Democrats must abandon ‘neoliberalism’, Connecticut senator warns, as party leaders face strongest backlash in years

Summary

Following Kamala Harris’s unexpected defeat, Democratic leaders are scrutinizing their party’s failures, particularly with working-class voters.

Figures like Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Ro Khanna argue the party lacks a strong economic message, especially for those frustrated with stagnant mobility and neoliberal policies.

Sanders emphasized Democrats’ disconnect from working-class concerns, while Murphy criticized the party’s unwillingness to challenge wealthy interests.

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison announced he won’t seek re-election, leaving the party’s leadership in flux as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries prepare to assume top roles amid a Republican resurgence.

  • @BobQuixote
    1•3 hours ago

    But if a person isn’t a fascist or isn’t at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.

    Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person’s opinions makes them functionally a fascist? I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism. Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism. This descent into madness has been really hard to watch. If any of them were to renounce Trump, I’d welcome them eagerly.

    The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth’s climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There’s no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument’s meter not picking this up?

    I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you’re so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent. And if someone opposes Trump I am not terribly concerned about their thoughts on the climate.

    Sorry, what harms are those? =/

    I don’t know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?

    • @[email protected]English
      1•2 hours ago

      Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person’s opinions makes them functionally a fascist?

      No, that’s why I separated the two in my argument.

      I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism.

      How in good faith does a neoliberal doubt the science? They definitely incorrectly doubt the magnitude of change to our society that is required to fix climate change, sure. But the science itself?

      Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism.

      Neoliberalism is part of how those people got to fascism. It’s much easier for a fascist to convince people to adopt fascists positions when they already have neoliberal ideas in their head. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems. It’s a smaller jump to convince neoliberals to change the people in society than it is to convince them to change institutions they believe are infallible.

      This descent into madness has been really hard to watch.

      Yes, but in hindsight it is clear how we got here. Neoliberalism and the right-wing information sphere are two of the major culprits.

      If any of them were to renounce Trump, I’d welcome them eagerly.

      We don’t get this for free though or by comprising all of our positions. Democrats have been trying to reach across the aisle for a while. They failed in this election in large part because of that continued attempt to reach moderate Republicans. What Democrats need is a populist narrative. This will rally people around our side of the issues.

      I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you’re so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent.

      Not if we have to comprise our positions to get them in the tent. We need full speed ahead on climate change action. If we have to go the speed we are now, slower, or backwards like we will be in a few months, then that isn’t a useful alliance.

      I don’t know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?

      I think you’re referring to harm to other living, breathing people. You want to be a part of the big tent? Time to spill the beans on your positions. Whether they’re considered political or otherwise. A bulleted list is fine. edit: typos