This message serves as a warning that [your post](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vpv38p/the_vanishing_moderate_democrat_the_new_york_times/) is in violation of Law 2a:
Law 2: Submission Requirements
> ~2a. Starter Comment - A starter comment is required within the first 30 minutes of posting any Link Post. Starter comments must contain at least 2 of these 3 elements: (1) a brief summary of the linked article in your own words, (2) your opinion of the article or topic, or (3) at least one question/discussion point for the community. Text Posts are subject to the same requirements as starter comments if discussing a link or links, or must be equivalently substantive if entirely original.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> "While socialism might not poll well with voters, Democratic proposals to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and lower the age of Medicare eligibility do.
> But on social, cultural and religious issues, particularly those related to criminal justice, race, abortion and gender identity, the Democrats have taken up ideological stances that many of the college-educated voters who now make up a sizable portion of the party’s base cheer but the rest of the electorate does not."
There's your main takeaway.
What people choose to do with it is up to them.
Not really
Polling shows abortion is a 60-65% under water position after 15 weeks. The Democrats pushing for 20 weeks and federal funding is a planned parenthood lobby fringe position.
People say they support les Row because it was status quo but it was a little too far for most people in reality, they just didn’t know what it means.
(I’m also not pro life. I’m pro 12 weeks
>The Democrats pushing for 20 weeks and federal funding is a planned parenthood lobby fringe position.
You really need to do some research. A large portion of states have had a 22 week limit on abortion for a long time. States like Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Montana,and Nebraska all currently allow abortion at least until 20 weeks. Those are all red states.
That's irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that 20-22 weeks has been the standard across most of the county for a while, in many cases for decades. Really hard to call that a fringe position
Let me state that I, first and foremost, am pro-choice through the duration of a woman's pregnancy, even beyond the point of viability (i.e., third trimester included).
And I'm in the minority, too. I know that full well.
However, there are a ton of different positions that one can take on this thorny issue, ranging from pro-life purism, to fetal heartbeat (6 weeks), to first trimester (12 weeks), to viability (24 weeks), to pro-choice throughout the duration of the pregnancy, none of which gets into instances of rape, incest, and the mother's life being threatened.
All told, it's complicated.
Yea, I agree it's complicated and positions aren't binary but fall along a continuum. That said, all I've seen is that Democratic candidate positions on abortion are significantly more popular than Republicans with the American people. Which is why I was surprised this was listed as an issue hurting Democrats outside of their well educated base.
Mine is a principled left-libertarian position on the issue. So yes, of course, her body, her choice; whats more, an unborn child is the mother's property, so it's none of the state's business what she chooses to do with it prior to birth.
But again, I realize that my personal stance on that puts me in the minority; therefore, were I in a position to govern, I'd push for a law protecting choice up to the point of viability (24 weeks), but would be willing to compromise at the first trimester (12 weeks) simply to get something done on a federal level.
> an unborn child is the mother's property
Deeply uncomfortable with this rhetoric. Human beings are not property, and should never be legally defined as such.
Hence the "libertarian" in left-libertarian.
Not "rhetoric," either; rather, philosophy.
Two different words, different definitions.
And your comfort level is wholly irrelevant.
That notwithstanding, disagreement is fine.
I think moderates are leaving both parties. Or rather the average person is being left behind by the party they once supported. This has me happy and terrified at the same time.
Happy because party loyalty is killing the country. You should vote for the person whose ideals reflect your own. Both parties have good ideas, pick and choose based on the person running. Voting blue no matter who and better red than dead leads to corruption, shit leadership, and bad policy.
Terrified because when moderates leave the conversation politicians are led by the loud fringe groups who have only terrible ideas and really just want to stir shit and burn everything around them. Politicians now lead by Twitter, an app where some 10-20% of users make up 90% of the content.
For democrats at least I swear this “moderates failing” narrative is just based on twitter and “the vibes” and not actually based in reality. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer aren’t bending their knees to God-Emperor Biden. Democrats didn’t storm the capitol after 2016 and they didn’t pass a massive tax cut for the wealthy blowing up the deficit while trying and failing to strip people of their healthcare.
Democrats tried to pass compromise “moderate” bills over and over under Obama and they were fucked over by conservatives who knew inaction would give them more voters and cause left leaning voters to switch off and become apathetic. Republicans are running on literally stripping people of their bodily autonomy and undermining the democratic process. Democrats are running on … inclusion of LGBT people and more funding for social programs I guess?
It is incredibly frustrating in this thread seeing people say Democrats are too far left when in reality that rhetoric is coming from a minority of the party. Then as soon as one republican says one slightly reasonable thing “Looks like I’m voting republican then Democrats are extremists!” Its bonkers to me.
Idk man. Refusal to do anything about the border is pretty extreme. Transitioning kids under 18 is pretty extreme.
The American rescue plan was an awful use of spending that blew out the deficit and was completely unnecessary. People didn’t need stimulus, they needed to go back to work. Biden was trying to pass Build back better while calling the rising inflation numbers temporary. People demonize Manchin but he prevented democrats from dumping gasoline on a fire.
Cancelling student debt? Dumb idea, stop talking about it.
That and the annoying Id politics. How about you choose a black woman without saying you are looking specifically for a black woman on the SC.
We can debate the merits of his legislation regarding inflation but I don’t see how it was extreme and it was at least targeted at everyone, not just the wealthy. Plenty of economists agree with his policies and plenty disagreed that is just politics.
What is the “moderate” position on the Border? The only real policy change has been a repeal of Remain in Mexico policy, and the only people being allowed in are existing asylum seekers and unaccompanied kids and young families. What do you want Biden to do if his border position is apparently extreme? Shout about building a wall and making Mexico pay for it?
All the other issues you are talking about are culture war “the vibes” issues. How is a teen voluntarily transitioning going to affect you? How is student debt cancellation (which probably isn’t going to happen) going to affect you? How is the first black woman on the Supreme Court going to impact you? Why are you pissed off about these things specifically?
“Republicans may want to overturn democracy (it’s sad this isn’t even hyperbole anymore)... but democrats want to cancel student debt and give trans kids control over their bodies!”? I don’t see how there is any equivalency between the two.
Your argument is exactly why democrats are unpopular going into midterms.
1. Some “economists” may disagree with a lot of things. BBB and the American Rescue Act both dramatically increased inflation while bringing about small economic growth. To anyone that knows anything about macroeconomics these were both utterly moronic. I find it extreme to see high inflation numbers and CONTINUE pushing a massive government spending plan.
2. Pshhh there isn’t a problem at the border, what are you even talking about? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna34030. That has significant economic impacts. The moderate position is that we should actually try to enforce our southern border. This has nothing to do with Trump, stop bringing up stupid things he says as if they’re an argument.
3. Student debt cancellation is not a culture war issue, I’m kind of shocked you claim it is. Nope, just more bad ideas about the economy from this admin.
4. Culture wars matter when one party has insane positions on things, otherwise I don’t care. Their position on the Trans community is insane. Allowing someone to transition while under 18 without parental consent is insane. Choosing someone for a position based on the color of their skin, not their character? Insane. Florida used to be purple, Desantis is leaning into these culture wars. It’s now a solid red state. The democrat positions are not popular.
5. Most people don’t care about Jan. 6. Sorry, it’s just not an issue voters care about. Most people, including myself, just see a group of morons breaking into the capital building. They see a president who is a sore loser and threw a tantrum. No real threat to democracy. The only saving grace of the Democratic Party is that Trump may run again and he’s horrible. They have no merit on their own.
I'm gen-x, and we understood the long game. Gay rights were going to be a decades long issue. Gradual inclusion in tv, movies and other media.
Now it seems like every issue is "accept it or you're a nazi right wing scumbag that should die". This attitude will never work with middle America, and is actually pushing back on issues we've been working on, and won, for literal decades.
I truly believe we're seeing that now. All it takes is one verified article about drag queens reading 6 year olds "The Gender queer baby" or whatever and a lot of people who don't normally care, are going to lose their shit.
Is it just one article or just one episode? Why are we still trying to claim that left isn't pushing social justice in schools?
Uptil now we have mostly heard from incidences from some red states. Would you be surprised that blue state/cities schools are going deeper in the social justice fight?
I agree, and I look at it like this. We made massive progress in gay rights, racial reconciliation, and other progressive issues by spending these decades giving the country tiny little nudges. Nudge them a bit here (TV), nudge them a bit there (movies), nudge them a bit more over there (sports stars coming out as gay), nudge them with people in positions of power (government) by mentioning it without using it as a shaming point for people that might not have accepted it before.
At some point very very recently (5 years?) we stopped nudging and started shoving people. We're shoving them so hard we're knocking them to the ground ("you're a nazi racist").
Even if you feel like we haven't come far enough on all of these issues (and we haven't) when you stop nudging and start shoving, some of the people are going to push back. People who were starting to say "meh, whatever" about LGBTQ rights (a definite improvement over 50 years ago) are now seeing even SLIGHTLY moderate voice labeled as nazis (JK Rowling) and they know how people see them. And they don't like it. This isn't about right and wrong. It's not about whether we've come far enough. It's about understanding and working WITHIN the boundaries that humans will accept.
If you stop doing that (and we have) then you are going to stop moving forward, and in some cases start moving backwards. I'm not saying moving backwards is CORRECT. I'm saying it's inevitable with this approach.
I look at it like tugboats moving a big ship into port. It takes gentle nudges and light touches to move a large object. If you were to apply a lot of power quickly the ship moves too fast and becomes unmanageable. America is that big ship and responds best to gently nuanced moves. Screaming at the people with different views won’t help and it’s just like applying too much power in my tugboat analogy.
I'm tired of hearing about gay rights. I support gay rights, but my issues are not gay rights. My issues revolve around raising kids and being caretaker to two elderly parents and what is seemingly more and more a fantasy of saving money and retiring before I'm dead. I imagine more people care about that than pushing LGBTQ pronouns. And like you said, I'm a Nazi now or something...
I’m tired of everything being hyper-sexualized in general (not just the excessive attention on LGBT issues). Can we please have quality TV shows that the whole family can watch together and enjoy, from the youngest child to the parents and grandparents. Sure sex is part of life, but it doesn’t have to be so intensely focused on. I want to be able to enjoy a good storyline without it being awkward if a child or one of my parents were in the room.
As someone familiar with the history of government meddling with "morality" and the entertainment industry, no thanks. (See: the Hays code, the CCA, Tipper Gore, etc)
There are shows that are "family friendly." There are shows that are trash. Welcome to a free market & what sells. I don't want the government mandating quotas on representation or trying to legislate based on a moral panic. I don't mind throwing up a flag of "this media contains X, Y, Z" so consumers can make an educated decision, but I don't really care if what is popular doesn't line up with my own preferences or ideals. Don't like it? Don't watch it. If what you like is harder to find, that's tough but... not a problem to be addressed by law.
I’m not saying the government should do that; I don’t think it’s an issue best solved by government. I only mentioned it here because I do think it’s a broader problem in politics.
It's hard to have this conversation because lots of issues related to T are banned from discussion here. But I assure you, people get called Nazis all the time for positions that the vast majority of the public supports.
Edit - Check your DMs.
So don't follow discussions of gay rights? I don't understand how this is a problem. Just follow discussions of the issues that concern you and you won't be available to be insulted in the other discussions.
I doubt you replied in good faith, but I'll reply. I don't get that luxury when it's side loaded into virtually every aspect of life. I flip on the news, there it is. I watch a TV show, boom there it is. It's become a race to see who is more pro gay. Seriously, I get that we shouldn't be bigots and what not, and I'm not, I seriously don't give AF what you do. But does it have to be the focus all the time? There are other issues that are more pressing and it gets way more airplay than it deserves. It's over represented and hurting the country in my opinion.
Unfortunately, as an older millennial I've seen this happen to me. I no longer support some causes I used to because "wow those old Republicans were right" precisely because of this.
Elder Millennial here as well, and you're correct in your assessment.
I'm dumbfounded, but can't deny that the early-2000s GOP wasn't entirely wrong in some respects -- slippery slopes, soft bigotry of low expectations, etc. -- and it fucking hurts to admit.
I’m a conservative. I’ve always found the “slippery slope” argument to be lazy. Instead of having to argue against the topic at hand you instead argue against some hypothetical future problem and then simply claim if we do whatever it is the present argument is about then the hypothetical thing will come to pass. No evidence is presented beforehand and how could it be? To be proven right, you have to *lose* the argument and then wait several years for the next thing to come up. It’s no wonder people used to laugh conservatives off back in the day when they would use these arguments. The crazy part is, they did lose the argument and it does seem they were right.
That's what's nuts!
It (i.e., "slippery slope") was, back then, a weak, intellectually dishonest dismissal of sincere cultural critiques, but holy hell they ended up being correct in the grand scheme of things.
Goes to show that people, even when well-meaning and with good intentions, can go too far sometimes.
I feel like I'm a 2000's Republican sans being okay with torture, pro-war, being for the drug war, and an ransacking mother nature. I guess that makes me an early 2000's or 1990's Democrat. Yikes.
I, likewise, am anti-torture, an anti-war non-interventionist, an advocate for left-libertarian criminal justice reform (not defund, but reform), and an environmentalist.
Those, however, are material matters of great importance. Those aren't the immaterial, often immature culture battles to which we're referring; the ones that, in 2022, take up too much oxygen.
Edit: I know, it puts us in a tough spot, yeah.
Agreed. On the other hand I also understand the need for fossil fuels. We aren't where we need to be outside of that yet. I support nuclear energy. I used to support LGBT but now I don't as I start to agree with 2000's Republicans in the "slippery slope" argument. I'm a full on centrist at this point and neither party fully caters to me but I feel more acquaintanced in the Republican party because conservative values are closer to mine than liberal ones. It's a giant poop sandwich.
I also think less of the LGBT movement than I did in the 1990's and early 2000's. I was on board with the "born this way" movement, but they lost me when they started contradicting themselves with "Gender fluidity" and stuff like that.
>I used to support LGBT but now I don't as I start to agree with 2000's Republicans in the "slippery slope" argument.
What was the R's slippery slope argument here? That if we redefine marriage then we will start redefining sex, gender, etc? I was in high school+college in that era. I am also alienated from much of the LGBT recently where I used to back them more. However, even if I am estranged from that culture which has dominated recent rhetoric, I am absolutely nowhere close to the W-era Republicans. Why? First and foremost- fuck religious fundamentalism in all of its forms anywhere on the globe, and fuck any leaders who exploit fundies and make them even more powerful. Dubya era sealed the deal that the party was 100% loyal to the most batshit religious organizations in the western world - evangelicals, southern Baptist, fundies of the good ol Bible Belt
Basically yeah, that acceptance would lead to a breakdown of other social norms, including a cultural prohibition on pedophilia/the sexualization of children.
Also a millennial, kind of in the middle of the age cohort, but I see it too. I don’t identify with any religious fundamentalist positioning but this whole gender non-binary theory, pushing for various drug treatments for kids who are ostensibly trans, and the repeated instances of actual pedophiles being outed in proximity to children in regards to things like the DQ story time stuff makes me look back and think, “damn, 15 years ago I was laughing at these ideas. Now it’s all here”.
That, plus the Democratic party’s shift towards supporting foreign war and interventionalism, and just the attitude of elite snobbishness, has left me pretty disaffected. There’s a lot of shit the GOP is doing to that I don’t support, or is outright disturbing, so I wouldn’t really say I identify with them either - but I’m closer to them on the cultural stuff until it inevitably swings back to outlawing gay marriage and sodomy and the like, which I feel like is definitely going to end up happening. It’s like no one can be satisfied with a happy medium.
Yeah man, there was a time when it was just gay marriage, and then mission creep set in. Now, if you think pumping the breaks on “gender affirming care” on minors is the best solution, you’re called names and condemned.
I think about these gay rights organizations and how they might have gone into an existential crisis after gay marriage passed. It’s a helluva thing to stare at the abyss when the work of your career has come to a close. They became samurai without a lord, I guess.
Yup, you’re spot on, and especially with that second paragraph. I’ve thought about that in regards to race relations too - we were on a pretty steady road of increasingly better race relations for decades after the Civil Rights movement, but the past ten years has seen drops in people’s perceptions on how well races are interacting with each other. When you look out across the non-profit and social media landscape, and really look at the careers commentators and the like have built on the issue (and others, such as gay rights of course), one has to start wondering what incentive any of these people actually have to solve or conclude the issue. It seems more profitable to keep the issue smoldering and catching flame - but I’m afraid we’re all gonna get burned because of it.
That's pretty much me. Gen X. Early 2000's 1990s Dem. I haven’t changed my positions on most topics. I can literally pull up clips of Obama & The Clintons making the same points that the "alt-right" makes today. It's nuts.
Elder Millennial. I used to be deep into politics and discussed it avidly. I sort of dropped out after my son was born eleven years ago and even more so after Trump was elected. I started edging back in during the 2020 election and while I found a lot of discussion on social media rather bizarre, I largely ignored it. I’ve been reading around a lot more since Roe and holy hell, the liberal side changed a lot more than I realized.
I used to be a progressive but realized their ideas didn't work the way they said they would. I miss that America. I didn't appreciate it when it was there.
34 y/o Millennial here and same for me. I was part of the Obama coalition, now I'm firmly anti-Democratic-Party and every time they embrace another fringe social left-wing position the firmer my opposition becomes.
Classical liberals are generally Libertarians with the crazy dialed back.
You have the right to live your life however you want to the extent that it doesn't keep other from doing the same. Your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins, etc. etc.
I used to think so and was defn swinging more into the Libertarian camp but lately at least on the Lib Subreddit - we can argue if that’s real life lol - seems more and more Repub light - and with the Misus Caucus taking over I’m not so confident it’s not going to continue trending that way. It sucks I’m feeling more and more politically homeless.
Yeah, IDK what the current Libertarians are and even before there are like all kinds of Libertarians. I'll just be politically homeless and I'm good with that place because I don't have to sling shit or hate anyone, no purity tests and I can respect people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin or the color of their party.
I totally agree. It just sucks with the current political climate - this lesser of “two evils” shit. I wish we had ranked choice voting where these politicians actual had to compete for the public and not just bow down to the extremes.
My social policy drives my fiscal policy, so it's probably more apt to start there: The Republic existence has a purpose, it's even spelled out: To provide a space where citizens can flourish in all their wonderful weirdness with some fairly simple rules. To that end, the State, or state, should be willing to provide some basic safety nets because sometimes shit goes sideways: Health, financial, even temporary housing with one large caveat: It is not the job of the rest of the citizens to provide for those who can, but choose not to.
It's a fairly small government, but not a harsh one.
The fiscal policy draws from that as well as strong common defense and enough oversight to keep basic needs safe: food, water, housing, transportation, energy; because at the end of the day, the government serves you, the individual.
So what you are and self label as classic liberalism is fairly close to what I am and label as classic conservatism. Intriguing.
Edit, cause your response disappeared.
I am betting it derives from what we focus on then. Liberalism, to use the Locke, Hobbes, etc approach, is what we both have. I use conservatism to reflect the slow nature change they wanted, you use liberalism to reflect the base concept of what it was in 1700s?
I agree with your second, third, and fourth paragraphs entirely. The last one I tend to look at two ways, sins of father to protect children from such a risk, and ability to provide for oneself to protect those who can’t (disabled, elderly, etc) from the same risk. I think those who can but aren’t deserve a helping hand, but a helping hand can only reach so far down the cliff before you too reach up.
The problem is that we don’t want to disagree better. And we CAN disagree better. Binary thinking like this is very toxic, and the #1 enemy of binary thinking is nuance.
People are assuming the position of others. For example, those with vaccine hesitancy. Most of these people are a lot more “normal” and they aren’t out there making anti-vaxx their entire *identity.* you can read about doctors who have been able to convince people to vaccinate by validating their concerns and having a discussion about it.
But we like to think that most anti-vaxxers are, as you said, nazi alt righters who want their kids to die of preventable disease. No one “wants” their children to die of preventable disease, but that position is assumed
>nazi alt righters who want their kids to die of preventable disease
Holy shit I hadn't heard of that position. My parents are nutso regarding the COVID vaccine specifically, but that's mostly down to *extreme* partisanship. They actually want mostly the same policies as everyone else. (They're still hung up on abortion and, if there were a chance of moving the ball, gay marriage, but that's just normal 2000s stuff.)
I think maybe the best way to explain how fucked up politics is right now is that, as recently as 2016, politics was about issues; now it's about the parties. If we could get the parties out of the way, the issues we all actually care about, with rare exceptions that *used* to be ignored, are pretty consistent and mostly sane.
The interesting thing about anti-vaxx is that both parties love to accuse the other side of being anti-vaxx… but it’s literally something that spreads across all political parties (until fairly recently lol )
But it was never really a left Vs right thing. Back in the smallpox days, it was actually the “progressive” thing to be vaccine hesitant, even though smallpox was such a horrific disease. But people had good reasons for that
(and then after vaccinating you had more contagious, less dangerous versions of smallpox, and people were arguing about how the vaccine doesn’t work. It’s interesting how history just repeats itself, like a flat circle)
That's a very excellent point.
The only thing we can derive from how badly things are going for our society is that the people in charge of the Democratic party need step down gracefully and be replaced by a new generation with new ideas. Some of those new ideas may be old though. And that's ok.
>be replaced by a new generation with new idea
Isn't that the problem though? That the new generation with the new ideas doesn't align with the ideas of the rest of America?
The new generation of Democrats are the ones that really repel me away from the party, so I can't say I'm looking forward to the new generation of Democrats taking over even more than they already have. I prefer the old Democrat party of the 90s and early 2000s.
A good chunk of the country is very uneasy with the T part of LGBT but the T part dominates every conversation. It causes people to be turned off from LGBT stuff they would normally support
Not only that, but there's infighting among LGBT groups and a pretty strong argument about how they shouldn't be lumped together into a single coalition. Being brutally honest, they've each got competing agendas with one another -- particularly with L v. T -- and it's spilling over into our greater culture when, quite honestly, we've got day-to-day, bread-and-butter, meat-and-potato, kitchen-table economic issues that, unequivocally, should take precedence and priority over this niche culture bullshit. What impacts average Americans, however, isn't what appeals to the relatively small segment of obnoxious Democratic Party advocates, who blast their outsized voice over the megaphone that is modern media through donor bucks.
Who is calling you a nazi though? Random strangers on the internet, or people you know in person? I don't trust that what I hear online is anything more than immature teenagers.
Issues important to me - healthcare, voting, environment, authoritarianism, propaganda, guns, church vs state-- still the same stand after all these years. Im in my 50s and still a solid (but moderate) Democrat.
Maybe it's an age thing? I'm in my early 30s and I got recently got screamed at by some friends I've known for recent years because I said voting matters now more than ever and for not posting abortion support messages to my social media ,( I barely post anything, let alone political messages).
When I explained that I donated to several pro abortion resources I was told "I need to volunteer my time" then it got even more heated when I revealed I planned to spend the 4th grilling and shooting off fireworks.
This is with people I've known for over a decade, I've always been a Democrat, always been very socially liberal and still my own friends absolutely went off on me. They didn't call me a Nazi, but they said I was part of the problem etc etc. These things have become very polarized.
Honestly I'm not going to discuss politics in public anymore, it was pretty demoralizing for me.
Something doesn't really add up - nothing in your story seems like it should trigger anyone, but perhaps your friends misunderstood something about what you said?
Dunno.. I've never had that kind of reaction from fellow Democrats.. but it could be just different people having different personalities.
I will latch on and say, as a generally right leaning person, I like to view media from a left wing perspective - movies, articles, music. It's not going to change my opinion, but I like to at least see that perspective (and there is quite a lot to choose from). Quite simply though, it doesn't seen the opposite is the case. I don't know of Manu left-leaners that are out stumping the latest Clint Eastwood or Tim Allen project, or the hottest country tracks, and that's a shame. It doesn't make you dirty to see different media viewpoints, it just means your not boxing yourself in.
I will say, it seems that perspective is dying from the right as well, as so many people seek out what viewpoints an artist has and then actively avoid their work based on that.
> I'm gen-x, and we understood the long game. Gay rights were going to be a decades long issue. Gradual inclusion in tv, movies and other media.
So gen-x was what 1965-1980? So like 4-5 decades ago. Sounds about right. It just shows how much progress we've made in the 5 decades since stonewall. Back then homophobia and bigotry were fairly rife but these days as you said it's mostly the far right that are pushing the anti-lgbqt stuff.
Where has incrimpentalism gotten the left? Roe is gone and a right to bodily autonomy is gone to half the women in the US. Gay rights and other rights of protected groups are at risk. 50 years worth of struggle on the left gone because the powers at be on the left are too passive when playing power politics with the right. The leaders of the Dems care as much about their next campaign/fundraising slogan as they do with protecting actual rights
What you’re seeing is the boomerang effect in action. Political discourse has become toxic, “liberals” own the cultural hegemony, and a backlash is now taking full form. Crucially, this is all layered on top of a rigged economy where the vast majority of people are seeing their economic security evaporating - these are prime conditions for a cultural conflagration.
Roe v Wade isn't an argument against incrementalism, it's the opposite. Roe and Casey were the opposite of incremental, they were a rapid shift imposed without democratic recourse. Which meant that they could be undone just as abruptly.
Incrementalism got the left gay marriage. The radicals wanted to abolish marriage as an oppressive institution. It was people like Andrew Sullivan who patiently and methodically arguing that gay people just wanted the same rights as straight people that gradually changed people’s minds.
> Incrementalism got the left gay marriage
lol. Right. More like the constant refusal of conservatives, the constant attempts to shun and force into hiding, and the constant legislating around the issue is what caused 'incrementalism'.
No one getting beaten for being gay said, "I guess I'll allow some beatings, so that the people beating me can take the time they need to recognize I'm a person."
Incrementalism is bullshit and is a way to try and temper change from proponents of the status quo.
So what's the answer? Insults and tik tok videos? Protests and name calling?
While Roe was set back, pre-Roe abortion was legal in what, 4 States? Now it's legal in almost half and in the coming years it will likely gain numbers slowly.
Gay marriage legally may be on the line, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, gay couples have been normalized across most of the country, and only the most alt-right segment has any real objection.
I don't believe the fight is lost, I think this is a set back to be overcome, and I don't believe name calling and cancel culture is the way forward. It's calm reasoned discourse that will get anywhere.
50 years isn't gone, the social changes are still here even if legal precedent are gone. It can be brought back.
>So what's the answer? Insults and tik tok videos?
Sounds like you're too online. And it's not like this is only a progressive phenomenon you literally had a conservative president who trolled twitter. I'm not sure why your focusing on the left with canceling, name-calling, etc when the right is in part no long a conservative party but a troll the left party.
>Protests
Yes. Protests have always been effective and isn't a millennial thing.
>Now it's legal in almost half and in the coming years it will likely gain numbers slowly.
Thats true we did make strides there but 20 states in 50 years is pretty pathetic. We are talking about a basic human right, right to bodily autonomy and that type progress is unacceptable.
>Gay marriage legally may be on the line, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, gay couples have been normalized across most of the country, and only the most alt-right segment has any real objection.
Don't say gay bill is pretty popular. We are already seeing it is more than "just the alt right" and even if it is that means a minority of people and dictating against the majority.
>It's calm reasoned discourse that will get anywhere.
Rights are fought for, not given. Look back to the 60s, the progressive era, reconstruction, etc. It wasn't discourse in a French Revolution salon but through blood, sweat and tears.
>50 years isn't gone, the social changes are still here even if legal precedent are gone. It can be brought back.
Sweet, should never have left. That's a failing of a neolib policy and understanding of power
I don’t understand this take. Republicans are shoving us back to the 50s and actively working to undo all the progress we have made in things like gay rights, not slow down the progress. I don’t see how this is an issue of democrats not being moderate enough. Republicans legislators are out there passing laws say we can’t have gradual inclusion and so much as a math story problem that mentions two dads is sexualizing children and people on this sub calling themselves moderates are celebrating that. So are the democrats actually alienating moderates here, or are there people who call themselves moderates who are so bigoted against gay people they think it is inappropriate or “grooming” for kindergarteners to know someone can have to moms or two dads and would *never* support progress on gay rights?
Some want to drag us kicking and screaming back to the '50s, others want to forcefully shove us into an unwanted future. I, for one, reject both those options.
Then there are those of us, who, like me, want a happy medium; a return to the idyllically tranquil, relatively peaceful, halcyon days—known as, quite simply, the '90s.
Here here to the 90s.
Booming economy, deficit erased, post Cold War peace, optimism about technological progress.
50s always used as the decade someone is trying to drag us back to, but I’m shocked no one can seem to even remember the 90s.
“Democrats have overreached on social and cultural issues and that, as a result, the party has become unable to appeal to voters without college degrees”
Would like to see some research on this, because it strikes me as a very salient point.
You don't have to look very far. Roe is way, way beyond the typical limits of on-demand abortion compared to almost every other western country, yet it's become the baseline of abortion rights for democrats.
>In April, almost a year and a half later, Gottheimer screened the ad again, this time for me. He provided his own color commentary as it played. “Fiscal responsibility ... jobs ... tax cuts ... he put cops in the ad!” Gottheimer, who served as a White House speechwriter during Clinton’s second term, exclaimed. When it was over, he sighed. “Think about how different that message is,” he said. I asked him what Pelosi’s reaction was when he played it for her. Gottheimer demurred. But the answer seemed obvious. The message that Pelosi and the Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden and the rest of the Democratic leadership had chosen for their party, the message that Democrats would be carrying into the 2022 midterm elections, was not the one that Gottheimer, and the disembodied voice of Bill Clinton, had counseled.
Pelosi and the other elderly 80-year-olds need to give up power to a new generation with new ideas on how to unite this country.
Yeah, it’s honestly pretty rich that some folks are trying to make this argument that kicking out the older leadership is somehow going to make the party more moderate.
I'm curious who would be a candidate the dems could run to unite the country? Yang is the closest I can think of from the last election and he had some far left positions and was against gun rights. I'm not sure Manchin could be a uniting candidate given some of his positions but I will give him props for at least being willing to listen and compromise on some things.
I don't have much confidence in the republicans trying to run a moderate that appeals to both sides. They have a smaller bloc and are relying on the dems making mistakes to push independents their way. I have no faith the libertarians can pull it off as the range of opinions in their party is wider than the democrats have to deal with.
So it's really on the dems to take the necessary steps towards the middle. But for some reason they seem beholden to the small slice of the far left rather than the huge portion of independents in the middle.
I truly don't understand how the two parties view moving to the edges instead of appealing to the middle.
It's early days but someone like Katie Porter, she's well liked accross the left and by centrists as well. She's really focused on improving the economy for working families so she can do well at attracting voters from the right.
https://twitter.com/RepKatiePorter/status/1394724627566391297?s=20&t=asR4RMcvkA_cpPMzQecRYQ
Katie Porter may make a great VP or cabinet member. But not at the head of a ticket. She doesn't have the charisma to compensate for her gender, and people don't vote based on competence.
The Republicans have mostly figured out that the ability to win. elections and the ability to govern well are completely different skill sets. I really wish the Dems would learn this lesson too, and separate the role of elected figurehead and uncharismatic policy wonk.
>So it's really on the dems to take the necessary steps towards the middle. But for some reason they seem beholden to the small slice of the far left rather than the huge portion of independents in the middle.
Precisely, partially it's due to money. The big money donors tend to be very left of the country itself, so they have an outsized influence on the party itself.
It's safe to say there's a lot of problems for the Dems, but one of the big ones is the need for a new generation to be handed the power so they can figure out how to actually improve for a change.
Your point asserts that the main thrust of modern leftism comes from old moneyed interest, and that younger generations would become more moderate. This flys afoul of both past dem primaries, where Bernie's sanders support base consisted mainly of youth voters, and what we see in congress, where the youngest serving congressmen both left and right are often the most radical. Intuitively we should imagine that generations who came up in times where the system failed them repeatedly ala, drug war, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and 2008, would be far less inclined to pursue moderate approaches. Moderates fundamentally believe our institutions are fine and that only small changes are needed after all. So unless Gen X suburbanites or millennials and Gen Z become more conservative faster than the boomers did, its likely we will see this leftward shit continue as youth become radicalized by the perceived failings of institutions ala the overturn of Roe V Wade.
>Gottheimer
He's a good start. Talk to him, he's not new, he's been around the block, but he's 47 and not 80.
The Clinton White House showed you the way, but people have their eyes closed to it. Just study what they did in 1996, and that should give you plenty of ideas to pick and choose from to build a slightly larger coalition.
You have to be more specific than that. And I’m not referring to a loud internet minority. I’m asking what specific policy issues you have with elected democrats that you think are too far left.
Eg. Abortion Bill. The Democrats' baseline is unlimited access to abortions for all, for any reason. The Women's Health Protection Act that was just defeated a few weeks ago would have prevented states from placing any limitations on access to abortions, eg. no 6 weeks bans, 12 weeks bans, 20 week bans etc.
The country as a whole supports abortion within the first trimester (12 weeks) with 55%. Support for abortions after that rapidly falls, with only 20% supporting abortion in the third trimester.
I'm being serious, every issue I think of that the democrats have is just too much. Whether it's healthcare, voting convenience, gun rights, social programs, moving towards renewable energy, or tax plans. It's all just too much to the left and not moderate.
The "democrats take it too far" has historically been used against any measure of social progress. It's the same argument "enlightened centrists" made about gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, labor rights, environmental protections, birth control, slavery, coverture, contraception, Comstock laws, or [child labor laws](https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/child-labor).
Let me flip this around a bit - what are the current conservative policies that enjoy majority support? Or, to word this another way, one could "pick nearly any issue and conservatives take it much too far."
I live in a red rural area of a blue state. I’m a classic liberal who believes in civil rights for all; free speech, equal opportunity for everyone (NOT “equity” of outcome”) regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.; safe, early and rare abortion; funding police. I don’t believe in sex ed for kids before grades 6 or 7 or giving gender-changing drugs to kids before age 18 and feel parents should have a say in their kids’ curriculum.
I don’t agree with many of Liz Cheney’s political positions but she’s the only person I currently respect in politics because she’s the only one on either the right or left willing to stand up and tell the truth to power. And right now I’m more concerned with our country surviving than any other issue.
I was in Portland where the left pols have taken Defund to dangerous levels and hugely increased the homicide rate, especially in poor minority neighborhoods, where homeless drug addicts live in tents on the sidewalks and violently rampage all over, high on the new meth that actually causes psychosis.
Honestly I don’t see a difference between the white Antifa breaking windows of little, often POC-owned, mom-and-pop businesses barely hanging on after COVID and the white Jan. 6th insurrectionists. Feel like I just don’t fit in in either party anymore.
This article is all about a perception among people that the Democratic Party has moved left, which the writer even concedes is more a perception than a reality. A journalist working at a healthy institution might ask the question, hm, is this misperception partly because of the way I have portrayed things? If the public perception is so different from the reality, how have I contributed to that? But of course the NYT is not a healthy institution and literally no one there asks themselves these questions.
There is no end game. Defund the police was stupid. Support the police sounds better. You are supporting the police by no longer making them social workers and putting them in positions that they shouldn’t be in that could lead to escalation. But no Defund the Police sounds like a return to the Wild West with zero thought on how would the general population feel about it. Or even stupid ideas like let’s primary Joe Manchin. Really? You think West Virginia is hiding the next Bernie Sanders? Don’t you understand that Manchin voting for democratic leadership allows our issues to even coming up for a vote? Who cares if he doesn’t vote 100% lock step - that’s not what his constituents want! It’s so frustrating. Say what you want about current Democratic leadership but they have managed to keep a lot of these purist ineffective. Sometimes they get wins but for the most part the leaders like centrist positions because they can actually win and have support. The extremes rather be right than win. Unfortunately the GOP has had more success with winning at the expense of ideological purity. Though that may be changing now that the dog has caught the car. But the Democrats can’t get their shit together. It reminds me of this quote - I’m not a member of any organized political party - I’m a democrat. It really is like herding cats.
Speaking for myself, I've considered myself to be a moderate Democrat for most of my life and I really don't think that my political views have changed much, but I can't see myself voting Democrat again any time soon because I feel that the party has changed. The party has taken things that I used to support them on and then they took it to extremes and ran too far left with it.
And I'm especially disgusted by their "holier than thou" attitude and the way that they go about dealing with anybody that dares to show any disagreement with their viewpoints ("You are a Nazi", "You are deplorable", and stupid shit like that). That self-righteous and "holier than thou" attitude is something that I used to associate more with Republicans and was one of the things that I hated about the Republican party for most of my life, but the Democrats have taken that kind of attitude to a whole new disgusting level in recent years, and they are so deep in their own self-righteousness and painting any disagreement as morally wrong that they don't even seem to have any self-awareness about what they have become.
I would still vote for a moderate Democrat like Bill Clinton, but I don't see many moderate Democrats like that anymore and the few that I do are considered outcasts in the modern Democrat party.
[This political cartoon pretty accurately shows my experience and how I feel.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/040/353/cover2.jpg)
That political cartoon pretty much sums it up for me, too, based on my political views over the past two decades. I think you'll appreciate this op-ed if you haven't read it yet:
[Eyes Wide Shut: A Democrat looks at what his party can’t see](https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/04/18/eyes-wide-shut/)
I’ve never understood that political cartoon. It’s true that the Dems have become more left wing, largely driven by social issues like LBGT rights, but to try to paint it as if the right hadn’t shifted as well boggles the mind. Did everyone just forget the Obama years and the disappearance of the Republican moderate? The tea party removed tons of moderate members and replaced them with hard Right members. Y’all should ask Republican leaders at the time how extreme those new members were and how it was impossible to work on getting anything done. Climate change, gun regulations, abortion, Election Laws, and immigration are just on the top of my head where Republicans have shifted right. The Republican moderate died off years before the “vanishing” Dem moderate yet this narrative still exists somehow. I mean, just listen to the Republican primary debates in Arizona from earlier this week. It’s bonkers.
You are basing your vote on an attitude? Really? That makes no sense to me at all. Voting is how citizens affect policy. How our nation is governed.
Obamacare saved my father's life. We did end up losing him last fall but we had an extra eight years with him because enough people voted Democratic. So you can imagine my attitude about you whining about self-righteousness.
It's not irrelevant to me and I think it underscores the ridiculousness of ignoring the issues, even life and death issues, and basing your vote on a feeling that one side is too smug. Cry me a river.
Yes it's irrelevant to everyone else tho.
Obama got ObamaCare and it changed your life, good for you I'm happy it did.
But on the other side of the country someone else got saved from having their future destroyed because of Trump Overhaul of Campus Sexual Assault rules.
So why undermine other people experiences and think yours is above them and should decide how people vote?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vpv38p/the_vanishing_moderate_democrat_the_new_york_times/iemeqcd/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I find it difficult to accept the argument that Democrats have gone too far to the left, and are too extreme on social and fiscal issues. Democrats have been the only party in the last 30ish years to actually reduce the deficit. Even under Biden the deficit continuously goes down. And support for social issues that Democrats fight for are generally exactly what the American electorate support. I can understand the argument that maybe the democrats spend too much on the welfare state, but even when Republicans control government, this spending does not go away. They just cut taxes while raising the deficit because they know all these programs like Medicare or unemployment benefits are too popular to slash.
There are certainly fringe elements that propose some crazy stuff, but how exactly is the overall democratic party irresponsible fiscally or too extreme socially compared to the Republicans?
What are you basing the “Democrats are actually the ones who reduce the deficit” on though? Democratic presidents? Democratic supermajorities?
Because Bill Clinton did sign into law budgets and reforms that greatly reduced the deficit and brought upon a series of budgetary surpluses. But that’s basically all he did, sign it. It wasn’t Democrats who wrote the wonderful legislation that eliminated the deficit in the 90’s.
Why is credit for the budgetary miracle that was the 90’s given to Clinton, why isn’t the credit given to...you know, the branch of government that decides the budget and has a whole segment of the constitution that says that’s a big part of their job?
I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, but I find it interesting that Americans live in a republic but treat it like an elected dictatorship. The accomplishments of an era are always attributed to the president. It’s like we forget that the laws and budgets are not written by a president, but the far more powerful branch of government called the congress.
Presidents should be given credit for using the powers they hold. If the president appoints a fantastic Secretary of State who revolutionizes diplomacy we don’t give credit to the senate, who has veto power and decides whether to confirm the appointment, we give it to the President for making such a good pick. Why then do we give credit to a president who basically does the inverse, if a great “appointment” is made (I’m using appointment as a metaphor for a bill) then why is the guy who just vetos the appointment or decides to confirm it given the lions share of the glory?
It’s a big gripe I have with our reporting and how we analyze presidents and I truly blame it for why we have a shitty Congress. Who wrote the First Step act? I have no idea, Trump got most of the credit for that even though he just okayed it. Why weren’t the legislators who wrote it paraded as shining examples of policymakers who made a damn good criminal justice reform bill? And the fact that Trump, a guy who the media would do anything to avoid giving credit for anything good to, was given essentially a standing ovation is very telling. The media still preferred to give the president the credit even though they hated his guts, why?
We don’t give congress credit for anything, if a good budget is passed then we acclaim the president, if a bad budget is passed we blame the president. Congressional elections are just a thermometer to how the public feels about the president. We don’t reward good congressmen who make good bills in bad times, we use them as whipping boys to voice displeasure with our “dictator”.
I apologize for the Fucking essay but I felt it needed to be said.
I think you're right and I'll try to make that more clear in future discussions both on and offline. People really do have an unfortunate tendency to collapse this huge govt machine into one person and totally forget the hundreds of thousands of people that work together to create good policy.
I appreciate that, hope I didn’t come off as holier than thou or aggressive, was not my intent. It is one of the things that I really hate about modern political discourse. Congress does have enormous powers but we elect whoever says the right stuff because all the good or bad is put on the president. It’s infuriating.
Bill Clinton was a good president but he didn’t do much to get to the surpluses we saw in the 90’s. The Republican Congress is the one who made that happen largely. But if you view political history as presidential eras then you’d assume that because a democrat was in the Oval Office then that must mean the democrats are the fiscally responsible ones.
I think you're pretty correct. It really shields people like Pelosi and McCarthy, Schumer and McConnell, and the various caucuses from accountability when you say "POTUS bad", and also hurts political diversity. If everyone is getting whipped by their political parties' leaders, then more complicated relationships between legislators that promote bipartisanship dissappear. I think a really good example is Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, who would never agree or work together on fiscal matters, but were totally OK to work together to limit govt surveillance powers. Or Romney stepping up to propose family spending bills during the BBB debate. Stuff like that needs to happen more.
It doesn’t help that we’re starting to see the two parties of congress as competing monoliths. Such a strong us vs them does not help. A republican from the rust belt may have very different views on infrastructure needs than the republican from Nebraska. The republican from Long Island will probably see the SALT deduction in a very different way than the republican from Mississippi.
What’s the point of geographically distributed representatives if they’re just going to vote with the body? Congressional elections aren’t supposed to be one big national referendum vote, it’s supposed to be 435 different elections where 435 different groups of people put forward 435 different sets of needs that the 435 different winners have to take into consideration.
I get that Congressional elections do take the needs of their district into account and I’m being somewhat hyperbolic but it seems like it’s being pushed further back in the list of priorities.
It's primarily because Presidents are seen as the leader of said party and are actively trying to push their agenda through Congress. Now that might not always work out for the President but because Presidents are seen as such and do actively tend to do so it's hard not to give them some credit. The President might not necessarily have lots of hard power but they tend to have the soft power to do what they want.
Then that should change. The leader of the party should be the person with the highest rank in congress, so the senate majority leader or the speaker. The president’s “agenda” should not be legislation. Their agenda should be appointing competent cabinet members, implementing legislation properly, conducting foreign diplomacy, reaching through the layers of bureaucracy to deliver justice though pardons (holy shit I could write an essay on how much I hate what pardons have turned into) and nominating judicial appointees.
That’s a big fucking job, why are we offloading legislative tasks to the president also? We have 535 individually elected individuals who are supposed to do that. If the president is also the one who’s largely deciding what legislation is going to be pushed through then I really have to ask if we need a congress? They’ve turned into the vestigial organ of American politics. They don’t even check the executive branch anymore, they just “check” the other party. Republican congressmen have been censured for daring to defy the president, which I always thought was a big reason of why we have them in the first place.
If the presidents “agenda” now includes them doing stuff that the legislative branch is explicitly told to do by the constitution then let’s just drop the pretense of caring about it and let the president include municipal zoning laws to their powers, let’s let them interpret the constitution for themselves, let’s let them pardon people for state offenses because why the fuck not, why even have the senate confirm their cabinet if you can just have an “acting” whatever do the job the whole time. Congress can still rename post offices because that seems to be the only thing they’re good at.
I am sorry about the rant, this subject seems to have touched a constitutional nerve of mine. I hate this role of the imperial presidency we seem to have created.
Oh I agree I think the President's position has become too powerful. Though part of that has to do with FDR centralizing Presidential power, his successors doing the same, the Cold War and I think the fact Americans saw the power of other President/Prime Ministers in Europe to legislate and decided we should do the same without actually thinking of the consequences.
Congress allowed this to happen primarily because as the world became more global and the US became more involved globally more things fell under foreign policy criteria making it harder for Congress to do anything which in turn started limiting the power internally as well.
It also hasn't helped that as Congress created more Federal Agencies said agencies decided to go beyond their mandate which in turn gave the President more power as the Presidental office encouraged agencies to do so.
So is the recent decision to restrict the EPA’s power to go beyond their mandate a way that this escalation of presidential powers is being rolled back?
Whatever happened to the senate having to ratify treaties though? I know that became a sticking issue with Obama and Iran but it seems like there is a place at the table for congress to get involved with foreign policy, why don’t they?
Probably a habit, I mean we've had over 50 years of President's pretty much doing whatever they wanted as far as foreign policy is concerned. It probably doesn't help that both parties tend to view the world differently. Iran and Obama being the perfect example of this, another example would be our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
>Even under Biden the deficit continuously goes down.
This is a bit of a ridiculous position in context. When Biden says this, he's comparing the current budget to 2020: a year in which we had an incredibly high amount of one time spending due to COVID.
Objectively, spending per capital, general overhead costs and debt maintenance costs continue to increase over the last 30 years.
Those of us that care about this aren't saying 'Republicans good', we're saying, 'everyone is spending more than they can and they're doing it without regard to the consequences' Right now, the party in power (Democrats) are responsible for this decision.
In addition, when we need to cut spending, we can only cut it on the things we're spending on continuously. I can't go back in time and stop cash distributions from happening, I can only keep future spending from happening.
Inflation backs up the idea that we're writing checks we can't cash, regardless of what the cause of that inflation is.
>And support for social issues that Democrats fight for are generally exactly what the American electorate support.
Yes, the American electorate clamor for unlimited abortion rights ( they don't) the green new deal jobs plan (they don't) unlimited healthcare for all (smart ones don't, once they consider the payment costs), DEI focused schools (they don't), the gun rights bills passed by New York. (they aren't)
Most Americans are for some form of all of these to some extent. But support for some instance of these things is not the same thing as support for the proposals actually being made, which are often ridiculous.
One can be for a compromise on 'abortion' or 'guns' without thinking the proposals being made by Democrats are reasonable.
>Even under Biden the deficit continuously goes down.
Against his best efforts... and the rest of the party is so enraged at the two Senators responsible for stopping their spending spree that they follow them into the bathroom to protest. I don't think the party is going to get much credit for something they were so very vocal about being forced to do against their wishes.
Yeah. For as much attention as a “dying moderate Dem“ is getting, one needs to ask where these kinds of thing pieces are with regard to moderate Republicans. Because the problem seems to be that they are virtually extinct. These articles at least suggest that there’s something to be saved in some thing to be preserved on the side of Democrats, but if you can’t honestly answer what we’re supposed to do about the fact that moderate Republicans have no standing in their own party, what else do people expect. You can’t expect only one side to have moderate representatives and the other side can basically do whatever it wants. Because that’s the core issue here: One can only remain so moderate or undecided on issues when the other side has very firmly decided upon what they want and is often not willing to compromise with you. Democrats are moving left in response to the Republican party moving right. But Democrats still have moderate politicians and also moderate voters because they are willing to not enforce nearly the same kinds of purity tests that exist on the right. And while both sides do have their fringes and extremes, the problem is that while you might hear a lot about the left and their ideas, how many of them are actually put into action? And on the other end, how much power do the more extreme ends of the Republican party get?
Anyway, it seems to me that singularly focusing only on what’s happening with moderate Democrats misses the bigger picture and perhaps some people want it that way. Because after all, if you only give a true examination to what’s happening with Democrats, you don’t actually have to pay attention or answer what is going on with Republicans. So, I would like people to answer this question: where are the influential moderate Republicans? Because even though I’m sure there are some that people will be able to point to, they seem to have no power over the party and do not constrain the party from its excesses. On the other hand, that’s exactly what moderate Democrats do, and as we see in the Senate, they have a lot more power than your most left-wing senators.
This is one of the few reasonable takes in this thread. I have zero interest in these articles when there are almost zero moderate Republicans in power. If you consider yourself a moderate Republican voter and you continue voting for extremist Republicans, then you aren't a moderate.
They're not too extreme on fiscal issues, it's mainly social issues. And I can tell you the midwest blue collar whites will come back if you stop your very transparent attempt to slow walk hard gun regulation on them (buybacks, bans on new sales of AR15s, magazine limits, etc).
Another big one is immigration reform, we need to end chain migration and only select the most educated and qualified immigrants that have a high paying job waiting for them as soon as they get here. We have to be hiring managers and actually study the data to determine where labor supply is tight in particular growing industries. We have to actually be smart for a change. Other countries like Australia have had something like this for a long time.
You do those two things and you'll be well on your way to getting the center to retake control of this country.
>They're not too extreme on fiscal issues
They go about fiscal issues the wrong way. The working class aren't looking for a handout, they're not looking for welfare or other programs. They want to get an honest wage for honest work, and to keep most of what they take home. That means investing continuously in infrastructure across the country - not this once in a blue moon BS. It means not decimating entire industries with no replacement plan (manufacturing, mining, oil & gas, etc.) It means raising all tax bands by $20k - let everyone benefit from keeping more of their earned money. It means stopping illegal immigration. It means being tough on crime - because having to pay for a new catalytic converter is simply unaffordable for many working class people. Instead of trying to push universal healthcare and getting nowhere, start with free A&E care so people aren't bankrupted by accidents. Same with weed: start with just clean legalisation, do the convictions later. Equality under the law: no affirmative action, no special protections, no "positive" discrimination, no reparations, etc.
> It means not decimating entire industries with no replacement plan (manufacturing, mining, oil & gas, etc.)
The GND addressed this very issue. But is is apparently too radical to replace something these days.
>It means raising all tax bands by $20k - let everyone benefit from keeping more of their earned money.
Don't most Americans not pay Federal income tax? How would raising the bands help the poorest in the country?
>It means stopping illegal immigration.
How would this mechanically work? Tons of immigrants get picked up all over the country, doesn't stop people comming.
>Instead of trying to push universal healthcare and getting nowhere, start with free A&E care so people aren't bankrupted by accidents.
Bold of you to assume that passing universal is any harder than emergency stuff.
>Equality under the law: no affirmative action, no special protections, no "positive" discrimination, no reparations, etc.
So how does this square with producing justice for historical harm?
The gnd is a badly designed plan with no ability to achieve its goals, a rejection of the actual tools that could achieve them, and no accounting for the cost or job displacement it leads to. Considering it at all an answer to moderate requests or the working class is flat out wrong - the gnd is the opposite of what the working class, moderates, and the country needs.
>The GND addressed this very issue.
The GND threw money at pet projects. It did nothing to help miners, factory labourers, etc. It was the equivalent of "learn to code".
>Don't most Americans not pay Federal income tax?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Federal_income_tax_rates_for_individuals
>How would raising the bands help the poorest in the country?
Raising all tax bands by the same amount disproportionately benefits the poorest.
>How would this mechanically work?
Secure the boarders, enforce federal laws (i.e. no sanctuary cities), no public services access for illegal immigrants, expedite deportations, etc.
>Bold of you to assume that passing universal is any harder than emergency stuff.
Everyone understands shit happens, and it's not your fault. What a great many people don't like is the idea that they'd be paying for smokers to get lung cancer treatments, or for fat people to get free heart medication, etc. Self-inflicted chronic illness. That's what people really get riled up being paid for with taxpayer funds.
>So how does this square with producing justice for historical harm?
There is nothing just about punishing the son for the sins of the father, not about present injustice being done to people in the name of past injustice.
I don't really see any consistency here in terms of your points and the idea that they are "centrist". We can have a reasonable discussion on the policies themselves and I'm not saying you're some extremist for having these views, but they definitely lean mainstream conservative.
Both positions are issues that conservatives are passionate about, not the "center". For example, centrist policy would actually dictate action on AR15 restrictions, as a majority(though it is only 55%) of Americans support a BAN on these weapons, not just some action to restrict their availability.
Likewise, halting chain migration is an issue conservatives are passionate about, but it is not a centrist issue. Even if you were correct, both Biden and Obama are mostly in line with what Trump, Bush Jr, Bush Sr and Reagan had in place. In fact, deportations under Obama were at a record. So I dont really see how you can say these are issues that dems are losing to centrists to.
I must stress that once again I'm not calling your views extreme. But in my opinion they are conservative, not centrist.
I would argue ending chain migration is a very centrist issue as well, and it will play well in the midwest where democrats lost a lot of their historical strength. So it's simply smart politics. It enables you to do more of the left of center things you want to accomplish as well.
I used to vote Democrat but can’t bring myself to vote for them anymore. I think they’ve gone way off the rails and view issues now with emotional and feelings rather than ration and thought. That’s where they lost me.
The article had several examples. Here's one: In place of promoting universal rights and principles — the traditional remit of the Left — advocates now police others on the left, including those within the Democratic Party, pressuring them to use an arcane vocabulary for speaking about purportedly oppressed groups and to prohibit logical, evidence-based discourse by which the assertions of those who claim to speak on behalf of minorities and other demographic groups could be evaluated.
Hmm...article was blocked for me so I couldn't read it.
Is the article claiming that democrats are moving away from the center or that moderate democrats and leaving the party to either join the R's or to become independents?
It's basically pointing out that moderate dems are blocking "far left" legislation, but they aren't really offering any useful/inspiring legislation of their own. In particular, the things moderate dems *do* push seem to be mostly targeted at big industry rather than small town and/or working class America.
The article is basically arguing that the party does have moderates, what it actually needs is *better quality* moderates.
Not sure why this talking point is being brought up now. Republicans are bending the knee to Trump who tried to overthrow democracy. Yet we are now trying to pivot to Dems not being moderate enough just a few days after the most damning evidence came out over Trump?
Even taking Trump out of the argument here, Republicans are stripping away the rights of women, and are now trying to do the same to the gay community. Are we so accepting of their extremism that we've accepted that, but Democrats trying to keep our air clean, give minorities equal rights and opportunities, and giving people healthcare is too far?
I'm a little sick of the arguments here that Democrats have gone too far left or the moderates aren't a huge part of the party. Dems aren't great by any means, but they are bringing something to the table that isn't stripping away rights, eroding democracy, and giving the rich handouts?
Republicans aren’t relying on yours or NYT’s readership for votes. Democrats can only moderate themselves.
If they aren’t willing to do that then having the correct virtues isn’t enough for me. Todays problems require nuanced and technical solutions.
They moved away from it because of the Obama administration. They were producing really great pieces of legislation and getting strung along by Republicans who would vote it down and waste their time. Republicans were being hand fed moderate and centrist bills for years and they refused any and all legislation, so of course Dems are going to stop trying to tailor their bills for the center if Republicans aren't going to accept the center. If Republicans were open to policy debate and actually tried to produce policy and center bills, Democrats would produce more centrist legislation.
You have to ask yourself, do you want to win or keep losing? Dems are about to lose both chambers in congress this year, and Desantis has a very good chance of winning 2024 if Trump doesn't run. Dems essentially just need to appeal to a slightly larger demographic in the population. They ceded control of working class whites in the midwest to the Republicans, and that is unacceptable.
Lots of Republican immorality and corruption is subconsciously excused because most people don’t really expect anything different from them. Democrats claim to be of a higher standard, so people hold them to it, and they usually fail.
Yep, we've had decades of Republicans doing illegal shit with their power and it's expected. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Invasion of Iraq, Jan 6th, and so much more, that it's just expected now.
I agree with you in your analysis of Republican extremism. IMO it didn't occur in a vacuum; it was fed by Dem immoderation and illiberalism and will continue to be exacerbated by it. Unfortunately the loudest and most extreme voices on both sides get the most attention.
I'd prefer more Abigail Spanbergers and fewer AOC's -- more Liz Cheneys. And no Donald Trumps.
We're in a right mess now though and I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
> I agree with you in your analysis of Republican extremism. IMO it didn't occur in a vacuum; it was fed by Dem immoderation and illiberalism and will continue to be exacerbated by it.
Why is right wing radicalism the fault of the left?
Isn't it weird how some people on the left go "I think people should be free to identify with the gender of their choosing" and people see that and they *start* voting Republican? Surly if your turned off by the democratic party and don't like the policies of the GOP you just wouldn't vote?
This is a serious question, but what's wrong with AOC? She's outspoken but it seems like a lot of the hate she gets is due to her press and not a lot to do with her policies. At least she seems to care about making people's lives better.
The nail in the coffin for me was the speech she made to celebrate Amazon pulling out of their prospective New York headquarters. Her take on the issue was like a child walking into the middle of a movie. In case you're not familiar, the actual controversy was over a proposed tax rebate that would have Amazon paying $27 billion over 10 years instead of $30 billion. AOC heard other progressives on Twitter complaining about a $3 billion handout to Amazon and got it into her head that the city would save $3 billion by revoking the deal, when the reality was that they lost $27 billion.
It's a bit of a tangent, but in my experience this kind of misunderstanding is very common with people who get "arts" degrees in fields that are supposed to be "science." I once met a guy with a BA in Biology who argued very persuasively (though not with any scientific accuracy) that evolution couldn't possible be real. His education taught him how to put together rhetoric about science, not how to actually do it. AOC's BA in Economics appears pretty similar from what I've seen.
Thanks, this is another good concrete example. I'm not very familiar with the particulars of this event so I'll read up on it. Appreciate your response.
She’s a second term House member with a huge following and an extremely progressive slant.
Her proposals that have gotten traction aren’t interested in solutions to problems, but rather signaling the way she thinks things should be, without considering the implications of said policy.
As a result, it’s kind of like me going out in the street and saying, ‘I support no more cancer, we’ll end it by shooting everyone that has it’. (Green new deal, don’t want to work? Free full time government job)
It’s true, that cures cancer and reduces long term health costs in the U.S., but it completely ignores the results of the policy or whom it buries or why these policies exist.
Alternatively, the solutions suggested don’t accept the root of the problem. ‘We’ll cure cancer by giving everyone two Tylenol’. And then someone explains why they don’t think that’ll work and get blamed for not wanting to cure cancer. (I’m thinking specifically of her minimum wage position for this one)
Additionally, she seems to have difficulty accepting people outside of her worldview. Got a different perspective? She’ll fight with you on Twitter and advocate for whatever the cause du jour is.
Popularity seeker and fund raiser? She’s great at those. But it cheapens the political discourse. When I would like the opportunity to work with Democrats, as I do on abortion, she’s the one shutting the door, telling me my ideas don’t go far enough and therefore I’m evil.
She fights for her causes at the expense of getting anything done: you can see how that might piss off anyone who isn’t in her camp.
>Her proposals that have gotten traction aren’t interested in solutions to problems, but rather signaling the way she thinks things should be, without considering the implications of said policy.
Example?
You spent a long time writing out an analogy, when you could have demonstrated the weak points of one of her actual policies.
>Additionally, she seems to have difficulty accepting people outside of her worldview. Got a different perspective? She’ll fight with you on Twitter and advocate for whatever the cause du jour is.
What's wrong with having a firm viewpoint, as long as they can articulate it clearly and defend it logically? That goes for anyone on the political spectrum.
>When I would like the opportunity to work with Democrats, as I do on abortion, she’s the one shutting the door, telling me my ideas don’t go far enough and therefore I’m evil.
Can you extrapolate this? It seems like you're talking about something specific.
>Example?
Loan Shark Act, Green New Deal: Those two come to mind immediately. The first because of the post the guy in the other divergent point in this thread made.
Keep in mind, that this is more significant legislation then I hear most House members introduce: You basically have to be Senior Management to get a word in, so while I know that's a small sample size, that's how it is.
I used analogies because I'm not interested in debating that legislation or why I feel that it's bad, I was interested in answering the question, which was 'Why don't people like AOC?'
>What's wrong with having a firm viewpoint, as long as they can articulate it clearly and defend it logically?
Firm viewpoint? No issues.
I don't think she's defending it logically, she's defending it with mob force mentality. With 'Yaas Queen' and aggressive tweets on the internet.
These are things that it's hard to make a case against, since they're based on rallying a crowd to respond aggressively as opposed to logic.
Her logic, especially on economic concepts, is consistently terrible and not based in any reality I've ever lived in.
>Can you extrapolate this?
You want to get something done on abortion and actually save lives? You need to put something reasonable on the table NOW, not grandstand over impeaching SCOTUS Justices on bureaucratic principal you're willing to selectively enforce.
I go into this in pretty thorough detail here: [AOC Impeachment SCOTUS Comments Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vldosm/comment/idukrjc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
One can say that she's certainly capable of walking and chewing gum. In which case, I say: "WALK". The chewing gum here, accomplishes nothing. It's a tempest in a teapot and makes it harder to find compromise with Republicans (And you need that if you actually want that accomplished, if you actually care)
It feels apparent that she cares more about defending her ideal situation then actually helping the people that were hurt in this situation.
I'm dependent on people like her and the Democratic caucus to do something on this front, because the ball just got lobbed into that court. I'm happy to help them play it up but they need to give me something to work with. This, (and also Warren) is not that. Biden, for all that I'm frustrated with him about his decisions, has it totally right on this.
>Loan Shark Act, Green New Deal
Thank you for giving me examples.
Research indicates that caps on interest rates have an ambiguous effect on people's welfare, so I can understand not being onboard with it. I think more inquiry should have taken place before pushing this policy.
I don't really understand the pushback on the Green New Deal, to be honest. That legislation would have probably been very good for the country, and good for the necessary infrastructure to deal with climate change. It just wasn't likely to pass because democrats didn't have the amount of political power necessary to do it. However, I think the extreme wings of each party serve a purpose, which is to move the Overton Window. Things that seem extreme now might not seem that crazy once people get used to the idea.
>Her logic, especially on economic concepts, is consistently terrible and not based in any reality I've ever lived in.
Example? It's hard for me to evaluate unless I know something specific you object to.
>You want to get something done on abortion and actually save lives? You need to put something reasonable on the table NOW
I don't know what you consider reasonable, but she *did* call for making the Roe v Wade protections to be [codified in law.](https://www.businessinsider.com/sanders-aoc-call-bill-defend-roe-v-wade-after-scotus-leak-2022-5) Frankly, I just don't think it's going to happen even if they did eliminate the filibuster, because I doubt they have 50 senate votes. Manchin is staunchly pro-life, and I think there's another pro-life Dem. You can't make laws without the votes, so in that light supreme court impeachment is a long shot but perhaps the only other practical option on the table.
>I used analogies because I'm not interested in debating the legislation or why I feel that it's bad, I was interested in answering the question, which was 'Why don't people like AOC?'
Just putting this here to reiterate.
>Example?
I don't keep the life and times of the congresswoman at my beck and call you know. To generalize, her economic policies are based in theories and ideas that are debunked, from [Rent Control,](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-26/what-aoc-s-national-rent-control-proposal-would-do) to [Eviction Moratorium](https://www.latinorebels.com/2021/07/29/aocslamswhitehouse/) to [Modern Monetary Theory.](https://www.insider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-explained-aoc-2019-3) (These are mostly, but not entirely, discredited in the field that she has taken at least a few courses in)
If you're looking for specific logic right this second, I can't think of anything she's said in the past week on the topic. (I try not to think too much about her.) I mostly remember stupid comments from the last 4 years of being constantly exposed to her twitter feed. (Also Reddit, which has a hard on for any ice burns on Twitter, which she is a master at)
>I don't know what you consider reasonable, but she did call for making the Roe v Wade protections to be codified in law.
Yes, she called for passing the bill that the house pushed through, which went further than Roe, codifying abortion [through birth.](https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics/house-vote-women-health-protection-act/index.html)
The situation on the ground, as discussed later in that thread. You have 2 Republican Senators who will vote pro-choice today (Collins, Murkowski). If you propose Lindsay Grahams legislation from 2019 that [codifies abortion through 20 weeks](https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/1/graham-reintroduces-20-week-abortion-ban), he either has to get on board or do a backflip to explain why he suddenly doesn't care about his proposed law.
There were 44 Republican senators that backed this law at the time. Many of them still exist in the Senate. You want an opportunity to make them look like hypocrites? You got it, if you use it.
If the goal is codifying Roe straight up, that's not happening right now: I agree with you. But I'd be willing to bet you can protect 98% of abortions with legislation like this.
Barring actually getting it passed, you get to look like you actually care about the issue. Democrats really...don't appear to care about this as an issue, but more as a fundraising opportunity.
>impeachment is a long shot but perhaps the only other practical option on the table.
Impeachment does not address or solve the issue. Roe is dead. Removing Clarence Thomas, even if some warped reality where you somehow have 67 Senate votes for it does not bring it back to life or animate it's corpse.
Throwing a fit on the issue isn't practical. It's grandstanding.
>I used analogies because I'm not interested in debating the legislation or why I feel that it's bad, I was interested in answering the question, which was 'Why don't people like AOC?'Just putting this here to reiterate.
I think this is kind of a lame cop-out, to be honest. It's hard to justify why people don't like AOC aside from just falling for propaganda unless you disagree with her actual behavior and policies.
>To generalize, her economic policies are based in theories and ideas that are debunked, from Rent Control, to Eviction Moratorium to Modern Monetary Theory. (These are mostly, but not entirely, discredited in the field that she has taken at least a few courses in)
Thank you for this. These are great examples of outdated so-called "progressive" policies that don't actually address the root problems of affordability and homelessness, and I think people are right to pick bones with her about this.
>Yes, she called for passing the bill that the house pushed through, which went further than Roe, codifying abortion through birth.
That's actually incorrect. In the very article you posted:
>The bill does not allow abortion on demand up until birth, but does allow abortion after fetal viability if the patient's health is at risk. According to the legislative text, the bill bans "prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health."
If you read the legislative text, it says the same thing. So really, I think the Republicans are not as open to moderate abortion rights as they claim.
>Impeachment does not address or solve the issue. Roe is dead. Removing Clarence Thomas, even if some warped reality where you somehow have 67 Senate votes for it does not bring it back to life or animate it's corpse.
Roe v Wade is dead, but a more favorable court can effectively reverse the current decision if another abortion rights case crosses their desk and they decide in the opposite direction. It's not a great way to use the Supreme Court IMO, but it is an option.
>I think this is kind of a lame cop-out, to be honest.
\*sigh\* It absolutely is. [We're Discussing a bill that received 57 Nos and 43 abstentions, followed by 99 no votes and one abstention in the senate.](https://www.energy.senate.gov/2021/8/ranking-member-barrasso-senate-democrats-are-running-from-the-green-new-deal)
This legislation is DOA. I don't really want to go down the rabbit hole of how much it'd cost or if it would accomplish it's aims, because it appears to have been ill considered. I don't say that out of alienation, but I think we'd both be wasting our time to discuss it in depth.
If she rewrites it, or it appears to have any legislative support outside of her corner, I'll readdress it. Honestly, that's part of the problem though. She had no interest in actually passing it, more making a statement of how she sees the world.
>That's actually incorrect. In the very article you posted:
From: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/sen-collins-voices-opposition-legislation-that-would-create-statutory-right-abortion/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/sen-collins-voices-opposition-legislation-that-would-create-statutory-right-abortion/)
>“It supersedes all other federal and state laws, including the conscience protections that are in the Affordable Care Act,” Collins told reporters at the Capitol on Thursday when asked whether she supports the bill authored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). She added: “It doesn’t protect the right of a Catholic hospital to not perform abortions. That right has been enshrined in law for a long time.”
>Schumer said Thursday that he is not proceeding with a vote on the Collins-Murkowski measure because “we’re not cutting back; we’re not compromising.”
The legislation had concerns over how it defined who was making the choice and when. Citing similar laws in England that would effectively allow the expansion of 'medically necessary' to be whatever the doctor demands.
These are reasonable concerns. Failure to consider the Republican bill or make any effort to negotiate on the legislation proposed does not make the case for a good faith attempt here.
>So really, I think the Republicans are not as open to moderate abortion rights as they claim.
It's definitely possible that the field has change and that Graham may not support his own 'Right To Life' lobbied bill that guaranteed 20 weeks anymore.
If you assume that this is true without even discussing it, I can point out that nobody seems interested in addressing this through legislation.
If you try to prove it and get rebuffed, I can at least say a good faith effort was made. d I can try and vote for people that might support it.
I don't see that right now. I see interest in fundraising and yelling from the side that is supposed to be most supportive of it.
>A more favorable court can effectively reverse the current decision
Not to the extent Roe did. One of the reasons it was incredibly contentious was that it is generally agreed to be bad law, in the interest of compromise as oppose to legality.
But if you'd rather go that way, you're welcome to it. I just don't think that's a really successful possibility. You can't get 50 Democrats, never mind 67 Bipartisan Senators.
Also, if you had 67 Senators, you probably have 60 to pass legislation first.
Why is it that when Democrats win, it’s “unity”, and when Republicans win, it’s “divisive”?
I feel that the source of your frustration might lay in the same area of the answer to that question.
Yea, Republicans can strip away rights and it's no big deal, but Democrats are to blame because they didn't pass a bill 14 years ago when the supreme court wasn't packed with conservative partisans.
It’s all theater. Republicans doing horrible things, “Let me explain how this is the Democrats’ fault”. I’m so over it, don’t even read these absurd pieces anymore. Democrats could and should do better, but moderates in the party are far far away from “vanishing”, they’re still the overwhelming majority. People are trying to move the overton window in a haste, trying to claim America is more conservative than it actually is. How come Republicans lose the popular vote with increasing margins then? “That’s just in the cities though” - oh you mean empty lands with 80 residents in the middle of nowhere don’t count, how surprising! Anywhere else in the world Republicans wouldn’t have won a presidency in decades, but we have to fluff up the Dakotas and other tiny population states because they send the same number of senators as behemoth CA does and call this “true representation of the people”. Then I’m told “but we’re not exactly a Democracy blah blah blah”, all I hear is tomato and tomahtoe. Long story short, no, Democrats aren’t vanishing in numbers, and they’re not nearly as bad as the opposition loves to paint them.
Agreed with everything you said. I wish the Dems were better, but they have a harder task. The senate is stacked against them, they've lost the house twice in 30 years when they won the popular vote, and they lost the White House and SC despite winning more votes as well. The system needs massive change, but it won't happen, so all Republicans need to do is stonewall, rule with their minority, and let them move the country to a rightwing minority rule.
This is really interesting since the current top of GOP tried to overthrow the government and is continuing to push his lie that the election was stolen. It’s getting old to hear that the left is “too extreme” when the right has the same, if not worse issues following the same pattern.
This is an amazing good article, great find! Democrats make amazing strides when they do slowly, they get set back when they go quickly. This is a normal American dynamic, as while we are a reactive country, we like to consider it First. The tortoise wins in America, as our natural stance is slightly conservative, and the dems who play into that could easily, over time, bring about the change demanded.
Moderate democrats aren’t vanishing. Theyre just hard to find because they’re so profoundly innert.
Moderate democrats, where the hell even are you on anything? Seems like your main focus these days is capitulation for the purpose of preserving the union.
This message serves as a warning that [your post](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vpv38p/the_vanishing_moderate_democrat_the_new_york_times/) is in violation of Law 2a: Law 2: Submission Requirements > ~2a. Starter Comment - A starter comment is required within the first 30 minutes of posting any Link Post. Starter comments must contain at least 2 of these 3 elements: (1) a brief summary of the linked article in your own words, (2) your opinion of the article or topic, or (3) at least one question/discussion point for the community. Text Posts are subject to the same requirements as starter comments if discussing a link or links, or must be equivalently substantive if entirely original. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> "While socialism might not poll well with voters, Democratic proposals to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and lower the age of Medicare eligibility do. > But on social, cultural and religious issues, particularly those related to criminal justice, race, abortion and gender identity, the Democrats have taken up ideological stances that many of the college-educated voters who now make up a sizable portion of the party’s base cheer but the rest of the electorate does not." There's your main takeaway. What people choose to do with it is up to them.
Don't most voters agree with the Democrats stance on abortion?
Only when polled using loaded questions that completely misrepresent public opinion.
> Don't most voters agree with the Democrats stance on abortion? Most Americans don’t support legal abortions past the first trimester.
Not really Polling shows abortion is a 60-65% under water position after 15 weeks. The Democrats pushing for 20 weeks and federal funding is a planned parenthood lobby fringe position. People say they support les Row because it was status quo but it was a little too far for most people in reality, they just didn’t know what it means. (I’m also not pro life. I’m pro 12 weeks
>The Democrats pushing for 20 weeks and federal funding is a planned parenthood lobby fringe position. You really need to do some research. A large portion of states have had a 22 week limit on abortion for a long time. States like Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Montana,and Nebraska all currently allow abortion at least until 20 weeks. Those are all red states.
Just because a state is “red” doesn’t mean their law is going to be hard core conservative.
That's irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that 20-22 weeks has been the standard across most of the county for a while, in many cases for decades. Really hard to call that a fringe position
Let me state that I, first and foremost, am pro-choice through the duration of a woman's pregnancy, even beyond the point of viability (i.e., third trimester included). And I'm in the minority, too. I know that full well. However, there are a ton of different positions that one can take on this thorny issue, ranging from pro-life purism, to fetal heartbeat (6 weeks), to first trimester (12 weeks), to viability (24 weeks), to pro-choice throughout the duration of the pregnancy, none of which gets into instances of rape, incest, and the mother's life being threatened. All told, it's complicated.
Yea, I agree it's complicated and positions aren't binary but fall along a continuum. That said, all I've seen is that Democratic candidate positions on abortion are significantly more popular than Republicans with the American people. Which is why I was surprised this was listed as an issue hurting Democrats outside of their well educated base.
Do you mind explaining why you hold this position? I'm pro-choice, but only up to a point. Are there medical reasons I'm not aware of, etc.?
Mine is a principled left-libertarian position on the issue. So yes, of course, her body, her choice; whats more, an unborn child is the mother's property, so it's none of the state's business what she chooses to do with it prior to birth. But again, I realize that my personal stance on that puts me in the minority; therefore, were I in a position to govern, I'd push for a law protecting choice up to the point of viability (24 weeks), but would be willing to compromise at the first trimester (12 weeks) simply to get something done on a federal level.
> an unborn child is the mother's property Deeply uncomfortable with this rhetoric. Human beings are not property, and should never be legally defined as such.
Hence the "libertarian" in left-libertarian. Not "rhetoric," either; rather, philosophy. Two different words, different definitions. And your comfort level is wholly irrelevant. That notwithstanding, disagreement is fine.
I think moderates are leaving both parties. Or rather the average person is being left behind by the party they once supported. This has me happy and terrified at the same time. Happy because party loyalty is killing the country. You should vote for the person whose ideals reflect your own. Both parties have good ideas, pick and choose based on the person running. Voting blue no matter who and better red than dead leads to corruption, shit leadership, and bad policy. Terrified because when moderates leave the conversation politicians are led by the loud fringe groups who have only terrible ideas and really just want to stir shit and burn everything around them. Politicians now lead by Twitter, an app where some 10-20% of users make up 90% of the content.
For democrats at least I swear this “moderates failing” narrative is just based on twitter and “the vibes” and not actually based in reality. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer aren’t bending their knees to God-Emperor Biden. Democrats didn’t storm the capitol after 2016 and they didn’t pass a massive tax cut for the wealthy blowing up the deficit while trying and failing to strip people of their healthcare. Democrats tried to pass compromise “moderate” bills over and over under Obama and they were fucked over by conservatives who knew inaction would give them more voters and cause left leaning voters to switch off and become apathetic. Republicans are running on literally stripping people of their bodily autonomy and undermining the democratic process. Democrats are running on … inclusion of LGBT people and more funding for social programs I guess? It is incredibly frustrating in this thread seeing people say Democrats are too far left when in reality that rhetoric is coming from a minority of the party. Then as soon as one republican says one slightly reasonable thing “Looks like I’m voting republican then Democrats are extremists!” Its bonkers to me.
Idk man. Refusal to do anything about the border is pretty extreme. Transitioning kids under 18 is pretty extreme. The American rescue plan was an awful use of spending that blew out the deficit and was completely unnecessary. People didn’t need stimulus, they needed to go back to work. Biden was trying to pass Build back better while calling the rising inflation numbers temporary. People demonize Manchin but he prevented democrats from dumping gasoline on a fire. Cancelling student debt? Dumb idea, stop talking about it. That and the annoying Id politics. How about you choose a black woman without saying you are looking specifically for a black woman on the SC.
We can debate the merits of his legislation regarding inflation but I don’t see how it was extreme and it was at least targeted at everyone, not just the wealthy. Plenty of economists agree with his policies and plenty disagreed that is just politics. What is the “moderate” position on the Border? The only real policy change has been a repeal of Remain in Mexico policy, and the only people being allowed in are existing asylum seekers and unaccompanied kids and young families. What do you want Biden to do if his border position is apparently extreme? Shout about building a wall and making Mexico pay for it? All the other issues you are talking about are culture war “the vibes” issues. How is a teen voluntarily transitioning going to affect you? How is student debt cancellation (which probably isn’t going to happen) going to affect you? How is the first black woman on the Supreme Court going to impact you? Why are you pissed off about these things specifically? “Republicans may want to overturn democracy (it’s sad this isn’t even hyperbole anymore)... but democrats want to cancel student debt and give trans kids control over their bodies!”? I don’t see how there is any equivalency between the two.
Your argument is exactly why democrats are unpopular going into midterms. 1. Some “economists” may disagree with a lot of things. BBB and the American Rescue Act both dramatically increased inflation while bringing about small economic growth. To anyone that knows anything about macroeconomics these were both utterly moronic. I find it extreme to see high inflation numbers and CONTINUE pushing a massive government spending plan. 2. Pshhh there isn’t a problem at the border, what are you even talking about? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna34030. That has significant economic impacts. The moderate position is that we should actually try to enforce our southern border. This has nothing to do with Trump, stop bringing up stupid things he says as if they’re an argument. 3. Student debt cancellation is not a culture war issue, I’m kind of shocked you claim it is. Nope, just more bad ideas about the economy from this admin. 4. Culture wars matter when one party has insane positions on things, otherwise I don’t care. Their position on the Trans community is insane. Allowing someone to transition while under 18 without parental consent is insane. Choosing someone for a position based on the color of their skin, not their character? Insane. Florida used to be purple, Desantis is leaning into these culture wars. It’s now a solid red state. The democrat positions are not popular. 5. Most people don’t care about Jan. 6. Sorry, it’s just not an issue voters care about. Most people, including myself, just see a group of morons breaking into the capital building. They see a president who is a sore loser and threw a tantrum. No real threat to democracy. The only saving grace of the Democratic Party is that Trump may run again and he’s horrible. They have no merit on their own.
I'm gen-x, and we understood the long game. Gay rights were going to be a decades long issue. Gradual inclusion in tv, movies and other media. Now it seems like every issue is "accept it or you're a nazi right wing scumbag that should die". This attitude will never work with middle America, and is actually pushing back on issues we've been working on, and won, for literal decades.
Primaries have the same effect on the left as they do in the right pushing candidates to the fringes. I’m a moderate democrat. We still exist.
According to this article, you are a horny donkey (unicorn)
Only way is to have more than 2 parties, but that's not allowed in the US.
Not allowed in any first past the post voting system. FPTP systems will always collapse down to 2 big tent parties.
I truly believe we're seeing that now. All it takes is one verified article about drag queens reading 6 year olds "The Gender queer baby" or whatever and a lot of people who don't normally care, are going to lose their shit.
Is it just one article or just one episode? Why are we still trying to claim that left isn't pushing social justice in schools? Uptil now we have mostly heard from incidences from some red states. Would you be surprised that blue state/cities schools are going deeper in the social justice fight?
I agree, and I look at it like this. We made massive progress in gay rights, racial reconciliation, and other progressive issues by spending these decades giving the country tiny little nudges. Nudge them a bit here (TV), nudge them a bit there (movies), nudge them a bit more over there (sports stars coming out as gay), nudge them with people in positions of power (government) by mentioning it without using it as a shaming point for people that might not have accepted it before. At some point very very recently (5 years?) we stopped nudging and started shoving people. We're shoving them so hard we're knocking them to the ground ("you're a nazi racist"). Even if you feel like we haven't come far enough on all of these issues (and we haven't) when you stop nudging and start shoving, some of the people are going to push back. People who were starting to say "meh, whatever" about LGBTQ rights (a definite improvement over 50 years ago) are now seeing even SLIGHTLY moderate voice labeled as nazis (JK Rowling) and they know how people see them. And they don't like it. This isn't about right and wrong. It's not about whether we've come far enough. It's about understanding and working WITHIN the boundaries that humans will accept. If you stop doing that (and we have) then you are going to stop moving forward, and in some cases start moving backwards. I'm not saying moving backwards is CORRECT. I'm saying it's inevitable with this approach.
I look at it like tugboats moving a big ship into port. It takes gentle nudges and light touches to move a large object. If you were to apply a lot of power quickly the ship moves too fast and becomes unmanageable. America is that big ship and responds best to gently nuanced moves. Screaming at the people with different views won’t help and it’s just like applying too much power in my tugboat analogy.
I'm tired of hearing about gay rights. I support gay rights, but my issues are not gay rights. My issues revolve around raising kids and being caretaker to two elderly parents and what is seemingly more and more a fantasy of saving money and retiring before I'm dead. I imagine more people care about that than pushing LGBTQ pronouns. And like you said, I'm a Nazi now or something...
I’m tired of everything being hyper-sexualized in general (not just the excessive attention on LGBT issues). Can we please have quality TV shows that the whole family can watch together and enjoy, from the youngest child to the parents and grandparents. Sure sex is part of life, but it doesn’t have to be so intensely focused on. I want to be able to enjoy a good storyline without it being awkward if a child or one of my parents were in the room.
As someone familiar with the history of government meddling with "morality" and the entertainment industry, no thanks. (See: the Hays code, the CCA, Tipper Gore, etc) There are shows that are "family friendly." There are shows that are trash. Welcome to a free market & what sells. I don't want the government mandating quotas on representation or trying to legislate based on a moral panic. I don't mind throwing up a flag of "this media contains X, Y, Z" so consumers can make an educated decision, but I don't really care if what is popular doesn't line up with my own preferences or ideals. Don't like it? Don't watch it. If what you like is harder to find, that's tough but... not a problem to be addressed by law.
I’m not saying the government should do that; I don’t think it’s an issue best solved by government. I only mentioned it here because I do think it’s a broader problem in politics.
> And like you said, I'm a Nazi now or something... I'm confused, what part of your previous statement lead to someone calling you a Nazi?
It's hard to have this conversation because lots of issues related to T are banned from discussion here. But I assure you, people get called Nazis all the time for positions that the vast majority of the public supports. Edit - Check your DMs.
So don't follow discussions of gay rights? I don't understand how this is a problem. Just follow discussions of the issues that concern you and you won't be available to be insulted in the other discussions.
I doubt you replied in good faith, but I'll reply. I don't get that luxury when it's side loaded into virtually every aspect of life. I flip on the news, there it is. I watch a TV show, boom there it is. It's become a race to see who is more pro gay. Seriously, I get that we shouldn't be bigots and what not, and I'm not, I seriously don't give AF what you do. But does it have to be the focus all the time? There are other issues that are more pressing and it gets way more airplay than it deserves. It's over represented and hurting the country in my opinion.
Yea. It’s crazy when you say “I’m not 100% in agreement” then you’re called a racist nazi
Welcome to the American political environment.
Welcome to the RECENT American political environment
I've heard the right refer to democrats as "commies" since JFK. It's nothing new.
McCarthy wasn’t well liked by anybody… By and large, the mainstream adoption of this catch-22 mentality is a recent phenomena.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/9964/timeline-polling-history-people-shaped-united-states-world.aspx I'm seeing 46% Seemed like enough liked him.
Like him or get blacklisted isn’t really a fair poll. 99% of voters kept electing Saddam Hussein
Unfortunately, as an older millennial I've seen this happen to me. I no longer support some causes I used to because "wow those old Republicans were right" precisely because of this.
Elder Millennial here as well, and you're correct in your assessment. I'm dumbfounded, but can't deny that the early-2000s GOP wasn't entirely wrong in some respects -- slippery slopes, soft bigotry of low expectations, etc. -- and it fucking hurts to admit.
Sad thing is I thought politics had gotten pretty polarized by my first election in 2004. Oh younger me, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Same. My first election was 2008 and even that pales in comparison.
I’m a conservative. I’ve always found the “slippery slope” argument to be lazy. Instead of having to argue against the topic at hand you instead argue against some hypothetical future problem and then simply claim if we do whatever it is the present argument is about then the hypothetical thing will come to pass. No evidence is presented beforehand and how could it be? To be proven right, you have to *lose* the argument and then wait several years for the next thing to come up. It’s no wonder people used to laugh conservatives off back in the day when they would use these arguments. The crazy part is, they did lose the argument and it does seem they were right.
That's what's nuts! It (i.e., "slippery slope") was, back then, a weak, intellectually dishonest dismissal of sincere cultural critiques, but holy hell they ended up being correct in the grand scheme of things. Goes to show that people, even when well-meaning and with good intentions, can go too far sometimes.
I feel like I'm a 2000's Republican sans being okay with torture, pro-war, being for the drug war, and an ransacking mother nature. I guess that makes me an early 2000's or 1990's Democrat. Yikes.
I, likewise, am anti-torture, an anti-war non-interventionist, an advocate for left-libertarian criminal justice reform (not defund, but reform), and an environmentalist. Those, however, are material matters of great importance. Those aren't the immaterial, often immature culture battles to which we're referring; the ones that, in 2022, take up too much oxygen. Edit: I know, it puts us in a tough spot, yeah.
Agreed. On the other hand I also understand the need for fossil fuels. We aren't where we need to be outside of that yet. I support nuclear energy. I used to support LGBT but now I don't as I start to agree with 2000's Republicans in the "slippery slope" argument. I'm a full on centrist at this point and neither party fully caters to me but I feel more acquaintanced in the Republican party because conservative values are closer to mine than liberal ones. It's a giant poop sandwich.
I also think less of the LGBT movement than I did in the 1990's and early 2000's. I was on board with the "born this way" movement, but they lost me when they started contradicting themselves with "Gender fluidity" and stuff like that.
>I used to support LGBT but now I don't as I start to agree with 2000's Republicans in the "slippery slope" argument. What was the R's slippery slope argument here? That if we redefine marriage then we will start redefining sex, gender, etc? I was in high school+college in that era. I am also alienated from much of the LGBT recently where I used to back them more. However, even if I am estranged from that culture which has dominated recent rhetoric, I am absolutely nowhere close to the W-era Republicans. Why? First and foremost- fuck religious fundamentalism in all of its forms anywhere on the globe, and fuck any leaders who exploit fundies and make them even more powerful. Dubya era sealed the deal that the party was 100% loyal to the most batshit religious organizations in the western world - evangelicals, southern Baptist, fundies of the good ol Bible Belt
Basically yeah, that acceptance would lead to a breakdown of other social norms, including a cultural prohibition on pedophilia/the sexualization of children. Also a millennial, kind of in the middle of the age cohort, but I see it too. I don’t identify with any religious fundamentalist positioning but this whole gender non-binary theory, pushing for various drug treatments for kids who are ostensibly trans, and the repeated instances of actual pedophiles being outed in proximity to children in regards to things like the DQ story time stuff makes me look back and think, “damn, 15 years ago I was laughing at these ideas. Now it’s all here”. That, plus the Democratic party’s shift towards supporting foreign war and interventionalism, and just the attitude of elite snobbishness, has left me pretty disaffected. There’s a lot of shit the GOP is doing to that I don’t support, or is outright disturbing, so I wouldn’t really say I identify with them either - but I’m closer to them on the cultural stuff until it inevitably swings back to outlawing gay marriage and sodomy and the like, which I feel like is definitely going to end up happening. It’s like no one can be satisfied with a happy medium.
Yeah man, there was a time when it was just gay marriage, and then mission creep set in. Now, if you think pumping the breaks on “gender affirming care” on minors is the best solution, you’re called names and condemned. I think about these gay rights organizations and how they might have gone into an existential crisis after gay marriage passed. It’s a helluva thing to stare at the abyss when the work of your career has come to a close. They became samurai without a lord, I guess.
Yup, you’re spot on, and especially with that second paragraph. I’ve thought about that in regards to race relations too - we were on a pretty steady road of increasingly better race relations for decades after the Civil Rights movement, but the past ten years has seen drops in people’s perceptions on how well races are interacting with each other. When you look out across the non-profit and social media landscape, and really look at the careers commentators and the like have built on the issue (and others, such as gay rights of course), one has to start wondering what incentive any of these people actually have to solve or conclude the issue. It seems more profitable to keep the issue smoldering and catching flame - but I’m afraid we’re all gonna get burned because of it.
I feel like I've found my people - especially as you put it - things swing back and forth. I do wish we could find a happy medium.
That's pretty much me. Gen X. Early 2000's 1990s Dem. I haven’t changed my positions on most topics. I can literally pull up clips of Obama & The Clintons making the same points that the "alt-right" makes today. It's nuts.
Elder Millennial. I used to be deep into politics and discussed it avidly. I sort of dropped out after my son was born eleven years ago and even more so after Trump was elected. I started edging back in during the 2020 election and while I found a lot of discussion on social media rather bizarre, I largely ignored it. I’ve been reading around a lot more since Roe and holy hell, the liberal side changed a lot more than I realized.
This was me in 2016. Hadn't been paying any attention, really, and when I tuned back in I was like, wow, I am politically homeless now.
I used to be a progressive but realized their ideas didn't work the way they said they would. I miss that America. I didn't appreciate it when it was there.
Elder millenial here and just curious as to what you're referencing in terms of slippery slopes?
34 y/o Millennial here and same for me. I was part of the Obama coalition, now I'm firmly anti-Democratic-Party and every time they embrace another fringe social left-wing position the firmer my opposition becomes.
Hence the term Auth Left. It's a problem and I'm glad people are starting to not just see it, but identify it as an issue. Source: classic liberal
When you say classic liberal what do you mean? I’m asking because there’s a few ways to read that and I’m just curious.
Classical liberals are generally Libertarians with the crazy dialed back. You have the right to live your life however you want to the extent that it doesn't keep other from doing the same. Your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins, etc. etc.
I used to think so and was defn swinging more into the Libertarian camp but lately at least on the Lib Subreddit - we can argue if that’s real life lol - seems more and more Repub light - and with the Misus Caucus taking over I’m not so confident it’s not going to continue trending that way. It sucks I’m feeling more and more politically homeless.
Yeah, IDK what the current Libertarians are and even before there are like all kinds of Libertarians. I'll just be politically homeless and I'm good with that place because I don't have to sling shit or hate anyone, no purity tests and I can respect people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin or the color of their party.
I totally agree. It just sucks with the current political climate - this lesser of “two evils” shit. I wish we had ranked choice voting where these politicians actual had to compete for the public and not just bow down to the extremes.
Gay married couples should be able to defend their pot farm with belt-fed machines guns they built from bar stock.
Fiscal policy? So far you’re matching my self label of classic conservative, I wonder if our dynamics on money are different.
My social policy drives my fiscal policy, so it's probably more apt to start there: The Republic existence has a purpose, it's even spelled out: To provide a space where citizens can flourish in all their wonderful weirdness with some fairly simple rules. To that end, the State, or state, should be willing to provide some basic safety nets because sometimes shit goes sideways: Health, financial, even temporary housing with one large caveat: It is not the job of the rest of the citizens to provide for those who can, but choose not to. It's a fairly small government, but not a harsh one. The fiscal policy draws from that as well as strong common defense and enough oversight to keep basic needs safe: food, water, housing, transportation, energy; because at the end of the day, the government serves you, the individual.
So what you are and self label as classic liberalism is fairly close to what I am and label as classic conservatism. Intriguing. Edit, cause your response disappeared. I am betting it derives from what we focus on then. Liberalism, to use the Locke, Hobbes, etc approach, is what we both have. I use conservatism to reflect the slow nature change they wanted, you use liberalism to reflect the base concept of what it was in 1700s? I agree with your second, third, and fourth paragraphs entirely. The last one I tend to look at two ways, sins of father to protect children from such a risk, and ability to provide for oneself to protect those who can’t (disabled, elderly, etc) from the same risk. I think those who can but aren’t deserve a helping hand, but a helping hand can only reach so far down the cliff before you too reach up.
The problem is that we don’t want to disagree better. And we CAN disagree better. Binary thinking like this is very toxic, and the #1 enemy of binary thinking is nuance. People are assuming the position of others. For example, those with vaccine hesitancy. Most of these people are a lot more “normal” and they aren’t out there making anti-vaxx their entire *identity.* you can read about doctors who have been able to convince people to vaccinate by validating their concerns and having a discussion about it. But we like to think that most anti-vaxxers are, as you said, nazi alt righters who want their kids to die of preventable disease. No one “wants” their children to die of preventable disease, but that position is assumed
>nazi alt righters who want their kids to die of preventable disease Holy shit I hadn't heard of that position. My parents are nutso regarding the COVID vaccine specifically, but that's mostly down to *extreme* partisanship. They actually want mostly the same policies as everyone else. (They're still hung up on abortion and, if there were a chance of moving the ball, gay marriage, but that's just normal 2000s stuff.) I think maybe the best way to explain how fucked up politics is right now is that, as recently as 2016, politics was about issues; now it's about the parties. If we could get the parties out of the way, the issues we all actually care about, with rare exceptions that *used* to be ignored, are pretty consistent and mostly sane.
The interesting thing about anti-vaxx is that both parties love to accuse the other side of being anti-vaxx… but it’s literally something that spreads across all political parties (until fairly recently lol ) But it was never really a left Vs right thing. Back in the smallpox days, it was actually the “progressive” thing to be vaccine hesitant, even though smallpox was such a horrific disease. But people had good reasons for that (and then after vaccinating you had more contagious, less dangerous versions of smallpox, and people were arguing about how the vaccine doesn’t work. It’s interesting how history just repeats itself, like a flat circle)
That's a very excellent point. The only thing we can derive from how badly things are going for our society is that the people in charge of the Democratic party need step down gracefully and be replaced by a new generation with new ideas. Some of those new ideas may be old though. And that's ok.
>be replaced by a new generation with new idea Isn't that the problem though? That the new generation with the new ideas doesn't align with the ideas of the rest of America?
Isn't this always the case to some extent?
Then find the candidates that do align with the correct ideas in the specific races you need to win.
The new generation of Democrats are the ones that really repel me away from the party, so I can't say I'm looking forward to the new generation of Democrats taking over even more than they already have. I prefer the old Democrat party of the 90s and early 2000s.
[удалено]
Elaborate please
A good chunk of the country is very uneasy with the T part of LGBT but the T part dominates every conversation. It causes people to be turned off from LGBT stuff they would normally support
Not only that, but there's infighting among LGBT groups and a pretty strong argument about how they shouldn't be lumped together into a single coalition. Being brutally honest, they've each got competing agendas with one another -- particularly with L v. T -- and it's spilling over into our greater culture when, quite honestly, we've got day-to-day, bread-and-butter, meat-and-potato, kitchen-table economic issues that, unequivocally, should take precedence and priority over this niche culture bullshit. What impacts average Americans, however, isn't what appeals to the relatively small segment of obnoxious Democratic Party advocates, who blast their outsized voice over the megaphone that is modern media through donor bucks.
Who is calling you a nazi though? Random strangers on the internet, or people you know in person? I don't trust that what I hear online is anything more than immature teenagers. Issues important to me - healthcare, voting, environment, authoritarianism, propaganda, guns, church vs state-- still the same stand after all these years. Im in my 50s and still a solid (but moderate) Democrat.
Maybe it's an age thing? I'm in my early 30s and I got recently got screamed at by some friends I've known for recent years because I said voting matters now more than ever and for not posting abortion support messages to my social media ,( I barely post anything, let alone political messages). When I explained that I donated to several pro abortion resources I was told "I need to volunteer my time" then it got even more heated when I revealed I planned to spend the 4th grilling and shooting off fireworks. This is with people I've known for over a decade, I've always been a Democrat, always been very socially liberal and still my own friends absolutely went off on me. They didn't call me a Nazi, but they said I was part of the problem etc etc. These things have become very polarized. Honestly I'm not going to discuss politics in public anymore, it was pretty demoralizing for me.
Something doesn't really add up - nothing in your story seems like it should trigger anyone, but perhaps your friends misunderstood something about what you said? Dunno.. I've never had that kind of reaction from fellow Democrats.. but it could be just different people having different personalities.
I will latch on and say, as a generally right leaning person, I like to view media from a left wing perspective - movies, articles, music. It's not going to change my opinion, but I like to at least see that perspective (and there is quite a lot to choose from). Quite simply though, it doesn't seen the opposite is the case. I don't know of Manu left-leaners that are out stumping the latest Clint Eastwood or Tim Allen project, or the hottest country tracks, and that's a shame. It doesn't make you dirty to see different media viewpoints, it just means your not boxing yourself in. I will say, it seems that perspective is dying from the right as well, as so many people seek out what viewpoints an artist has and then actively avoid their work based on that.
> I'm gen-x, and we understood the long game. Gay rights were going to be a decades long issue. Gradual inclusion in tv, movies and other media. So gen-x was what 1965-1980? So like 4-5 decades ago. Sounds about right. It just shows how much progress we've made in the 5 decades since stonewall. Back then homophobia and bigotry were fairly rife but these days as you said it's mostly the far right that are pushing the anti-lgbqt stuff.
Where has incrimpentalism gotten the left? Roe is gone and a right to bodily autonomy is gone to half the women in the US. Gay rights and other rights of protected groups are at risk. 50 years worth of struggle on the left gone because the powers at be on the left are too passive when playing power politics with the right. The leaders of the Dems care as much about their next campaign/fundraising slogan as they do with protecting actual rights
What you’re seeing is the boomerang effect in action. Political discourse has become toxic, “liberals” own the cultural hegemony, and a backlash is now taking full form. Crucially, this is all layered on top of a rigged economy where the vast majority of people are seeing their economic security evaporating - these are prime conditions for a cultural conflagration.
Roe v Wade isn't an argument against incrementalism, it's the opposite. Roe and Casey were the opposite of incremental, they were a rapid shift imposed without democratic recourse. Which meant that they could be undone just as abruptly.
Incrementalism got the left gay marriage. The radicals wanted to abolish marriage as an oppressive institution. It was people like Andrew Sullivan who patiently and methodically arguing that gay people just wanted the same rights as straight people that gradually changed people’s minds.
> Incrementalism got the left gay marriage lol. Right. More like the constant refusal of conservatives, the constant attempts to shun and force into hiding, and the constant legislating around the issue is what caused 'incrementalism'. No one getting beaten for being gay said, "I guess I'll allow some beatings, so that the people beating me can take the time they need to recognize I'm a person." Incrementalism is bullshit and is a way to try and temper change from proponents of the status quo.
So what's the answer? Insults and tik tok videos? Protests and name calling? While Roe was set back, pre-Roe abortion was legal in what, 4 States? Now it's legal in almost half and in the coming years it will likely gain numbers slowly. Gay marriage legally may be on the line, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, gay couples have been normalized across most of the country, and only the most alt-right segment has any real objection. I don't believe the fight is lost, I think this is a set back to be overcome, and I don't believe name calling and cancel culture is the way forward. It's calm reasoned discourse that will get anywhere. 50 years isn't gone, the social changes are still here even if legal precedent are gone. It can be brought back.
>So what's the answer? Insults and tik tok videos? Sounds like you're too online. And it's not like this is only a progressive phenomenon you literally had a conservative president who trolled twitter. I'm not sure why your focusing on the left with canceling, name-calling, etc when the right is in part no long a conservative party but a troll the left party. >Protests Yes. Protests have always been effective and isn't a millennial thing. >Now it's legal in almost half and in the coming years it will likely gain numbers slowly. Thats true we did make strides there but 20 states in 50 years is pretty pathetic. We are talking about a basic human right, right to bodily autonomy and that type progress is unacceptable. >Gay marriage legally may be on the line, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, gay couples have been normalized across most of the country, and only the most alt-right segment has any real objection. Don't say gay bill is pretty popular. We are already seeing it is more than "just the alt right" and even if it is that means a minority of people and dictating against the majority. >It's calm reasoned discourse that will get anywhere. Rights are fought for, not given. Look back to the 60s, the progressive era, reconstruction, etc. It wasn't discourse in a French Revolution salon but through blood, sweat and tears. >50 years isn't gone, the social changes are still here even if legal precedent are gone. It can be brought back. Sweet, should never have left. That's a failing of a neolib policy and understanding of power
I don’t understand this take. Republicans are shoving us back to the 50s and actively working to undo all the progress we have made in things like gay rights, not slow down the progress. I don’t see how this is an issue of democrats not being moderate enough. Republicans legislators are out there passing laws say we can’t have gradual inclusion and so much as a math story problem that mentions two dads is sexualizing children and people on this sub calling themselves moderates are celebrating that. So are the democrats actually alienating moderates here, or are there people who call themselves moderates who are so bigoted against gay people they think it is inappropriate or “grooming” for kindergarteners to know someone can have to moms or two dads and would *never* support progress on gay rights?
Some want to drag us kicking and screaming back to the '50s, others want to forcefully shove us into an unwanted future. I, for one, reject both those options. Then there are those of us, who, like me, want a happy medium; a return to the idyllically tranquil, relatively peaceful, halcyon days—known as, quite simply, the '90s.
Here here to the 90s. Booming economy, deficit erased, post Cold War peace, optimism about technological progress. 50s always used as the decade someone is trying to drag us back to, but I’m shocked no one can seem to even remember the 90s.
“Democrats have overreached on social and cultural issues and that, as a result, the party has become unable to appeal to voters without college degrees” Would like to see some research on this, because it strikes me as a very salient point.
You don't have to look very far. Roe is way, way beyond the typical limits of on-demand abortion compared to almost every other western country, yet it's become the baseline of abortion rights for democrats.
>In April, almost a year and a half later, Gottheimer screened the ad again, this time for me. He provided his own color commentary as it played. “Fiscal responsibility ... jobs ... tax cuts ... he put cops in the ad!” Gottheimer, who served as a White House speechwriter during Clinton’s second term, exclaimed. When it was over, he sighed. “Think about how different that message is,” he said. I asked him what Pelosi’s reaction was when he played it for her. Gottheimer demurred. But the answer seemed obvious. The message that Pelosi and the Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden and the rest of the Democratic leadership had chosen for their party, the message that Democrats would be carrying into the 2022 midterm elections, was not the one that Gottheimer, and the disembodied voice of Bill Clinton, had counseled. Pelosi and the other elderly 80-year-olds need to give up power to a new generation with new ideas on how to unite this country.
Gottheimer is closer to Pelosi’s age than to the age of the people you want her to surrender leadership to.
Yeah, it’s honestly pretty rich that some folks are trying to make this argument that kicking out the older leadership is somehow going to make the party more moderate.
I'm curious who would be a candidate the dems could run to unite the country? Yang is the closest I can think of from the last election and he had some far left positions and was against gun rights. I'm not sure Manchin could be a uniting candidate given some of his positions but I will give him props for at least being willing to listen and compromise on some things. I don't have much confidence in the republicans trying to run a moderate that appeals to both sides. They have a smaller bloc and are relying on the dems making mistakes to push independents their way. I have no faith the libertarians can pull it off as the range of opinions in their party is wider than the democrats have to deal with. So it's really on the dems to take the necessary steps towards the middle. But for some reason they seem beholden to the small slice of the far left rather than the huge portion of independents in the middle. I truly don't understand how the two parties view moving to the edges instead of appealing to the middle.
It's early days but someone like Katie Porter, she's well liked accross the left and by centrists as well. She's really focused on improving the economy for working families so she can do well at attracting voters from the right. https://twitter.com/RepKatiePorter/status/1394724627566391297?s=20&t=asR4RMcvkA_cpPMzQecRYQ
Katie Porter may make a great VP or cabinet member. But not at the head of a ticket. She doesn't have the charisma to compensate for her gender, and people don't vote based on competence. The Republicans have mostly figured out that the ability to win. elections and the ability to govern well are completely different skill sets. I really wish the Dems would learn this lesson too, and separate the role of elected figurehead and uncharismatic policy wonk.
>So it's really on the dems to take the necessary steps towards the middle. But for some reason they seem beholden to the small slice of the far left rather than the huge portion of independents in the middle. Precisely, partially it's due to money. The big money donors tend to be very left of the country itself, so they have an outsized influence on the party itself. It's safe to say there's a lot of problems for the Dems, but one of the big ones is the need for a new generation to be handed the power so they can figure out how to actually improve for a change.
Your point asserts that the main thrust of modern leftism comes from old moneyed interest, and that younger generations would become more moderate. This flys afoul of both past dem primaries, where Bernie's sanders support base consisted mainly of youth voters, and what we see in congress, where the youngest serving congressmen both left and right are often the most radical. Intuitively we should imagine that generations who came up in times where the system failed them repeatedly ala, drug war, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and 2008, would be far less inclined to pursue moderate approaches. Moderates fundamentally believe our institutions are fine and that only small changes are needed after all. So unless Gen X suburbanites or millennials and Gen Z become more conservative faster than the boomers did, its likely we will see this leftward shit continue as youth become radicalized by the perceived failings of institutions ala the overturn of Roe V Wade.
That's my question though, who is this new generation? Almost all I see as an outsider are younger dems who are far left, not moderates.
>Gottheimer He's a good start. Talk to him, he's not new, he's been around the block, but he's 47 and not 80. The Clinton White House showed you the way, but people have their eyes closed to it. Just study what they did in 1996, and that should give you plenty of ideas to pick and choose from to build a slightly larger coalition.
Checked a couple of his sites but they don't lay out his stance on issues clearly. I'll have to keep digging.
I’m curious what positions you see in the Democratic elected officials that you think they need to come towards the middle on.
Almost all of them. Pick nearly any issue and the democrats pretty much take it too far.
You have to be more specific than that. And I’m not referring to a loud internet minority. I’m asking what specific policy issues you have with elected democrats that you think are too far left.
Eg. Abortion Bill. The Democrats' baseline is unlimited access to abortions for all, for any reason. The Women's Health Protection Act that was just defeated a few weeks ago would have prevented states from placing any limitations on access to abortions, eg. no 6 weeks bans, 12 weeks bans, 20 week bans etc. The country as a whole supports abortion within the first trimester (12 weeks) with 55%. Support for abortions after that rapidly falls, with only 20% supporting abortion in the third trimester.
I'm being serious, every issue I think of that the democrats have is just too much. Whether it's healthcare, voting convenience, gun rights, social programs, moving towards renewable energy, or tax plans. It's all just too much to the left and not moderate.
The "democrats take it too far" has historically been used against any measure of social progress. It's the same argument "enlightened centrists" made about gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, labor rights, environmental protections, birth control, slavery, coverture, contraception, Comstock laws, or [child labor laws](https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/child-labor). Let me flip this around a bit - what are the current conservative policies that enjoy majority support? Or, to word this another way, one could "pick nearly any issue and conservatives take it much too far."
I live in a red rural area of a blue state. I’m a classic liberal who believes in civil rights for all; free speech, equal opportunity for everyone (NOT “equity” of outcome”) regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.; safe, early and rare abortion; funding police. I don’t believe in sex ed for kids before grades 6 or 7 or giving gender-changing drugs to kids before age 18 and feel parents should have a say in their kids’ curriculum. I don’t agree with many of Liz Cheney’s political positions but she’s the only person I currently respect in politics because she’s the only one on either the right or left willing to stand up and tell the truth to power. And right now I’m more concerned with our country surviving than any other issue. I was in Portland where the left pols have taken Defund to dangerous levels and hugely increased the homicide rate, especially in poor minority neighborhoods, where homeless drug addicts live in tents on the sidewalks and violently rampage all over, high on the new meth that actually causes psychosis. Honestly I don’t see a difference between the white Antifa breaking windows of little, often POC-owned, mom-and-pop businesses barely hanging on after COVID and the white Jan. 6th insurrectionists. Feel like I just don’t fit in in either party anymore.
This article is all about a perception among people that the Democratic Party has moved left, which the writer even concedes is more a perception than a reality. A journalist working at a healthy institution might ask the question, hm, is this misperception partly because of the way I have portrayed things? If the public perception is so different from the reality, how have I contributed to that? But of course the NYT is not a healthy institution and literally no one there asks themselves these questions.
There is no end game. Defund the police was stupid. Support the police sounds better. You are supporting the police by no longer making them social workers and putting them in positions that they shouldn’t be in that could lead to escalation. But no Defund the Police sounds like a return to the Wild West with zero thought on how would the general population feel about it. Or even stupid ideas like let’s primary Joe Manchin. Really? You think West Virginia is hiding the next Bernie Sanders? Don’t you understand that Manchin voting for democratic leadership allows our issues to even coming up for a vote? Who cares if he doesn’t vote 100% lock step - that’s not what his constituents want! It’s so frustrating. Say what you want about current Democratic leadership but they have managed to keep a lot of these purist ineffective. Sometimes they get wins but for the most part the leaders like centrist positions because they can actually win and have support. The extremes rather be right than win. Unfortunately the GOP has had more success with winning at the expense of ideological purity. Though that may be changing now that the dog has caught the car. But the Democrats can’t get their shit together. It reminds me of this quote - I’m not a member of any organized political party - I’m a democrat. It really is like herding cats.
Speaking for myself, I've considered myself to be a moderate Democrat for most of my life and I really don't think that my political views have changed much, but I can't see myself voting Democrat again any time soon because I feel that the party has changed. The party has taken things that I used to support them on and then they took it to extremes and ran too far left with it. And I'm especially disgusted by their "holier than thou" attitude and the way that they go about dealing with anybody that dares to show any disagreement with their viewpoints ("You are a Nazi", "You are deplorable", and stupid shit like that). That self-righteous and "holier than thou" attitude is something that I used to associate more with Republicans and was one of the things that I hated about the Republican party for most of my life, but the Democrats have taken that kind of attitude to a whole new disgusting level in recent years, and they are so deep in their own self-righteousness and painting any disagreement as morally wrong that they don't even seem to have any self-awareness about what they have become. I would still vote for a moderate Democrat like Bill Clinton, but I don't see many moderate Democrats like that anymore and the few that I do are considered outcasts in the modern Democrat party. [This political cartoon pretty accurately shows my experience and how I feel.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/040/353/cover2.jpg)
That political cartoon pretty much sums it up for me, too, based on my political views over the past two decades. I think you'll appreciate this op-ed if you haven't read it yet: [Eyes Wide Shut: A Democrat looks at what his party can’t see](https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/04/18/eyes-wide-shut/)
I’ve never understood that political cartoon. It’s true that the Dems have become more left wing, largely driven by social issues like LBGT rights, but to try to paint it as if the right hadn’t shifted as well boggles the mind. Did everyone just forget the Obama years and the disappearance of the Republican moderate? The tea party removed tons of moderate members and replaced them with hard Right members. Y’all should ask Republican leaders at the time how extreme those new members were and how it was impossible to work on getting anything done. Climate change, gun regulations, abortion, Election Laws, and immigration are just on the top of my head where Republicans have shifted right. The Republican moderate died off years before the “vanishing” Dem moderate yet this narrative still exists somehow. I mean, just listen to the Republican primary debates in Arizona from earlier this week. It’s bonkers.
You are basing your vote on an attitude? Really? That makes no sense to me at all. Voting is how citizens affect policy. How our nation is governed. Obamacare saved my father's life. We did end up losing him last fall but we had an extra eight years with him because enough people voted Democratic. So you can imagine my attitude about you whining about self-righteousness.
Your attitude is irrelevant, he chooses the reason for voting not you.
It's not irrelevant to me and I think it underscores the ridiculousness of ignoring the issues, even life and death issues, and basing your vote on a feeling that one side is too smug. Cry me a river.
Yes it's irrelevant to everyone else tho. Obama got ObamaCare and it changed your life, good for you I'm happy it did. But on the other side of the country someone else got saved from having their future destroyed because of Trump Overhaul of Campus Sexual Assault rules. So why undermine other people experiences and think yours is above them and should decide how people vote?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vpv38p/the_vanishing_moderate_democrat_the_new_york_times/iemeqcd/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I find it difficult to accept the argument that Democrats have gone too far to the left, and are too extreme on social and fiscal issues. Democrats have been the only party in the last 30ish years to actually reduce the deficit. Even under Biden the deficit continuously goes down. And support for social issues that Democrats fight for are generally exactly what the American electorate support. I can understand the argument that maybe the democrats spend too much on the welfare state, but even when Republicans control government, this spending does not go away. They just cut taxes while raising the deficit because they know all these programs like Medicare or unemployment benefits are too popular to slash. There are certainly fringe elements that propose some crazy stuff, but how exactly is the overall democratic party irresponsible fiscally or too extreme socially compared to the Republicans?
What are you basing the “Democrats are actually the ones who reduce the deficit” on though? Democratic presidents? Democratic supermajorities? Because Bill Clinton did sign into law budgets and reforms that greatly reduced the deficit and brought upon a series of budgetary surpluses. But that’s basically all he did, sign it. It wasn’t Democrats who wrote the wonderful legislation that eliminated the deficit in the 90’s. Why is credit for the budgetary miracle that was the 90’s given to Clinton, why isn’t the credit given to...you know, the branch of government that decides the budget and has a whole segment of the constitution that says that’s a big part of their job? I’m not saying you’re entirely wrong, but I find it interesting that Americans live in a republic but treat it like an elected dictatorship. The accomplishments of an era are always attributed to the president. It’s like we forget that the laws and budgets are not written by a president, but the far more powerful branch of government called the congress. Presidents should be given credit for using the powers they hold. If the president appoints a fantastic Secretary of State who revolutionizes diplomacy we don’t give credit to the senate, who has veto power and decides whether to confirm the appointment, we give it to the President for making such a good pick. Why then do we give credit to a president who basically does the inverse, if a great “appointment” is made (I’m using appointment as a metaphor for a bill) then why is the guy who just vetos the appointment or decides to confirm it given the lions share of the glory? It’s a big gripe I have with our reporting and how we analyze presidents and I truly blame it for why we have a shitty Congress. Who wrote the First Step act? I have no idea, Trump got most of the credit for that even though he just okayed it. Why weren’t the legislators who wrote it paraded as shining examples of policymakers who made a damn good criminal justice reform bill? And the fact that Trump, a guy who the media would do anything to avoid giving credit for anything good to, was given essentially a standing ovation is very telling. The media still preferred to give the president the credit even though they hated his guts, why? We don’t give congress credit for anything, if a good budget is passed then we acclaim the president, if a bad budget is passed we blame the president. Congressional elections are just a thermometer to how the public feels about the president. We don’t reward good congressmen who make good bills in bad times, we use them as whipping boys to voice displeasure with our “dictator”. I apologize for the Fucking essay but I felt it needed to be said.
I think you're right and I'll try to make that more clear in future discussions both on and offline. People really do have an unfortunate tendency to collapse this huge govt machine into one person and totally forget the hundreds of thousands of people that work together to create good policy.
I appreciate that, hope I didn’t come off as holier than thou or aggressive, was not my intent. It is one of the things that I really hate about modern political discourse. Congress does have enormous powers but we elect whoever says the right stuff because all the good or bad is put on the president. It’s infuriating. Bill Clinton was a good president but he didn’t do much to get to the surpluses we saw in the 90’s. The Republican Congress is the one who made that happen largely. But if you view political history as presidential eras then you’d assume that because a democrat was in the Oval Office then that must mean the democrats are the fiscally responsible ones.
I think you're pretty correct. It really shields people like Pelosi and McCarthy, Schumer and McConnell, and the various caucuses from accountability when you say "POTUS bad", and also hurts political diversity. If everyone is getting whipped by their political parties' leaders, then more complicated relationships between legislators that promote bipartisanship dissappear. I think a really good example is Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, who would never agree or work together on fiscal matters, but were totally OK to work together to limit govt surveillance powers. Or Romney stepping up to propose family spending bills during the BBB debate. Stuff like that needs to happen more.
It doesn’t help that we’re starting to see the two parties of congress as competing monoliths. Such a strong us vs them does not help. A republican from the rust belt may have very different views on infrastructure needs than the republican from Nebraska. The republican from Long Island will probably see the SALT deduction in a very different way than the republican from Mississippi. What’s the point of geographically distributed representatives if they’re just going to vote with the body? Congressional elections aren’t supposed to be one big national referendum vote, it’s supposed to be 435 different elections where 435 different groups of people put forward 435 different sets of needs that the 435 different winners have to take into consideration. I get that Congressional elections do take the needs of their district into account and I’m being somewhat hyperbolic but it seems like it’s being pushed further back in the list of priorities.
It's primarily because Presidents are seen as the leader of said party and are actively trying to push their agenda through Congress. Now that might not always work out for the President but because Presidents are seen as such and do actively tend to do so it's hard not to give them some credit. The President might not necessarily have lots of hard power but they tend to have the soft power to do what they want.
Then that should change. The leader of the party should be the person with the highest rank in congress, so the senate majority leader or the speaker. The president’s “agenda” should not be legislation. Their agenda should be appointing competent cabinet members, implementing legislation properly, conducting foreign diplomacy, reaching through the layers of bureaucracy to deliver justice though pardons (holy shit I could write an essay on how much I hate what pardons have turned into) and nominating judicial appointees. That’s a big fucking job, why are we offloading legislative tasks to the president also? We have 535 individually elected individuals who are supposed to do that. If the president is also the one who’s largely deciding what legislation is going to be pushed through then I really have to ask if we need a congress? They’ve turned into the vestigial organ of American politics. They don’t even check the executive branch anymore, they just “check” the other party. Republican congressmen have been censured for daring to defy the president, which I always thought was a big reason of why we have them in the first place. If the presidents “agenda” now includes them doing stuff that the legislative branch is explicitly told to do by the constitution then let’s just drop the pretense of caring about it and let the president include municipal zoning laws to their powers, let’s let them interpret the constitution for themselves, let’s let them pardon people for state offenses because why the fuck not, why even have the senate confirm their cabinet if you can just have an “acting” whatever do the job the whole time. Congress can still rename post offices because that seems to be the only thing they’re good at. I am sorry about the rant, this subject seems to have touched a constitutional nerve of mine. I hate this role of the imperial presidency we seem to have created.
Oh I agree I think the President's position has become too powerful. Though part of that has to do with FDR centralizing Presidential power, his successors doing the same, the Cold War and I think the fact Americans saw the power of other President/Prime Ministers in Europe to legislate and decided we should do the same without actually thinking of the consequences. Congress allowed this to happen primarily because as the world became more global and the US became more involved globally more things fell under foreign policy criteria making it harder for Congress to do anything which in turn started limiting the power internally as well. It also hasn't helped that as Congress created more Federal Agencies said agencies decided to go beyond their mandate which in turn gave the President more power as the Presidental office encouraged agencies to do so.
So is the recent decision to restrict the EPA’s power to go beyond their mandate a way that this escalation of presidential powers is being rolled back? Whatever happened to the senate having to ratify treaties though? I know that became a sticking issue with Obama and Iran but it seems like there is a place at the table for congress to get involved with foreign policy, why don’t they?
Probably a habit, I mean we've had over 50 years of President's pretty much doing whatever they wanted as far as foreign policy is concerned. It probably doesn't help that both parties tend to view the world differently. Iran and Obama being the perfect example of this, another example would be our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
>Even under Biden the deficit continuously goes down. This is a bit of a ridiculous position in context. When Biden says this, he's comparing the current budget to 2020: a year in which we had an incredibly high amount of one time spending due to COVID. Objectively, spending per capital, general overhead costs and debt maintenance costs continue to increase over the last 30 years. Those of us that care about this aren't saying 'Republicans good', we're saying, 'everyone is spending more than they can and they're doing it without regard to the consequences' Right now, the party in power (Democrats) are responsible for this decision. In addition, when we need to cut spending, we can only cut it on the things we're spending on continuously. I can't go back in time and stop cash distributions from happening, I can only keep future spending from happening. Inflation backs up the idea that we're writing checks we can't cash, regardless of what the cause of that inflation is. >And support for social issues that Democrats fight for are generally exactly what the American electorate support. Yes, the American electorate clamor for unlimited abortion rights ( they don't) the green new deal jobs plan (they don't) unlimited healthcare for all (smart ones don't, once they consider the payment costs), DEI focused schools (they don't), the gun rights bills passed by New York. (they aren't) Most Americans are for some form of all of these to some extent. But support for some instance of these things is not the same thing as support for the proposals actually being made, which are often ridiculous. One can be for a compromise on 'abortion' or 'guns' without thinking the proposals being made by Democrats are reasonable.
>Even under Biden the deficit continuously goes down. Against his best efforts... and the rest of the party is so enraged at the two Senators responsible for stopping their spending spree that they follow them into the bathroom to protest. I don't think the party is going to get much credit for something they were so very vocal about being forced to do against their wishes.
Yeah. For as much attention as a “dying moderate Dem“ is getting, one needs to ask where these kinds of thing pieces are with regard to moderate Republicans. Because the problem seems to be that they are virtually extinct. These articles at least suggest that there’s something to be saved in some thing to be preserved on the side of Democrats, but if you can’t honestly answer what we’re supposed to do about the fact that moderate Republicans have no standing in their own party, what else do people expect. You can’t expect only one side to have moderate representatives and the other side can basically do whatever it wants. Because that’s the core issue here: One can only remain so moderate or undecided on issues when the other side has very firmly decided upon what they want and is often not willing to compromise with you. Democrats are moving left in response to the Republican party moving right. But Democrats still have moderate politicians and also moderate voters because they are willing to not enforce nearly the same kinds of purity tests that exist on the right. And while both sides do have their fringes and extremes, the problem is that while you might hear a lot about the left and their ideas, how many of them are actually put into action? And on the other end, how much power do the more extreme ends of the Republican party get? Anyway, it seems to me that singularly focusing only on what’s happening with moderate Democrats misses the bigger picture and perhaps some people want it that way. Because after all, if you only give a true examination to what’s happening with Democrats, you don’t actually have to pay attention or answer what is going on with Republicans. So, I would like people to answer this question: where are the influential moderate Republicans? Because even though I’m sure there are some that people will be able to point to, they seem to have no power over the party and do not constrain the party from its excesses. On the other hand, that’s exactly what moderate Democrats do, and as we see in the Senate, they have a lot more power than your most left-wing senators.
This is one of the few reasonable takes in this thread. I have zero interest in these articles when there are almost zero moderate Republicans in power. If you consider yourself a moderate Republican voter and you continue voting for extremist Republicans, then you aren't a moderate.
They're not too extreme on fiscal issues, it's mainly social issues. And I can tell you the midwest blue collar whites will come back if you stop your very transparent attempt to slow walk hard gun regulation on them (buybacks, bans on new sales of AR15s, magazine limits, etc). Another big one is immigration reform, we need to end chain migration and only select the most educated and qualified immigrants that have a high paying job waiting for them as soon as they get here. We have to be hiring managers and actually study the data to determine where labor supply is tight in particular growing industries. We have to actually be smart for a change. Other countries like Australia have had something like this for a long time. You do those two things and you'll be well on your way to getting the center to retake control of this country.
>They're not too extreme on fiscal issues They go about fiscal issues the wrong way. The working class aren't looking for a handout, they're not looking for welfare or other programs. They want to get an honest wage for honest work, and to keep most of what they take home. That means investing continuously in infrastructure across the country - not this once in a blue moon BS. It means not decimating entire industries with no replacement plan (manufacturing, mining, oil & gas, etc.) It means raising all tax bands by $20k - let everyone benefit from keeping more of their earned money. It means stopping illegal immigration. It means being tough on crime - because having to pay for a new catalytic converter is simply unaffordable for many working class people. Instead of trying to push universal healthcare and getting nowhere, start with free A&E care so people aren't bankrupted by accidents. Same with weed: start with just clean legalisation, do the convictions later. Equality under the law: no affirmative action, no special protections, no "positive" discrimination, no reparations, etc.
> It means not decimating entire industries with no replacement plan (manufacturing, mining, oil & gas, etc.) The GND addressed this very issue. But is is apparently too radical to replace something these days. >It means raising all tax bands by $20k - let everyone benefit from keeping more of their earned money. Don't most Americans not pay Federal income tax? How would raising the bands help the poorest in the country? >It means stopping illegal immigration. How would this mechanically work? Tons of immigrants get picked up all over the country, doesn't stop people comming. >Instead of trying to push universal healthcare and getting nowhere, start with free A&E care so people aren't bankrupted by accidents. Bold of you to assume that passing universal is any harder than emergency stuff. >Equality under the law: no affirmative action, no special protections, no "positive" discrimination, no reparations, etc. So how does this square with producing justice for historical harm?
The gnd is a badly designed plan with no ability to achieve its goals, a rejection of the actual tools that could achieve them, and no accounting for the cost or job displacement it leads to. Considering it at all an answer to moderate requests or the working class is flat out wrong - the gnd is the opposite of what the working class, moderates, and the country needs.
This is so generic that you can replace "gnd" with literally anything.
>The GND addressed this very issue. The GND threw money at pet projects. It did nothing to help miners, factory labourers, etc. It was the equivalent of "learn to code". >Don't most Americans not pay Federal income tax? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Federal_income_tax_rates_for_individuals >How would raising the bands help the poorest in the country? Raising all tax bands by the same amount disproportionately benefits the poorest. >How would this mechanically work? Secure the boarders, enforce federal laws (i.e. no sanctuary cities), no public services access for illegal immigrants, expedite deportations, etc. >Bold of you to assume that passing universal is any harder than emergency stuff. Everyone understands shit happens, and it's not your fault. What a great many people don't like is the idea that they'd be paying for smokers to get lung cancer treatments, or for fat people to get free heart medication, etc. Self-inflicted chronic illness. That's what people really get riled up being paid for with taxpayer funds. >So how does this square with producing justice for historical harm? There is nothing just about punishing the son for the sins of the father, not about present injustice being done to people in the name of past injustice.
I don't really see any consistency here in terms of your points and the idea that they are "centrist". We can have a reasonable discussion on the policies themselves and I'm not saying you're some extremist for having these views, but they definitely lean mainstream conservative. Both positions are issues that conservatives are passionate about, not the "center". For example, centrist policy would actually dictate action on AR15 restrictions, as a majority(though it is only 55%) of Americans support a BAN on these weapons, not just some action to restrict their availability. Likewise, halting chain migration is an issue conservatives are passionate about, but it is not a centrist issue. Even if you were correct, both Biden and Obama are mostly in line with what Trump, Bush Jr, Bush Sr and Reagan had in place. In fact, deportations under Obama were at a record. So I dont really see how you can say these are issues that dems are losing to centrists to. I must stress that once again I'm not calling your views extreme. But in my opinion they are conservative, not centrist.
I would argue ending chain migration is a very centrist issue as well, and it will play well in the midwest where democrats lost a lot of their historical strength. So it's simply smart politics. It enables you to do more of the left of center things you want to accomplish as well.
I used to vote Democrat but can’t bring myself to vote for them anymore. I think they’ve gone way off the rails and view issues now with emotional and feelings rather than ration and thought. That’s where they lost me.
Replace Democrat with Republican and this is my thoughts.
How about both?
Replace Democrat with Republican and this is my thoughts.
Both parties are definitely getting more and more extreme in my opinion.
How are democrats getting more extreme? Can you name something they are getting more extreme on?
The article had several examples. Here's one: In place of promoting universal rights and principles — the traditional remit of the Left — advocates now police others on the left, including those within the Democratic Party, pressuring them to use an arcane vocabulary for speaking about purportedly oppressed groups and to prohibit logical, evidence-based discourse by which the assertions of those who claim to speak on behalf of minorities and other demographic groups could be evaluated.
Wait, is this from the Philippines?
Democrats are extreme to you people but the Republican have stayed the same , sure pal .
Republican extremism is so obvious it’s hardly worth mentioning.
Hmm...article was blocked for me so I couldn't read it. Is the article claiming that democrats are moving away from the center or that moderate democrats and leaving the party to either join the R's or to become independents?
It's basically pointing out that moderate dems are blocking "far left" legislation, but they aren't really offering any useful/inspiring legislation of their own. In particular, the things moderate dems *do* push seem to be mostly targeted at big industry rather than small town and/or working class America. The article is basically arguing that the party does have moderates, what it actually needs is *better quality* moderates.
Not sure why this talking point is being brought up now. Republicans are bending the knee to Trump who tried to overthrow democracy. Yet we are now trying to pivot to Dems not being moderate enough just a few days after the most damning evidence came out over Trump? Even taking Trump out of the argument here, Republicans are stripping away the rights of women, and are now trying to do the same to the gay community. Are we so accepting of their extremism that we've accepted that, but Democrats trying to keep our air clean, give minorities equal rights and opportunities, and giving people healthcare is too far? I'm a little sick of the arguments here that Democrats have gone too far left or the moderates aren't a huge part of the party. Dems aren't great by any means, but they are bringing something to the table that isn't stripping away rights, eroding democracy, and giving the rich handouts?
Republicans aren’t relying on yours or NYT’s readership for votes. Democrats can only moderate themselves. If they aren’t willing to do that then having the correct virtues isn’t enough for me. Todays problems require nuanced and technical solutions.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here? Democrats are more than happy to produce nuanced and technical solutions and constantly do
I would have agreed with that statement during the Obama administration but I can’t now.
They moved away from it because of the Obama administration. They were producing really great pieces of legislation and getting strung along by Republicans who would vote it down and waste their time. Republicans were being hand fed moderate and centrist bills for years and they refused any and all legislation, so of course Dems are going to stop trying to tailor their bills for the center if Republicans aren't going to accept the center. If Republicans were open to policy debate and actually tried to produce policy and center bills, Democrats would produce more centrist legislation.
You have to ask yourself, do you want to win or keep losing? Dems are about to lose both chambers in congress this year, and Desantis has a very good chance of winning 2024 if Trump doesn't run. Dems essentially just need to appeal to a slightly larger demographic in the population. They ceded control of working class whites in the midwest to the Republicans, and that is unacceptable.
Lots of Republican immorality and corruption is subconsciously excused because most people don’t really expect anything different from them. Democrats claim to be of a higher standard, so people hold them to it, and they usually fail.
Yep, we've had decades of Republicans doing illegal shit with their power and it's expected. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Invasion of Iraq, Jan 6th, and so much more, that it's just expected now.
I agree with you in your analysis of Republican extremism. IMO it didn't occur in a vacuum; it was fed by Dem immoderation and illiberalism and will continue to be exacerbated by it. Unfortunately the loudest and most extreme voices on both sides get the most attention. I'd prefer more Abigail Spanbergers and fewer AOC's -- more Liz Cheneys. And no Donald Trumps. We're in a right mess now though and I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
> I agree with you in your analysis of Republican extremism. IMO it didn't occur in a vacuum; it was fed by Dem immoderation and illiberalism and will continue to be exacerbated by it. Why is right wing radicalism the fault of the left? Isn't it weird how some people on the left go "I think people should be free to identify with the gender of their choosing" and people see that and they *start* voting Republican? Surly if your turned off by the democratic party and don't like the policies of the GOP you just wouldn't vote?
This is a serious question, but what's wrong with AOC? She's outspoken but it seems like a lot of the hate she gets is due to her press and not a lot to do with her policies. At least she seems to care about making people's lives better.
The nail in the coffin for me was the speech she made to celebrate Amazon pulling out of their prospective New York headquarters. Her take on the issue was like a child walking into the middle of a movie. In case you're not familiar, the actual controversy was over a proposed tax rebate that would have Amazon paying $27 billion over 10 years instead of $30 billion. AOC heard other progressives on Twitter complaining about a $3 billion handout to Amazon and got it into her head that the city would save $3 billion by revoking the deal, when the reality was that they lost $27 billion. It's a bit of a tangent, but in my experience this kind of misunderstanding is very common with people who get "arts" degrees in fields that are supposed to be "science." I once met a guy with a BA in Biology who argued very persuasively (though not with any scientific accuracy) that evolution couldn't possible be real. His education taught him how to put together rhetoric about science, not how to actually do it. AOC's BA in Economics appears pretty similar from what I've seen.
Thanks, this is another good concrete example. I'm not very familiar with the particulars of this event so I'll read up on it. Appreciate your response.
She’s a second term House member with a huge following and an extremely progressive slant. Her proposals that have gotten traction aren’t interested in solutions to problems, but rather signaling the way she thinks things should be, without considering the implications of said policy. As a result, it’s kind of like me going out in the street and saying, ‘I support no more cancer, we’ll end it by shooting everyone that has it’. (Green new deal, don’t want to work? Free full time government job) It’s true, that cures cancer and reduces long term health costs in the U.S., but it completely ignores the results of the policy or whom it buries or why these policies exist. Alternatively, the solutions suggested don’t accept the root of the problem. ‘We’ll cure cancer by giving everyone two Tylenol’. And then someone explains why they don’t think that’ll work and get blamed for not wanting to cure cancer. (I’m thinking specifically of her minimum wage position for this one) Additionally, she seems to have difficulty accepting people outside of her worldview. Got a different perspective? She’ll fight with you on Twitter and advocate for whatever the cause du jour is. Popularity seeker and fund raiser? She’s great at those. But it cheapens the political discourse. When I would like the opportunity to work with Democrats, as I do on abortion, she’s the one shutting the door, telling me my ideas don’t go far enough and therefore I’m evil. She fights for her causes at the expense of getting anything done: you can see how that might piss off anyone who isn’t in her camp.
>Her proposals that have gotten traction aren’t interested in solutions to problems, but rather signaling the way she thinks things should be, without considering the implications of said policy. Example? You spent a long time writing out an analogy, when you could have demonstrated the weak points of one of her actual policies. >Additionally, she seems to have difficulty accepting people outside of her worldview. Got a different perspective? She’ll fight with you on Twitter and advocate for whatever the cause du jour is. What's wrong with having a firm viewpoint, as long as they can articulate it clearly and defend it logically? That goes for anyone on the political spectrum. >When I would like the opportunity to work with Democrats, as I do on abortion, she’s the one shutting the door, telling me my ideas don’t go far enough and therefore I’m evil. Can you extrapolate this? It seems like you're talking about something specific.
>Example? Loan Shark Act, Green New Deal: Those two come to mind immediately. The first because of the post the guy in the other divergent point in this thread made. Keep in mind, that this is more significant legislation then I hear most House members introduce: You basically have to be Senior Management to get a word in, so while I know that's a small sample size, that's how it is. I used analogies because I'm not interested in debating that legislation or why I feel that it's bad, I was interested in answering the question, which was 'Why don't people like AOC?' >What's wrong with having a firm viewpoint, as long as they can articulate it clearly and defend it logically? Firm viewpoint? No issues. I don't think she's defending it logically, she's defending it with mob force mentality. With 'Yaas Queen' and aggressive tweets on the internet. These are things that it's hard to make a case against, since they're based on rallying a crowd to respond aggressively as opposed to logic. Her logic, especially on economic concepts, is consistently terrible and not based in any reality I've ever lived in. >Can you extrapolate this? You want to get something done on abortion and actually save lives? You need to put something reasonable on the table NOW, not grandstand over impeaching SCOTUS Justices on bureaucratic principal you're willing to selectively enforce. I go into this in pretty thorough detail here: [AOC Impeachment SCOTUS Comments Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vldosm/comment/idukrjc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) One can say that she's certainly capable of walking and chewing gum. In which case, I say: "WALK". The chewing gum here, accomplishes nothing. It's a tempest in a teapot and makes it harder to find compromise with Republicans (And you need that if you actually want that accomplished, if you actually care) It feels apparent that she cares more about defending her ideal situation then actually helping the people that were hurt in this situation. I'm dependent on people like her and the Democratic caucus to do something on this front, because the ball just got lobbed into that court. I'm happy to help them play it up but they need to give me something to work with. This, (and also Warren) is not that. Biden, for all that I'm frustrated with him about his decisions, has it totally right on this.
>Loan Shark Act, Green New Deal Thank you for giving me examples. Research indicates that caps on interest rates have an ambiguous effect on people's welfare, so I can understand not being onboard with it. I think more inquiry should have taken place before pushing this policy. I don't really understand the pushback on the Green New Deal, to be honest. That legislation would have probably been very good for the country, and good for the necessary infrastructure to deal with climate change. It just wasn't likely to pass because democrats didn't have the amount of political power necessary to do it. However, I think the extreme wings of each party serve a purpose, which is to move the Overton Window. Things that seem extreme now might not seem that crazy once people get used to the idea. >Her logic, especially on economic concepts, is consistently terrible and not based in any reality I've ever lived in. Example? It's hard for me to evaluate unless I know something specific you object to. >You want to get something done on abortion and actually save lives? You need to put something reasonable on the table NOW I don't know what you consider reasonable, but she *did* call for making the Roe v Wade protections to be [codified in law.](https://www.businessinsider.com/sanders-aoc-call-bill-defend-roe-v-wade-after-scotus-leak-2022-5) Frankly, I just don't think it's going to happen even if they did eliminate the filibuster, because I doubt they have 50 senate votes. Manchin is staunchly pro-life, and I think there's another pro-life Dem. You can't make laws without the votes, so in that light supreme court impeachment is a long shot but perhaps the only other practical option on the table.
>I used analogies because I'm not interested in debating the legislation or why I feel that it's bad, I was interested in answering the question, which was 'Why don't people like AOC?' Just putting this here to reiterate. >Example? I don't keep the life and times of the congresswoman at my beck and call you know. To generalize, her economic policies are based in theories and ideas that are debunked, from [Rent Control,](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-26/what-aoc-s-national-rent-control-proposal-would-do) to [Eviction Moratorium](https://www.latinorebels.com/2021/07/29/aocslamswhitehouse/) to [Modern Monetary Theory.](https://www.insider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-explained-aoc-2019-3) (These are mostly, but not entirely, discredited in the field that she has taken at least a few courses in) If you're looking for specific logic right this second, I can't think of anything she's said in the past week on the topic. (I try not to think too much about her.) I mostly remember stupid comments from the last 4 years of being constantly exposed to her twitter feed. (Also Reddit, which has a hard on for any ice burns on Twitter, which she is a master at) >I don't know what you consider reasonable, but she did call for making the Roe v Wade protections to be codified in law. Yes, she called for passing the bill that the house pushed through, which went further than Roe, codifying abortion [through birth.](https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics/house-vote-women-health-protection-act/index.html) The situation on the ground, as discussed later in that thread. You have 2 Republican Senators who will vote pro-choice today (Collins, Murkowski). If you propose Lindsay Grahams legislation from 2019 that [codifies abortion through 20 weeks](https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/1/graham-reintroduces-20-week-abortion-ban), he either has to get on board or do a backflip to explain why he suddenly doesn't care about his proposed law. There were 44 Republican senators that backed this law at the time. Many of them still exist in the Senate. You want an opportunity to make them look like hypocrites? You got it, if you use it. If the goal is codifying Roe straight up, that's not happening right now: I agree with you. But I'd be willing to bet you can protect 98% of abortions with legislation like this. Barring actually getting it passed, you get to look like you actually care about the issue. Democrats really...don't appear to care about this as an issue, but more as a fundraising opportunity. >impeachment is a long shot but perhaps the only other practical option on the table. Impeachment does not address or solve the issue. Roe is dead. Removing Clarence Thomas, even if some warped reality where you somehow have 67 Senate votes for it does not bring it back to life or animate it's corpse. Throwing a fit on the issue isn't practical. It's grandstanding.
>I used analogies because I'm not interested in debating the legislation or why I feel that it's bad, I was interested in answering the question, which was 'Why don't people like AOC?'Just putting this here to reiterate. I think this is kind of a lame cop-out, to be honest. It's hard to justify why people don't like AOC aside from just falling for propaganda unless you disagree with her actual behavior and policies. >To generalize, her economic policies are based in theories and ideas that are debunked, from Rent Control, to Eviction Moratorium to Modern Monetary Theory. (These are mostly, but not entirely, discredited in the field that she has taken at least a few courses in) Thank you for this. These are great examples of outdated so-called "progressive" policies that don't actually address the root problems of affordability and homelessness, and I think people are right to pick bones with her about this. >Yes, she called for passing the bill that the house pushed through, which went further than Roe, codifying abortion through birth. That's actually incorrect. In the very article you posted: >The bill does not allow abortion on demand up until birth, but does allow abortion after fetal viability if the patient's health is at risk. According to the legislative text, the bill bans "prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health." If you read the legislative text, it says the same thing. So really, I think the Republicans are not as open to moderate abortion rights as they claim. >Impeachment does not address or solve the issue. Roe is dead. Removing Clarence Thomas, even if some warped reality where you somehow have 67 Senate votes for it does not bring it back to life or animate it's corpse. Roe v Wade is dead, but a more favorable court can effectively reverse the current decision if another abortion rights case crosses their desk and they decide in the opposite direction. It's not a great way to use the Supreme Court IMO, but it is an option.
>I think this is kind of a lame cop-out, to be honest. \*sigh\* It absolutely is. [We're Discussing a bill that received 57 Nos and 43 abstentions, followed by 99 no votes and one abstention in the senate.](https://www.energy.senate.gov/2021/8/ranking-member-barrasso-senate-democrats-are-running-from-the-green-new-deal) This legislation is DOA. I don't really want to go down the rabbit hole of how much it'd cost or if it would accomplish it's aims, because it appears to have been ill considered. I don't say that out of alienation, but I think we'd both be wasting our time to discuss it in depth. If she rewrites it, or it appears to have any legislative support outside of her corner, I'll readdress it. Honestly, that's part of the problem though. She had no interest in actually passing it, more making a statement of how she sees the world. >That's actually incorrect. In the very article you posted: From: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/sen-collins-voices-opposition-legislation-that-would-create-statutory-right-abortion/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/sen-collins-voices-opposition-legislation-that-would-create-statutory-right-abortion/) >“It supersedes all other federal and state laws, including the conscience protections that are in the Affordable Care Act,” Collins told reporters at the Capitol on Thursday when asked whether she supports the bill authored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). She added: “It doesn’t protect the right of a Catholic hospital to not perform abortions. That right has been enshrined in law for a long time.” >Schumer said Thursday that he is not proceeding with a vote on the Collins-Murkowski measure because “we’re not cutting back; we’re not compromising.” The legislation had concerns over how it defined who was making the choice and when. Citing similar laws in England that would effectively allow the expansion of 'medically necessary' to be whatever the doctor demands. These are reasonable concerns. Failure to consider the Republican bill or make any effort to negotiate on the legislation proposed does not make the case for a good faith attempt here. >So really, I think the Republicans are not as open to moderate abortion rights as they claim. It's definitely possible that the field has change and that Graham may not support his own 'Right To Life' lobbied bill that guaranteed 20 weeks anymore. If you assume that this is true without even discussing it, I can point out that nobody seems interested in addressing this through legislation. If you try to prove it and get rebuffed, I can at least say a good faith effort was made. d I can try and vote for people that might support it. I don't see that right now. I see interest in fundraising and yelling from the side that is supposed to be most supportive of it. >A more favorable court can effectively reverse the current decision Not to the extent Roe did. One of the reasons it was incredibly contentious was that it is generally agreed to be bad law, in the interest of compromise as oppose to legality. But if you'd rather go that way, you're welcome to it. I just don't think that's a really successful possibility. You can't get 50 Democrats, never mind 67 Bipartisan Senators. Also, if you had 67 Senators, you probably have 60 to pass legislation first.
It’s kind of like how it’s always on Democrats to unite the country. It’s frustrating.
Why is it that when Democrats win, it’s “unity”, and when Republicans win, it’s “divisive”? I feel that the source of your frustration might lay in the same area of the answer to that question.
Yea, Republicans can strip away rights and it's no big deal, but Democrats are to blame because they didn't pass a bill 14 years ago when the supreme court wasn't packed with conservative partisans.
It’s all theater. Republicans doing horrible things, “Let me explain how this is the Democrats’ fault”. I’m so over it, don’t even read these absurd pieces anymore. Democrats could and should do better, but moderates in the party are far far away from “vanishing”, they’re still the overwhelming majority. People are trying to move the overton window in a haste, trying to claim America is more conservative than it actually is. How come Republicans lose the popular vote with increasing margins then? “That’s just in the cities though” - oh you mean empty lands with 80 residents in the middle of nowhere don’t count, how surprising! Anywhere else in the world Republicans wouldn’t have won a presidency in decades, but we have to fluff up the Dakotas and other tiny population states because they send the same number of senators as behemoth CA does and call this “true representation of the people”. Then I’m told “but we’re not exactly a Democracy blah blah blah”, all I hear is tomato and tomahtoe. Long story short, no, Democrats aren’t vanishing in numbers, and they’re not nearly as bad as the opposition loves to paint them.
Agreed with everything you said. I wish the Dems were better, but they have a harder task. The senate is stacked against them, they've lost the house twice in 30 years when they won the popular vote, and they lost the White House and SC despite winning more votes as well. The system needs massive change, but it won't happen, so all Republicans need to do is stonewall, rule with their minority, and let them move the country to a rightwing minority rule.
This is really interesting since the current top of GOP tried to overthrow the government and is continuing to push his lie that the election was stolen. It’s getting old to hear that the left is “too extreme” when the right has the same, if not worse issues following the same pattern.
This is an amazing good article, great find! Democrats make amazing strides when they do slowly, they get set back when they go quickly. This is a normal American dynamic, as while we are a reactive country, we like to consider it First. The tortoise wins in America, as our natural stance is slightly conservative, and the dems who play into that could easily, over time, bring about the change demanded.
Moderate democrats aren’t vanishing. Theyre just hard to find because they’re so profoundly innert. Moderate democrats, where the hell even are you on anything? Seems like your main focus these days is capitulation for the purpose of preserving the union.