Support NeoGAF

[Makai]

He cut spending too, so it kind of does make him slightly left of Reagan.

Um, spending has increased every year and still outpaces GDP growth. That's why our debt goes up! :U

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The other thing that separates Hillary from every GOP candidate is that she favors diplomatic solutions over military ones.

That's a pretty huge difference given all the chicken Hawk bs on the right.

 

[Manmademan]

"reddit" is a way to portray progressives basement-dwelling neckbeards and to trivialize the concerns of young people

On Feb 1st and on the tenth some may find it shocking how prevalent "reddit" is

on February 1st and tenth its far more likely some find out just how irrelevant it is.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Thanks for this.

I don't know why so many Democrats really just want to find the right Republican and fall in love and settle down. He's not out there! It's a trap!

Part of the liberal psyche is to prefer compromise to the endless confrontation that we have now. It blinds people to the actual policies supported by Republicans. I'd never vote for Huntsman but having a prominent Republican support climate change regulation would be a very welcome change.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Clinton's main proposals for this primary:

1. LGBT rights: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/
2. More money for Alzheimer's research: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/22/an-end-to-alzheimers-disease/
3. Overturning the Hyde Amendment (this is impossible, but so are Bernie's ideas!).
4. More gun control
5. Autism action: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...adults-living-with-autism-and-their-families/
6. Appointing judges who will overturn Citizens United.
7. Preserving what Obama has done (making her pretty different from Republicans running on the "I will repeal what Obama has done." platform)

Clinton prior focuses as Senator and first lady:

1. Women's rights: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/
2. Children's health care.


Hillary Clinton is pretty liberal...

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

and I'm saying you're wrong, because the "foundation of the party" are the people who actually vote and show up to polls on election day.

This is NOT the under 35 crowd or the sanders coalition. Don't confuse being loud on reddit for actual political influence, because there is virtually none there- especially not in a primary election.

It *might be* in 20 years, but isn't now. Right NOW the foundation of the party are those who turned out for Obama in 2008, Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000.

I think this would just turn into a semantic back and forth about what "the foundation of the party" means. Here's my point, distilled: The party is shifting leftward, and this leftward shift will largely be spearheaded by the current 18-35 age bracket. I don't think I'm off base on that.

He replaced a progressive tax with a flat tax and you think he's in the same ideological range as Hillary. Obama supported tax cuts. That doesn't make him slightly to the right of Reagan.

When coupled with holding similar views to Hillary on things like global warming and supporting marriage equality (before Hillary did), yes, I'd say that Huntsman overall qualifies as slightly more conservative than Hillary. If we want to debate what constitutes "slightly more" I don't think it would be very productive. I mean, there are also democrats I'd consider Hillary to be slightly more progressive than. I'm not making some veiled dig that she's as moderate as possible without being a republican or something. The other poster asked for an example and I gave one.

 

[Y2Kev]

Just walked by the news Corp building. The ticker was basically saying hillarys emails are SO SECRET even the White House is admitting she is a crook. Bye!

 

[disastermouse]

Um, spending has increased every year and still outpaces GDP growth. That's why our debt goes up! :U

Yeah, sure, but not like Reagan.

 

[Manmademan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.


He publicly supported marriage equality earlier than Hillary did, has moderate (maybe even center-left) stances on immigration, believes in evolution and global warming, and supported the idea of mandating healthcare in some fashion.


I'd say Hillary is slightly more progressive than he is.



That said, though, this all ignores the larger issue for those whose views align with Hillary: a quick glance at her support compared to Sanders among those 35 and under shows that the party is moving quite far left. It doesn't matter that she was the 11th most liberal senator a decade ago. She's vying for the nomination of an entirely different party than what it was before Obama was elected. You can say that accusations against her liberal roots are unfair, but this perception is as widespread as it is for a reason: the party is hungry for real progressivism, not the triangulation Bill popularized.

Huntsman is a bullshit example.

Why? Because The Huntsman family is an INCREDIBLY wealthy, INCREDIBLY influential and connected family among Utah's Mormon Community. They are as well known or better than the Romneys are, and worked closely together frequently before the 2012 campaign.

Huntsman could have won Utah governor no matter what his political affiliation was, because he rode into office on the back of his family's religious, political, and financial influence.

Actually trying to get a republican with Huntsman's political views into office as dogcatcher anywhere else is impossible within the last decade- and this was quickly proved when Huntsman got destroyed in the Republican 2012 primary. I don't think he ever got above 1 or 2%. This is "Jim Gilmore" territory.

I think this would just turn into a semantic back and forth about what "the foundation of the party" means. Here's my point, distilled: The party is shifting leftward, and this leftward shift will largely be spearheaded by the current 18-35 age bracket. I don't think I'm off base on that.

You are off base, because you fail to recognize that Sanders' rhetoric is ONLY appealing among young voters with little political experience. You see a couple campaigns and you recognize it for the unworkable BS that it is. Black voters are skeptical for exactly the same reason and don't buy into it. Bernie sanders' entire plan revolves around the american people leveraging congress into a "revolution" with a political will that doesn't exist and never has. But that doesn't stop politicians from repeating the message and getting the youth riled up- Ron Paul brought in millions of dollars with that schtick in 2008. Where is his coalition now? oh right.

Those voters you assume are hard left and foaming at the mouth for a "revolution" will inevitably tack to the center as they end up moving out of the university and into the workforce, and off tinder and into families. This happens repeatedly. Where do you think Nader voters went? They're all overwhelmingly for hillary now.

 

[User 406]

Clinton's main proposals for this primary:

1. LGBT rights: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/
2. More money for Alzheimer's research: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/22/an-end-to-alzheimers-disease/
3. Overturning the Hyde Amendment (this is impossible, but so are Bernie's ideas!).
4. More gun control
5. Autism action: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...adults-living-with-autism-and-their-families/
6. Appointing judges who will overturn Citizens United.
7. Preserving what Obama has done (making her pretty different from Republicans running on the "I will repeal what Obama has done." platform)

Clinton prior focuses as Senator and first lady:

1. Women's rights: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/
2. Children's health care.


Hillary Clinton is pretty liberal...

We could probably use a whatthefuckhashillarybeenprogressiveon.com to go along with http://wtfhasobamadonesofar.com.

Edit: Also, funny seeing Huntsman being brought up again. He was last cycle's Kasich, a master of fooling people on the left that "he wouldn't be so bad." DON'T BELIEVE THEIR LIES!

 

[Iolo]

When coupled with holding similar views to Hillary on things like global warming and supporting marriage equality (before Hillary did), yes, I'd say that Huntsman overall qualifies as slightly more conservative than Hillary. If we want to debate what constitutes "slightly more" I don't think it would be very productive. I mean, there are also democrats I'd consider Hillary to be slightly more progressive than. I'm not making some veiled dig that she's as moderate as possible without being a republican or something. The other poster asked for an example and I gave one.

An example that has value only if one redefines the word "slightly" to something nearly its opposite.

edit: Let's not bicker over who killed who

 

[Makai]

We could probably use a whatthefuckhashillarybeenprogressiveon.com to go along with http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com.

"Eased restrictions on the use of child soldiers in Africa"

wtf?

 

[disastermouse]

Clinton's main proposals for this primary:

1. LGBT rights: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/17/fighting-for-full-equality/
2. More money for Alzheimer's research: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/22/an-end-to-alzheimers-disease/
3. Overturning the Hyde Amendment (this is impossible, but so are Bernie's ideas!).
4. More gun control
5. Autism action: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...adults-living-with-autism-and-their-families/
6. Appointing judges who will overturn Citizens United.
7. Preserving what Obama has done (making her pretty different from Republicans running on the "I will repeal what Obama has done." platform)

Clinton prior focuses as Senator and first lady:

1. Women's rights: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction...ton-and-bernie-sanders-compare-womens-health/
2. Children's health care.


Hillary Clinton is pretty liberal...

So...not very much about addressing income inequality. Nothing there about increasing the minimum wage, nothing about increasing taxes on the wealthy. So she's 'liberal' if you confine that to identity politics but not a whole lot else.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I am kind of interested to think about how long Obamacare has to be the law of the land until the GOP stops even saying they'll repeal it.

 

[User 406]

"Eased restrictions on the use of child soldiers in Africa"

wtf?

Whoops, wrong one, heh heh. :X

http://wtfhasobamadonesofar.com

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I love how things that concern literally half the population are "identity politics."

 

[Macho Madness]

I am kind of interested to think about how long Obamacare has to be the law of the land until the GOP stops even saying they'll repeal it.

Abortion rights.

 

[Makai]

Rent Is Too Damn High endorses Trump

 

[User 406]

I love how things that concern literally half the population are "identity politics."

More than half, actually. Won't someone PLEASE think of the white guys and their logically superior political philosophies?

 

[Manmademan]

Abortion rights.

I don't think its THAT bad- you're never going to convince the jesus crew that babykilling is acceptable.

Obamacare is entirely an economic argument. We're already starting to see republican governors embrace the medicaid expansion. I imagine they'll stop trying once Obama is out of office and overturning his accomplishment is less of a motivating factor.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

First of all, while I didn't spell it out in my post, those arguments against voting for Hillary and Obama were made in the context of the Democratic primaries. In that context, the whole problem with the policies is nowhere near as sharp, no matter how many people want to pretend they're just like Republicans or whatever nonsense.

That said, I reiterate that every candidate choice is a matter of weighing the good aspects vs. the bad aspects, and what I'm saying here is that breaking these barriers is absolutely a good aspect. That is what is being diminished when people accuse others of voting for someone because of their identity. It is not a criticism of policy priorities, but rather an assertion that that identity should not be a priority.

The arguments that you shouldn't vote for someone based upon identity politics are an attempt to marginalize the importance of that representation, and nothing more. Equal representation is as much valid motivator as policy is. The argument is consistently put forward that a strategy of economic reforms that help everyone is the most sensible strategy for improving the lot of black people, while Black Lives Matter protestors don't see even an iota of improvement in social justice. As someone already said, Sandra Bland had a good job. They are not getting the results they want. Their priorities are different, and justifiably so. So we can advocate incrementalism in economic policy, but the idea that breaking the color barrier with a less than ideal candidate, then using that to open the door for better candidates of color is somehow bad?



And I'm addressing the idea of disregarding someone's historicity of equal representation in favor of pure policy.

Narrowing it down to the context of the democratic primaries changes the whole argument, obviously, and aids in the point I was making: it makes a lot more sense to support someone who provides representation for a group lacking representation if that person's policies are in some way beneficial to said group. I don't think president Alan Keyes would've done shit for Sandra Bland, and I really doubt you do either.

If you think I'm arguing for a complete dismissal of the importance of equal representation, then I must have grossly misrepresented my point. I'm arguing for a sensible consideration of both representation and policy. If you think I support economic reform without specific attention to racial/gender inequality then you have me completely mistaken and I think you're trying to extrapolate my views based on a reply that never touched upon them. I am most definitely not a supporter of the "I don't even see race" color-blind bullshit. Acknowledgment of race and gender disparity, and alleviating those disparities, is the single most important issue to me. Still doesn't mean I would vote for someone who is a woman or hispanic or black solely on the principle of representation.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Clinton supports raising the minimum wage, disastermouse. You continue to be disingenuous.

 

[Bel Marduk]

on February 1st and tenth its far more likely some find out just how irrelevant it is.

Sanders is heavily favored to win New Hampshire

He's also very competitive in Iowa

Don't get complacent like the hillaryis44 people, despite the DNC efforts, this is a primary not a coronation

 

[Armaros]

Sanders is heavily favored to win New Hampshire

He's also very competitive in Iowa

Don't get complacent like the hillaryis44 people, despite the DNC efforts, this is a primary not a coronation

There is the rest of the country to worry about for Bernie, and they aren't 98% white states.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So...not very much about addressing income inequality. Nothing there about increasing the minimum wage, nothing about increasing taxes on the wealthy. So she's 'liberal' if you confine that to identity politics but not a whole lot else.

Hillary Clinton's first presidential rally was focused on income inequality: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...e-inequality-boosting-middle-class-1434222732 Specific proposals mentioned include paid family leave and universal pre-K. The article says she hadn't outlined a position yet on TPP but she's since come out against it. And of course that speaks nothing of her support for equal wages between men and women, the most blitheringly obvious source of income inequality. (Oh but identity politics!)

Hillary Clinton supports raising the minimum wage to $12: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hill...ge-to-12-per-hour_us_56394247e4b0411d306eca12 Not as high as what Bernie is proposing, but higher than Obama.

Hillary Clinton's proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy through a surtax on millionaires: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...ax-surcharge-for-wealthy-americans-1452552083

All you had to do was google that motherfucking shit. Hillary just promises 90% of what Bernie promises.

 

[Bel Marduk]

So...not very much about addressing income inequality. Nothing there about increasing the minimum wage, nothing about increasing taxes on the wealthy. So she's 'liberal' if you confine that to identity politics but not a whole lot else.

I wonder what she's saying at her paid Goldman Sachs speeches? Unfortunately there is no press allowed at those

 

[Manmademan]

Sanders is heavily favored to win New Hampshire

He's also very competitive in Iowa

Don't get complacent like the hillaryis44 people, despite the DNC efforts, this is a primary not a coronation

Sanders is more likely than not looking at a loss in iowa, but not by much. He's always been favored to win in new hampshire, it's favorable to him demographically.

There is no realistic plan for him to avoid getting his ass kicked across the next dozen states that aren't 89% white.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

the scariest word in politics is "pragmatic"

Who said it; Ted Cruz or a popular BernieBro on Twitter?

 

[User 406]

If you think I'm arguing for a complete dismissal of the importance of equal representation, then I must have grossly misrepresented my point. I'm arguing for a sensible consideration of both representation and policy. If you think I support economic reform without specific attention to racial/gender inequality then you have me completely mistaken and I think you're trying to extrapolate my views based on a reply that never touched upon them. I am most definitely not a supporter of the "I don't even see race" color-blind bullshit. Acknowledgment of race and gender disparity, and alleviating those disparities, is the single most important issue to me. Still doesn't mean I would vote for someone who is a woman or hispanic or black solely on the principle of representation.

To be clear, I'm not putting that on you at all. From the get-go my argument has been against diminishing the importance of representation. I maintain that while policy is an important consideration, representation is just as important a consideration, that's all. I have no problem with criticism of someone's priority balances, I just have a real problem with the idea that representation can't be allowed to be as important or in fact more important in someone's personal calculus than policy.

 

[Abinash117]

So...not very much about addressing income inequality. Nothing there about increasing the minimum wage, nothing about increasing taxes on the wealthy. So she's 'liberal' if you confine that to identity politics but not a whole lot else.

She does, but not as much as 15 dollars. Here are some things she wants to do.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/

Taxes
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...ax-surcharge-for-wealthy-americans-1452552083

Minimum wage
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../03/clinton-proposes-12-federal-minimum-wage/

Corporate profit sharing
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...-of-worker-profit-sharing-proposal-1437081856

Long term investing
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/24/hill...crease-in-short-term-capital-gains-taxes.html

Wallstreet
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/o...-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Clinton supports raising the minimum wage, disastermouse. You continue to be disingenuous.

But she doesn't support increasing it to levels that will probably hurt some business, thus she is a corporatist fraud. That's the argument.

We've watched the tea party for five years...I hope we all see the similarities here.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

To be clear, I'm not putting that on you at all. From the get-go my argument has been against diminishing the importance of representation. I maintain that while policy is an important consideration, representation is just as important a consideration, that's all. I have no problem with criticism of someone's priority balances, I just have a real problem with the idea that representation can't be allowed to be as important or in fact more important in someone's personal calculus than policy.

Then I think we're more or less on the same page.

 

[Particle Physicist]

This is why I've always said that people who say stuff like, "You shouldn't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman" or, "You shouldn't vote for Obama just because he's black" are completely full of shit. Equal representation has always been a critical goal of equal rights, and tearing down those barriers is important, tangible, and above all, justifiable progress.

And it isn't like she isn't qualified either. She is the most qualified out of any candidate in either side.

 

[dramatis]

I've never seen anyone try to lecture someone else about their civic duty without coming off...poorly. That certainly didn't change with this post.

If you have no actual refutation for why 'enthusiasm' is such a factor in support for a candidate, then you should probably pass.




Given the NYT endorsement thread, I think we need a bingo board for the primary threads. The word "establishment" should be one of the squares.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Sure, but it has to be a candidate with whom I agree. I can't imagine it's a good idea just to vote for Hillary and say, "Well, she's liberal enough."

What do you think about Obama? Because she is to the left of him. People seem to be conflating Bill and Hillary which is a huge mistake and disservice to her.

 

[disastermouse]

Hillary Clinton's first presidential rally was focused on income inequality: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...e-inequality-boosting-middle-class-1434222732 Specific proposals mentioned include paid family leave and universal pre-K. The article says she hadn't outlined a position yet on TPP but she's since come out against it. And of course that speaks nothing of her support for equal wages between men and women, the most blitheringly obvious source of income inequality. (Oh but identity politics!)

Hillary Clinton supports raising the minimum wage to $12: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hill...ge-to-12-per-hour_us_56394247e4b0411d306eca12 Not as high as what Bernie is proposing, but higher than Obama.

Hillary Clinton's proposal to increase taxes on the wealthy through a surtax on millionaires: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...ax-surcharge-for-wealthy-americans-1452552083

All you had to do was google that motherfucking shit. Hillary just promises 90% of what Bernie promises.

I was referring to the list and the reasons people think we should vote for her.

On income inequality, Sanders wipes the floor with her. I knew about the minimum wage - I even commented on how she's not reaching high enough to be able to have room for bargaining if it is required. There is NOWHERE on income inequality where she's not to the right (|-|>) of Bernie Sanders.

 

[Poodlestrike]

If you have no actual refutation for why 'enthusiasm' is such a factor in support for a candidate, then you should probably pass.




Given the NYT endorsement thread, I think we need a bingo board for the primary threads. The word "establishment" should be one of the squares.

It should be the middle square.

 

[disastermouse]

What do you think about Obama? Because she is to the left of him. People seem to be conflating Bill and Hillary which is a huge mistake and disservice to her.

I'm wildly disappointed with Obama. Enough so that I finally left the Democratic Party.

 

[dabig2]

Oooh, political spectrum conversation. And I see mentions of Kasich and Huntsman, probably in favor of them being slightly right of center compared to their contemporary nutjobs. If anyone has a spare 20 minutes, I highly suggest a reading of the following:
American Prospect: No Cost for Extremism. Why the GOP hasn't (yet) paid for its march to the right.

[...]
The GOP’s great right migration is the biggest story in American politics of the past 40 years. And it’s not just limited to Congress: GOP presidents have gotten steadily more conservative, too; conservative Republicans increasingly dominate state politics; and the current Republican appointees on the Supreme Court are among the most conservative in the Court’s modern history. The growing extremism of Republicans is the main cause of increasing gridlock in Washington, the driving force behind the rise in scorched-earth tactics on Capitol Hill, an increasing contributor to partisan conflict and policy dysfunction at the state level, and the major cause of increasing public disgust with Washington—which, not coincidentally, feeds directly into the Republicans’ anti-government project.

It’s also deeply puzzling. Republicans are gaining more influence even though Americans seem less satisfied with the outcomes of increased Republican influence. Poll after poll shows that major GOP positions are not all that popular. Among swing voters, there has been nothing like the party’s right turn. Political scientists often suggest that the “median voter” runs the show, but on basic economic issues, people at the center of the ideological spectrum express views similar to those of the typical voter a generation ago. On many social issues, such as gay marriage, middle-of-the-road voters have actually moved left. Yet the Republican Party keeps heading right.

Nor is it tenable to argue that Republicans pay no electoral price because the Democrats have raced to the left as quickly as they’ve headed right. Figuring out exactly where parties stand isn’t easy. But widely respected measures of ideology based on congressional votes show Republicans moving much farther right than Democrats have moved left. (When you look at the positions that presidents take on congressional legislation, you also find that Democratic presidents have become more moderate even as Republican presidents have become more extreme.) While Democratic politicians have tacked left on some social issues—mostly where public opinion has, too—the party is arguably more moderate on many economic issues than it was a generation ago: friendlier to high finance, more venerating of markets, more cautious about taxes. It is the core of the Republican Party that has transformed. And yet, contrary to expectations that swing voters will punish them for their extremism at the polls, they just keep on going.

In a 50-50 nation, Republicans have learned how to have their extremist cake and eat it too. Figuring out how they’ve pulled off this feat is the key to understanding what has gone wrong with American politics—and how it might be fixed.
[...]

[...]

What Happened to the Median Voter?​

That the Republican Party has grown more conservative is not exactly breaking news. Yet journalists routinely fail to point out just how significant the shift has been. When Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana was defeated by a Tea Party opponent in a GOP primary in 2012, commentators lamented the loss of “a collegial moderate who personified a gentler political era,” as the Times put it. Yet, as the political scientist David Karol rightly countered, what moderate? When Lugar joined the Senate in 1977, he was on the conservative end of the party—to the right not only of middle-of-the-road Republicans, but even relatively conservative senators such as Robert Dole and Ted Stevens. By the time of Lugar’s defeat, he was indeed at the moderate end of the party, but this had very little to do with any movement on Lugar’s part. The depiction of him as a “moderate” is akin to that eerie sensation you get when a train passes you while your train isn’t moving—scientists call it “vection.” The long-timers aren’t really moving left; they’re being left behind as their party moves right.

You feel political vection a lot these days. Newt Gingrich went from the right fringe of the party to the center before he was ousted from the leadership. John Boehner, now the Establishment pleader-in-chief, was significantly to the right of Gingrich when he entered Congress. Today, pundits wonder whether the “moderate” Jeb Bush can attract enough GOP conservatives to win the presidential nomination. (He might—presidential nominations are the one place where centrist GOP voters have some sway.) But when he started out in electoral politics in the 1990s, as Alec MacGillis recently wrote in The New Yorker, he was clearly on the conservative side of the GOP and to the right of his brother George. Jeb was a self-described “head-banging conservative” who said he would “club this government into submission.” He has mellowed a little, but mostly it’s that his party has gotten more hyper.

Today, mainstream Republicans denounce positions on health care, climate legislation, and tax policy that were once mainstream within the party. Leading figures in the GOP embrace rhetorical themes—state nullification of federal laws, the wholesale elimination of cabinet departments, “makers” versus “takers”—that were only recently seen as beyond the pale. Under pressure to appear neutral and play up conflict, the news media like to focus on the divide at any moment between the GOP’s right fringe and its more moderate members. But look at American politics as a moving picture and you see an ongoing massive shift of the whole GOP (and, with it, the “center” of American politics) toward the anti-government fringe.
[...]

[...]
Nowhere is this more true than with regard to the extreme anti-government tactics that have become such a central part of the GOP strategic repertoire. American political leaders in the past refrained from playing constitutional hardball not because it was legally impossible but because it was normatively suspect. Those norms were costly to breach; violators were subject to both public and private censure. Today, however, the price of hardball is effectively zero. For Republicans, indeed, it is often less than zero because the GOP gains so much from political dysfunction. Raising the price of these tactics requires opinion leaders to call out violations again. Journalists should treat partisan realities in the same way they should treat scientific disputes—by attending to the evidence.

Equally important, those who recognize the dangerous implications of extremism are going to have to make a concerted case for effective governance. Currently, Democrats are caught in a spiral of silence. No one defends government and government looks increasingly indefensible. Public life and government are seen as hopelessly gridlocked and corrupt, so they become more hopelessly gridlocked and corrupt. Even politicians who know that government has a vital role to play in making our society stronger have little incentive to make what is now an unpopular and unfamiliar case. Consider the almost complete silence of Democrats about the Affordable Care Act—a law that despite its limitations has unquestionably delivered considerable benefits to the majority of Americans. A 2014 study found that spending on anti—Obamacare ads since 2010 outpaced money spent for ads defending the law 15 to 1. No wonder public opinion remains doubtful even as actual results of the law look more positive.

As difficult as it surely will be, there is no substitute for restoring some measure of public and elite respect for government’s enormous role in making society richer, healthier, fairer, better educated, and safer. To do that requires encouraging public officials to refine and express that case, and rewarding them when they do so. And it requires designing policies not to hide the role of government, but to make it both visible and popular. A tax cut that almost nobody sees, and which those who do see fail to recognize as public largesse, will make some Americans richer. It will not make them more trusting of government.

We are under no illusion about how easily or quickly our lopsided politics can be righted. But put yourself in the shoes of an early 1970s conservative and ask how likely the great right migration seemed then, when Richard Nixon was proposing a guaranteed income and national health insurance and backing environmental regulations and the largest expansion of Social Security in its history. Reversals of powerfully rooted trends that threaten our democracy take time, effort, and persistence. Yet above all they require a clear recognition of what has gone wrong.

That's barely 20% of the article btw. There's a loooooot more.

My own personal opinion, as I've shared it numerous times here, is that the slow incremental shift back to the left by Dems is not good enough. I want my progressive politicians to be more organized and more loud in their efforts. People complain that Dems largely ran away from their accomplishments and message in 2014 and got whupped for it. Guess what - it's been happening for 40+ years already.

 

[OmniOne]

Pivoting the direction of the country away from Reaganism on many fronts is, in my view, a big success. There are things with which i wish more progressed was made but in totality I think the Obama presidency was very successful. That times article was a great read especially with all the unseen changes no one talks about.

 

[The Technomancer]

So...not very much about addressing income inequality. Nothing there about increasing the minimum wage, nothing about increasing taxes on the wealthy. So she's 'liberal' if you confine that to identity politics but not a whole lot else.

LGBT rights and access to women's and children's healthcare go a lot beyond just being "identity politics" but the fact that you frame things that way is very illuminating

 

[ugaboga232]

Ok dumb question: what happened to all the welfare reform/shitty criminal justice reform that was passed in the 90's? I assume hillary is against it? Its hard because this forum makes me like her a lot more but other places (not really reading reddit anymore) point out some of her judgement lapses/slightly suspect actions (not the emails or benghazi those are just dumb to harp on).

Also hillary pls toss some of that alzheimers money into psychiatric disorders too, would love to play around with more lasers.

 

[Particle Physicist]

LGBT rights and access to women's and children's healthcare go a lot beyond just being "identity politics" but the fact that you frame things that way is very illuminating

Everything he said there is just flat out false so it's clear he doesn't actually know Hillary/what she is campaigning on. The thing that gets me about Bernistas is that they have tons of vitriol for a Hillary that they have created in their minds. They also seem to espouse a bunch of the usual garbage that has been thrown at her from the Right. It's growing old.

 

[User 406]

Ok dumb question: what happened to all the welfare reform/shitty criminal justice reform that was passed in the 90's? I assume hillary is against it? Its hard because this forum makes me like her a lot more but other places (not really reading reddit anymore) point out some of her judgement lapses/slightly suspect actions (not the emails or benghazi those are just dumb to harp on).

Yeah, she came out against it, and even Bill has acknowledged that it was the wrong way to go and regrets it.

Make no mistake, Hillary has a number of problematic stances, but on balance no more than most other politicians. All the hype about her being this horrible corrupt villain is just because the right has been painting her like that continuously for nearly a quarter century, and you know how things go when a lie is repeated long enough.

 

[ugaboga232]

Everything he said there is just flat out false so it's clear he doesn't actually know Hillary/what she is campaigning on. The thing that gets me about Bernistas is that they have tons of vitriol for a Hillary that they have created in their minds. They also seem to espouse a bunch of the usual garbage that has been thrown at her from the Right. It's growing old.

I dont think disastermouse could be in any way considered a bernista and Bernie himself had a better ranking on HRC and his universal healthcare would also increase/better provide child and women's health. I think both candidates are very interested in this area but Hillary has done a much better job advertising it (bernie needs to step up some of his social views that he has talked about/voted on in the past).

 

[ugaboga232]

Yeah, she came out against it, and even Bill has acknowledged that it was the wrong way to go and regrets it.

Make no mistake, Hillary has a number of problematic stances, but on balance no more than most other politicians. All the hype about her being this horrible corrupt villain is just because the right has been painting her like that continuously for nearly a quarter century, and you know how things go when a lie is repeated long enough.

Ok good, was curious about the criminal justice stuff. I don't think shes horribly corrupt or even more corrupt than any republican, theres just some doubt about all the money she took for her speeches. I don't really care about what the republicans say to her, its the far more up to date alumni/students of my alma mater.

 

[Manmademan]

Ok good, was curious about the criminal justice stuff. I don't think shes horribly corrupt or even more corrupt than any republican, theres just some doubt about all the money she took for her speeches. I don't really care about what the republicans say to her, its the far more up to date alumni/students of my alma mater.

Believe it or not, EVERYONE on both sides has come to realize that those particular reforms of the 90s were a bad thing, and there is serious bipartisan legislation in the works to roll back a lot of it.

 

[pigeon]

I love how things that concern literally half the population are "identity politics."

That's how it works. "Identity politics" means "stuff that doesn't affect me." Stuff that affects white men is just, you know, regular politics. Two hundred years of institutionalized racism is just business as usual, nothing to do with identity at all. But equal pay for women? Identity politics!

 

[disastermouse]

LGBT rights and access to women's and children's healthcare go a lot beyond just being "identity politics" but the fact that you frame things that way is very illuminating

LGBT rights is entirely identity politics. It has almost nothing to do with political economy. Women's and children's healthcare is very obviously aimed at a political identity as well - it's there to garner the women's vote. I will concede that it has economic affect, and I'm not diminishing that by pointing out that it's really about addressing women specifically.

I'm all for LGBT rights and women's health - but not at the expense of the major issues of economic equality.

 

[disastermouse]

That's how it works. "Identity politics" means "stuff that doesn't affect me." Stuff that affects white men is just, you know, regular politics. Two hundred years of institutionalized racism is just business as usual, nothing to do with identity at all. But equal pay for women? Identity politics!

I dunno, I happen to think that income inequality affects everyone, not just white men.

The political triangulation involved with courting specific communities while not addressing class issues is quite definitely 'Identity politics' - in that it uses issues of identity to distract from class struggle in order to maintain the economic status quo and the priorities of capitalism.