Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I don't understand where this position that dems embraced neo-liberalism and abandoned unions comes from.
Who passed "right to work" laws in state houses all over the country? Who supported money as a form of speech in Citizens United? Who has tried to suppress the raising of the minimum wage at every opportunity?
Not dems, afaik. Dems have consistently fought these things.
Dems have definitely been consistently more pro-union than Republicans, but not nearly as pro-union as they used to be or could be. Biden has actually been a serious move in that direction in terms of his NLRB appointments and rhetoric, but there's a lot farther to go.
That I can agree with. I've been very pleased with the inroads unions have been making in just the past few years.
They don't have to start actively attacking the unions to have abandoned them. Clinton was the main break point.
I can definitely see an argument for Clinton, the champion of NAFTA, moving in a neo-liberal direction, but calling it some broader break-point where the whole democratic party abandoned labor is a much, much broader claim. Wouldn't you say?
The problem is that Clinton's neoliberalism and rejection of the unions both wasn't just Clinton (he didn't get a revolt from other Democrats over NAFTA) and the results weakened the unions so they were less valuable to Democrats. Neoliberal economic policy has been the dominant philosophy of the party establishment for 30 years now, to the detriment of the unions. Hell, many of those establishment politicians were already in power during Clinton's term.
Now, this doesn't mean "all Democrats never listen to unions", but they're just often not a priority. And hopefully it's changing. Biden's done some meaningfully pro-union things (albeit with one very high-profile anti-union thing), and the resurgence of the labor movement in general means they're more powerful.
There was a fair bit of pushback against NAFTA. Additionally, I would point towards things like blocking petroleum exploration and generally pursuing greater business regulation as not very neo-liberal positions.
there are factions within any party that can be ascendant in any given cycle (measured in decades). I am guessing this may be obvious to you, but reagan and the dirty tricks full court press by the republicans terrified the "left" in the US and made it easier for neo-liberal mindshare to metastasize in the democratic party.
clinton style neo-lib ideology didnt get much resistance because it seems that the dems have been the place where anyone to the left of attila the hun moved and set up shop for quite a while.
so the arc of the democratic party continues to ebb and flow. hopefully the "new left" will make a permanent mark on it and course correct the neo-lib terror of the last 30 years.
Ed Burmila holds a Ph.D. in political science and is the author of Chaotic Neutral: How the Democrats Lost Their Soul in the Center.
Obviously this guy has a grudge.
Right? In my state, Right to Work was repealed as soon as Democrats had full control of the legislative and executive branches. Republicans passed it while completely disregarding Dems practically screaming that is was union busting and a horrible idea.
Unsurprisingly, the authors saying "Wokeness is to blame for Democrats not having an overwhelming majority!" are old white men.
I think (hope) people are downvoting because they think this is an anti-woke screed rather than dismantling such centrist propaganda.
It isn't immediately clear from the top that this is a critique of how the book in question is utter bullshit.
I can't even see the downvotes (and I sincerely love it). This right here is why downvoting is stupid: it's lazy commentary, and people who can see it are left wondering why.
Downvoting is an important method of grassroots quality control when used correctly, you just have to actually take the time to see what it is that you're downvoting.
when used correctly
This is the core problem. It's disruptive when used incorrectly; there's no way to ensure it's used correctly, and then people like OP are left scratching their heads.
The better option is to engage or move on. If you think someone deserves a downvote, show it with your words. Nobody knows the true intentions behind a downvote, otherwise.
I think it's still worth it (and I am the OP for what that's worth). I like the upvote / downvote system as a way to work together with others to surface good content and reject bad content. Not perfect, but better than just relying on an algorithm or individual editor.
Didn't mean post OP, meant the comment OP.
But that's fine you like it; I don't actually like community "promotion." Mob mentality has just as much possibility of promoting bad content as it does good content. The current Stanley Cup craze is a great example of the community boosting something beyond its credible limits, and Pizzagate is a great example of people weaponizing that same human behavior.
If something is bad, I would rather see evidence in the comments, not some numbers that may or may not represent reality. It's a dangerous path when we start letting others think critically for us and decide the things we should and shouldn't like.
If someone has evidence that something is wrong they should definitely comment, but an at least as valuable service they can do for their fellow readers is make it less likely they'll ever see that incorrect post in the first place. You're only going to scroll for so long and see so many posts, somehow the decision on what the top posts are needs to be made. If not the collective judgment of the readers, what's a better way of making that choice? As I said, the actual existing other options seem to be some kind of algorithm, usually tracking you and giving you content based on your past activity, or some person just decides. Neither seems like a stronger protection against promoting bad content than letting readers decide to upvote or downvote.
somehow the decision on what the top posts are needs to be made.
Right, and I'm saying it's already effective as a positive-only system. Bad actors won't get lots of upvotes by nature, but it also means good-faith dissent won't be hidden by a bunch of 14yos who are mad you critiqued their <insert favorite thing>.
It's true that you'll only scroll so far, but that's true whether downvotes exist or not. Better to let people decide, "This is worth something,' and boost it than have people force it to the bottom without explanation or justification.
Oh I think the negative feedback is also an important part of that system. Without them you get too much dumb content that appeals to some minority of people who are fooled by it while others are helpless to take action to bury it.
I'm so tired of this "woke agenda" bullshit. Being Woke means one thing and only one thing. It simply means you've been disillusioned from "the land of the free" rhetoric we've all been fed since we were children and you acknowledge that the institutions that have been built up in the US, whether intentionally or otherwise, disproportionately disenfranchise minorities. It has jack shit to do with climate change, politics, abortion, or gun control. (Other than maybe how those things contribute to racist institutions) being for Abortion rights or climate action or gun control does not automatically make you 'woke'. Not unless you're approaching those issues specifically from the angle of fixing how this country has historical treated POC. Unfortunately, that's basically never the case and liberal policies that do end up being put in place either don't address minority issues at all or they may even exacerbate them.
I'm so sick of it being used as a catch all term for anything republicans disagree with. It takes the word away from its actual meaning and risks us forgetting what it actually stood for in the first place. And that's a shame. Because it's messaging is important. And the more watered down it gets the more we'll ignore the already downtrotten in this country.
it's a litmus test. like antifa before it and sjw before that and feminist before that. I just hope I'm still hip enough to spot the next one coming round the bend