By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - People's Convention 2020

sundin13 said:
sc94597 said:

"Vote lesser of two evils" has been the major strategy for the last fifty years. The result has been that politics in the United States has been shifting rightward due to the ratchet effect. The DNC's convention literally was just Bush Republicans (circa 2005) returning into politics as Democrats. 

Is it accurate to say that the United States has been shifting rightward? Just curious, but do you have evidence of that?

On political-economy and if we are talking about elected politicians I think it is pretty uncontroversial that neo-liberalism has dominated both parties and shifted the overton window to the right. 

Both Clintons, Obama, Gore and Biden were all further right than Johnson, Carter, Mondale, Kennedy and McGovern on political-economy. Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump were all further right than Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower on political-economy. 

The population itself hasn't shifted right-ward, but in an undemocratic plutocracy (which is what exists in the U.S) that doesn't matter. 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 22 August 2020

Around the Network
sundin13 said:
sc94597 said:

"Vote lesser of two evils" has been the major strategy for the last fifty years. The result has been that politics in the United States has been shifting rightward due to the ratchet effect. The DNC's convention literally was just Bush Republicans (circa 2005) returning into politics as Democrats. 

Is it accurate to say that the United States has been shifting rightward? Just curious, but do you have evidence of that? (Something more academic than anecdotal preferably)

To expand on my previous reply, Biden doesn't support universal healthcare (no his anemic public option which lobbyists are trying to get rid of doesn't cover everyone), meanwhile Gerald Ford (a Republican) supported a national health insurance bill. 

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Gerald_Ford_Health_Care.htm

"In his first address to Congress after succeeding Nixon, President Gerald Ford urged lawmakers to approve a national health insurance bill, but President Ford's short tenure was dominated by high inflation and other economic woes."

Last edited by sc94597 - on 22 August 2020

sc94597 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I think the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs if they continue on the course they're on.

While it was an ongoing movement since at least Reagan, Trump really pulled the party so far to the authoritarian right that more and more establishment republicans are revolted about this movement and revolting against their party to some degree, just see The Lincoln Project or Republicans Against Trump for instance. If the core continues that way, I could see a wave of republicans changing their party affiliation to either democratic or libertarian and the GOP becoming a minor party as a result.

This would also pull the democratic party somewhat to the right, leaving amply space for a new party to the left of the democrats.

I think it is far more likely that the Democratic Party dies. The Whigs died because they were too large of a tent that couldn't take a decisive stance on slavery. Republicans, being a much smaller tent party, are able to hold more ideological and party cohesion than Democrats. Establishment Republicans really don't have the popular support base to "revolt", to be honest. They lost their credibility with the rank and file Republican during the Bush Jr. presidency. 

Since Trump took office, 18 Republicans in various political offices have changed their party affiliation to Democrat, 3 became Libertarian, one part or the conservative party, and 10 became independent. That's 32 persons in less than 4 years.

At the same time, 12 Democrats became Republicans, 3 joined the various Green parties (each state has it's own), one became Libertarian, and 5 went independent.

The thing is, since the 1960's there were far more democrats that became Republicans than the other way around, but the trend is shifting now. That's why I think it's the republican party to go away, but you could be right.

The difference between an establishment Democrat and an establishment Republican is pretty thin. I could very well see both merging together, either as Republican or Democratic party, and see both leftists and Trumpism leave on the left and right respectively.

Fun fact I found out while researching the numbers: Donald Trump changed constantly his party affiliation. He was also a Democrat, Independent, and Reform Party member at various times during his life.



sc94597 said:
sundin13 said:

Is it accurate to say that the United States has been shifting rightward? Just curious, but do you have evidence of that? (Something more academic than anecdotal preferably)

To expand on my previous reply, Biden doesn't support universal healthcare (no his anemic public option which lobbyists are trying to get rid of doesn't cover everyone), meanwhile Gerald Ford (a Republican) supported a national health insurance bill. 

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Gerald_Ford_Health_Care.htm

"In his first address to Congress after succeeding Nixon, President Gerald Ford urged lawmakers to approve a national health insurance bill, but President Ford's short tenure was dominated by high inflation and other economic woes."

At the time, the Republican Party was mostly on the left of the Democratic party. Really shows how much the party shifted to the right since Reagan...



sc94597 said:
sundin13 said:

Is it accurate to say that the United States has been shifting rightward? Just curious, but do you have evidence of that? (Something more academic than anecdotal preferably)

To expand on my previous reply, Biden doesn't support universal healthcare (no his anemic public option which lobbyists are trying to get rid of doesn't cover everyone), meanwhile Gerald Ford (a Republican) supported a national health insurance bill. 

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Gerald_Ford_Health_Care.htm

"In his first address to Congress after succeeding Nixon, President Gerald Ford urged lawmakers to approve a national health insurance bill, but President Ford's short tenure was dominated by high inflation and other economic woes."

I appreciate the help. I was hoping for something a little more robust but as I was unable to find anything, it was more of a shot in the dark than anything.

I do think that on many social issues, the country has been moving fairly steadily to the left, however, economic issues seem to either be stagnating or moving to the right (and in many cases, stagnation is in itself a movement to the right, like in regards to minimum wages). That said, how much of that can be attributed to ratcheting, I don't know. 



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
sc94597 said:

To expand on my previous reply, Biden doesn't support universal healthcare (no his anemic public option which lobbyists are trying to get rid of doesn't cover everyone), meanwhile Gerald Ford (a Republican) supported a national health insurance bill. 

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Gerald_Ford_Health_Care.htm

"In his first address to Congress after succeeding Nixon, President Gerald Ford urged lawmakers to approve a national health insurance bill, but President Ford's short tenure was dominated by high inflation and other economic woes."

At the time, the Republican Party was mostly on the left of the Democratic party. Really shows how much the party shifted to the right since Reagan...

In the 1960's and 70's on political-economic issues the Democratic Party definitely was to the left of the Republican Party. 

When Nixon and Ford were proposing a National Health Insurance plan that looked like the ACA (but more comprehensive) Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, were holding off for single-payer. 




sc94597 said:
vivster said:

It doesn't make sense at all. The number one priority for a left leaning party is to not have the most right wing party voted into the government. The only way to achieve that in the current system is to vote democrat. After you've established them, you can apply pressure. We had the perfect example of how not to do it last election. Left leaning people wanting to vote for Bernie boycotted Hillary and took votes away from the Democrats, the result was the exact opposite of what any left leaning person wants. So yeah, let's not do that bullshit again.

In the end it doesn't matter how right leaning the democrats are. Biden could walk up to the podium wrapped in a Nazi flag and greet the viewers with "Heil Hitler, my Niggers!" and he would still be the easy choice over Trump, because the chance is still more than zero to have reforms with Biden rather than the 0% with Trump, or any Republican for the matter.

"Vote lesser of two evils" has been the major strategy for the last fifty years. The result has been that politics in the United States has been shifting rightward due to the ratchet effect. The DNC's convention literally was just Bush Republicans (circa 2005) returning into politics as Democrats. 

 

The 1890's People's party   shifted the Democratic and Republicans left-ward, starting the progressive era. 

The Farmer-Labor Party shifted the Democratic Party leftwards, and eventually merged with it. 

Hell even the early 20th century Socialist Party shifted the Democratic Party leftwards by acting as a regional alternative in the Northeast and Midwest. 

If there isn't pressure from the left, the whole political system will continue moving to the right. 

And by the way, more Bernie primary voters voted Clinton, than Clinton primary voters voted Obama.

The idea that Biden could be a literal Nazi and be better than Trump is ridiculous. 

And where do you think that pressure from the left will come from when Republicans are the only ones voted into office?

Of course they're moving ever closer to the right when that's the side that's most appealing to voters. And that won't change unless democrats are routinely voted in and they can actually push for progressive reforms without having to fear to be instantly voted out of office next chance.

I am all for more parties but THAT. SHIT. DOES. NOT. WORK. IN. THE. US. BECAUSE. THE. US. IS. NOT. A. DEMOCRACY. So let's just focus on trying to reform first before we try to pretend that democracy exists, let alone works, in the US.

Last edited by vivster - on 22 August 2020

If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:

And where do you think that pressure from the left will come from when Republicans are the only ones voted into office?

Of course they're moving ever closer to the right when that's the side that's most appealing to voters. And that won't change unless democrats are routinely voted in and they can actually push for progressive reforms without having to fear to be instantly voted out of office next chance.

I am all for more parties but THAT. SHIT. DOES. NOT. WORK. IN. THE. US. BECAUSE. THE. US. IS. NOT. A. DEMOCRACY. So let's just focus on trying to reform first before we try to pretend that democracy exists, let alone works, in the US.

Where did you get the idea that the Republicans would be the only ones voted in office? These other parties throughout history that I mentioned were successful in regions where they became the first party and either the Democrats and Republicans merged as the second party, or one of them became a distant third with this new party being one of the two major parties in that region. Duverger's law breaks down when support for a party is concentrated regionally. It is why the Scottish National Party is so successful in Britain despite it being in a FPTP system, for example. Or how the NDP vs. Conservatives are the major parties in much of Western Canada, despite it having a FPTP system. 

A new People's Party could easily put a lot of resources in regions where the chances of a Republican winning are slim. California's jungle primaries for example are susceptible to this, but you could also run candidates in general elections in strongly Democratic districts, where people tend to vote Democratic in the 60-80% range. 

I just gave half a dozen examples of how third parties have successfully affected the U.S political scene leftward in the past. This was with the same FPTP system that we have today, and with arguably stronger major parties in power. 

Of course this can't happen in a vacuum, a new labor movement needs to arise too -- for example, but it does need to happen nevertheless. 



Last edited by sc94597 - on 22 August 2020

sc94597 said:
vivster said:

And where do you think that pressure from the left will come from when Republicans are the only ones voted into office?

Of course they're moving ever closer to the right when that's the side that's most appealing to voters. And that won't change unless democrats are routinely voted in and they can actually push for progressive reforms without having to fear to be instantly voted out of office next chance.

I am all for more parties but THAT. SHIT. DOES. NOT. WORK. IN. THE. US. BECAUSE. THE. US. IS. NOT. A. DEMOCRACY. So let's just focus on trying to reform first before we try to pretend that democracy exists, let alone works, in the US.

Where did you get the idea that the Republicans would be the only ones voted in office? These other parties throughout history that I mentioned were successful in regions where they became the first party and either the Democrats and Republicans merged as the second party, or one of them became a distant third with this new party being one of the two major parties in that region. Duverger's law breaks down when support for a party is concentrated regionally. It is why the Scottish National Party is so successful in Britain despite it being in a FPTP system, for example. Or how the NDP vs. Conservatives are the major parties in much of Western Canada, despite it having a FPTP system. 

A new People's Party could easily put a lot of resources in regions where the chances of a Republican winning are slim. California's jungle primaries for example are susceptible to this, but you could also run candidates in general elections in strongly Democratic districts, where people tend to vote Democratic in the 60-80% range. 

I just gave half a dozen examples of how third parties have successfully affected the U.S political scene leftward in the past. This was with the same FPTP system that we have today, and with arguably stronger major parties in power. 

Of course this can't happen in a vacuum, a new labor movement needs to arise too -- for example, but it does need to happen nevertheless. 



Do you have any examples from this century? You know, that century with a completely dismantled democracy, low voter turnout and internet propaganda that is radicalizing voters while keeping as many voters as possible away from the polls?

The first thing that has to happen before people actually vote for a 3rd party is to gain the ability to actually vote. You need reforms first for that. It's a vicious cycle and the only way to break it is by either a coup or at least 3 terms in full democratic control.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:

Do you have any examples from this century? You know, that century with a completely dismantled democracy, low voter turnout and internet propaganda that is radicalizing voters while keeping as many voters as possible away from the polls?

The first thing that has to happen before people actually vote for a 3rd party is to gain the ability to actually vote. You need reforms first for that. It's a vicious cycle and the only way to break it is by either a coup or at least 3 terms in full democratic control.

In which ways was the United States during the freaking Gilded Age or before black people and women had the de-facto right to vote more deserving of the label "democracy" than the 21st century U.S? Was there more democracy when there were literal poll taxes and literacy tests

In much of the U.S, particularly the regions where the People's Party would be most successful (Washington,Oregon, California, New York, Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusetts, etc) voter suppression is minimal. If Democrats want to run a campaign to regain voting rights in Georgia, more power to them. Meanwhile in the rest of the country we can continue progressing beyond that. 

Not every state has the sort of voter suppression you find in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, etc.