anyone likely to vote for him, has pretty much just checked out of politics at this point.

I think calling it a "third party" is where it goes wrong. Thinking in terms of a new party that will become the dominant party and causing the other parties to scramble to build a coalition to avoid irrelevance is more the way to look at it.

Having a different system with multiple viable parties where these coalitions are more fluid would be a good thing, but that isn't all that realistic an outcome without completely dumping the present US system.

The room for a new party is one that is economically progressive (universal healthcare, better labor protections, better consumer protections, etc.) while being nationalist in a civic rather than ethnic sense. The US is the greatest country in the world and is more about ideals than the color on one's skin type stuff that essentially humors reactionary instincts without devolving into full on replacement theory garbage.

The only way to make this work is a winning presidential bid out of nowhere, sort of like what Perot almost pulled off. This party forms and ends up being opposed by the surviving other party made up of the kinds of people that are excited by the idea of the Forward Party. Which becomes the new political equilibrium.

 

[Trakar]

In the long term the "centrists" are enabling the 2+2=35,643,245 people by giving them moral cover. They start out at 2+2=10 and the "both sides are equally valid so meet in the middle" sensibility is how they can just keep adding numbers without meeting much resistance. Which makes them more dangerous because without that attitude the 2+2=35,643,245 people are roughly as relevant as the tankies that are saying 2+2=-56,000,000. Rather than those people now running the Supreme Court. That's a minority viewpoint even among progressives. It's more about being an accelerationist than being a progressive. I don't as things sit today hate Biden more. I'm going to criticize him more because when you take a side that's what happens. It's like in a basketball game I take as read the other team is trying to beat my team. If a member of my team is jacking up bad shots and not trying to defend that's the person I need to address if I want my team to win. Maybe that gives the impression that I dislike Biden more, but that's an illusion caused by not considering context.

Also, the so called moderates seem to get far madder at progressives "moving left" then when the GOP slides "right." Which is the same exact mechanic and I would hope the same illusion although sometimes I wonder.

A bit awkward and drawn out, unfortunately that's the main problem with nuance, It requires a lot more explanation and qualification, while many if not most, people desire short, simple, binary bumpersticker reasoning. I tend to blame education and culture, but the truth is always more complicated.

 

[Random]

Then why not start your own party if you're so goddamn popular?

Again it's the loop. If you don't need anything from the old white male in bed with big business dinosaurs, don't demand you use their history and name recognition and political.... inertia (not the exact word but close, probably get my meaning) to make your policies.

That's my point. This walking the line between "We know better than the mainstream Democratic Party but still can't get anything done without them" and never realizing the irony and double standard of that.

It's still nothing more than "Man those Democrats are losers and need to die off" out of one side of your mouth and "Wah! Wah! The Big Mean Demmies aren't letting us run the clubhouse!" out of the other.

WHICH IS IT? Do you need the mainstream Democrats or not. You're trying hard to have it both ways.

The part that is usually left out is the Rich and Powerful (RAP for short) buying off the leadership of any organization that threatens their hold on power. Why pay your workers higher wages when you can just bribe the head of their union?

While it is easier to think of the Democratic and Republican parties on their own, the RAP take both an active and reactive roll in the way the political machine shakes out. Politicians that the RAP like find their campaign coffers full, while those that resist the RAP find they have to make do with smaller donors. Politicians who go against the majority on many subjects can just stress the subjects that they agree with their voters on (abortion, death penalty, other unresolvable social issues) and the RAP will be able to back them up by keeping those issues in the media, while letting more popular policies fall through the cracks.

Splitting the Democratic vote would just lead to more conservative policies, and if a Progressive party started to win elections, the rich would quickly try to crush them, and if that didn't work, try to buy off the leadership. Even if it were to succeed, it would take many election cycles for a Progressive party to successfully take root, and we just don't have the time now that the GOP has gone full fascist.

This is why campaign finance reform is so important, but that is a different rant.

(ETA: This is not a well-thought-out post but I was in a hurry)

 

[JoeMorgue]

"The Mainstream Democrats are dirty and corrupt.... and therefore it's even more important they let us use their name recognition and platform" is even more nonsensical.

 

[Random]

"The Mainstream Democrats are dirty and corrupt.... and therefore it's even more important they let us use their name recognition and platform" is even more nonsensical.

Both parties may be corrupt, but you are forgetting about the people doing the corrupting. Any political plan to enact Progressive policies must deal with the fact that there are well-heeled people who would resist it. You have to make a choice between reforming an existing party or going through the incredibly hard work of starting a new party.

Bringing the Democratic party to the left is the far easier choice, even if can be incredibly annoying at times.

 

[Suddenly]

"The Mainstream Democrats are dirty and corrupt.... and therefore it's even more important they let us use their name recognition and platform" is even more nonsensical.

Not when approached from the perspective of coalition forming. It's pretty basic.

You could say roughly the same thing about the mainstream wanting the votes of the progressives. Coalition forming is always going to result in this sort of squabbling among factions. It's a sign of health. A party that is in lockstep is one that is going to lose supporters. It's a big reason that the only thing keeping the GOP afloat is the anti-democratic nature of the system.

 

[I Am The Scum]

"The Mainstream Democrats are dirty and corrupt.... and therefore it's even more important they let us use their name recognition and platform" is even more nonsensical.

If progressive Democrats form a new party and thereby split the vote, it will guarantee Republican wins all over the country. That's the worst case scenario.

 

[Trakar]

Because we are not a minority. Universal health care, gun control, better wages and benefits, stopping global warming, regulating and breaking up big banks, having the rich pay more in taxes, these are all core Progressive issues that are supported by broad majorities of the American people.

But somehow, whenever our most popular policies are put through the political sausage grinder, we always seem to end up with juuuust enough pro-bank, pro-rich, pro-business, pro-fossil-fuel votes to stop progress.

unfortunately, it is these words, that are responsible for corralling a large percentage of progressives into voting for lessor evil candidates but who get despondent and never act with sufficient vigor to hold the liars to account for their lies when their actions contradict their baiting electoral rhetoric.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's why it's so easy to be an idealist, especially a proxy one for a third party. As long as your people aren't actually in power they are perpetually virginal and clean, their high and mighty morals never tested, never tainted by the real world game that has to be played to get anything done. It is so very, very, very easy to never compromise your standards when you're not doing anything. We're all vegetarians between meals after all.

But I'm sure as soon as they are in power the Squad will be able to just magically snap their fingers and make everything perfect and won't need any evil dirty corporate money or across the aisle deals with the other side to get it done.