Personally, I think there’s some nuance that you aren’t acknowledging. Our political parties are not monolthic in all ways. Even the inner factions aren’t monolithic; Chris Van Hollen is a great example of a moderate/centrist Dem who hasn’t been operating along the lines of other establishment corpo Dems.
DSA candidates have won way more seats in this election as Democratic insurgents than the Tea Party ever won as Republican insurgents; and look at how much they were able to effect change in the GOP. Just because the powerful Dems are still powerful a week after the election doesn’t mean seeds of real change haven’t been planted.
IMO the reason people are criticizing you isn’t necessarily because they disagree with you or because they’re blinded by false hope; it’s because what your saying isn’t really helpful in effecting meaningful change, and in fact can absolutely be harmful by discouraging people from getting involved and organizing.
What I got from it was two things. One is that you’re saying people are naive at best for being excited about big Dem wins because in the past when that has happened it’s led to a lot of unforced compromise and reaching across the aisle that was very disappointing.
The other is that you’re upset that the general attitude of “voting for Dems will never change anything” is labeled doomerism whereas post-election you feel that that same attitude is being echoed by political analysts.
Let me know if I’m reading it wrong; there’s definitely a possibility I’m reading between the lines too much.
Personally, I think there’s some nuance that you aren’t acknowledging. Our political parties are not monolthic in all ways. Even the inner factions aren’t monolithic; Chris Van Hollen is a great example of a moderate/centrist Dem who hasn’t been operating along the lines of other establishment corpo Dems.
DSA candidates have won way more seats in this election as Democratic insurgents than the Tea Party ever won as Republican insurgents; and look at how much they were able to effect change in the GOP. Just because the powerful Dems are still powerful a week after the election doesn’t mean seeds of real change haven’t been planted.
IMO the reason people are criticizing you isn’t necessarily because they disagree with you or because they’re blinded by false hope; it’s because what your saying isn’t really helpful in effecting meaningful change, and in fact can absolutely be harmful by discouraging people from getting involved and organizing.
But what is it that we are saying? Since you are telling us it’s about what we are saying?
What I got from it was two things. One is that you’re saying people are naive at best for being excited about big Dem wins because in the past when that has happened it’s led to a lot of unforced compromise and reaching across the aisle that was very disappointing.
The other is that you’re upset that the general attitude of “voting for Dems will never change anything” is labeled doomerism whereas post-election you feel that that same attitude is being echoed by political analysts.
Let me know if I’m reading it wrong; there’s definitely a possibility I’m reading between the lines too much.
Oh I thought you meant the things in general we’ve said, and not just this article.