- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- progressivepolitics
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- progressivepolitics
You must log in or register to comment.
This article is excellent, even if many here will be offended by the headline and refuse to read further.
This part struck me:
In the United States and elsewhere (think of French President Emmanuel Macron’s disastrous electoral machinations), the liberal centrism or “progressive neoliberalism” that casts itself as the bulwark against fascism is proving to be anything but. Not only has it contributed to the social miseries upon which reactionary politics feeds — mass incarceration, predatory finance, imperialist war and the rollback of social welfare have all been bipartisan projects in the past half-century — but it stands revealed as a failed brand, kept alive primarily by the investments of party elites and donors, but also by what historian Adam Tooze calls its profound narcissism. This delusional conviction that it is a historical force for progress, sanity and the good makes elite liberal politicians slip easily into paternalism and condescension—something many voters find more offensive than direct insults.
Edit, Jesus what a banger. The last paragraph is perfect, too
An anti-fascist politics does not require constantly decrying the fascism of your opponent (which may prove numbing or alienating) but it certainly has to cleave to a different logic than that which “depends on the moment” or on electoral calculus alone. It needs to discover ways to not just make emancipatory ideas popular — fortunately, many of them already are — but to weave them into a project rooted in everyday needs. To this end, liberal centrism is not just useless, it is an obstacle. It demands endless moral and political sacrifices from leftists and progressives, while not even serving as a decent vehicle for the kind of reformist compromises we might expect from representative politics. When existential issues are on the agenda, from genocide to the mounting climate catastrophe and the manifold crises it will bring, betting on liberalism is a fool’s errand.
Really nails it.
Capitalism
will costis costing us the EarthYou’re just repeating the title
Yes, famously anti-capitalist Conservatives…
Yes, famously anti-capitalist Liberalism…
Most western conservatives are economically liberal, though there are certainly stupIDPol or maga “communism” types.
In general, the left-right political spectrum that implies liberals can be leftist or that conservatives can’t be liberals is oversimplified, inaccurate, and not how the vast majority of people actually view politics.
Most working-class people do want social benefits for example and may therefore be considered economically leftist, but if they’re in an economically disadvantaged region they may have a backwards view on social norms and be considered socially right-wing.
While presenting itself as the antidote to a rising fascist tide, establishment liberalism is in denial about the many ways it has been the cause or enabler of that tide.
Maybe the problem isn’t so much liberalism specifically, but ideology generally. Ideology can become like a religion, adherents come to believe that their ideology is the only correct one and all the other ideologies are heresy. Liberalism is the current orthodoxy and anyone who questions or criticizes it is a heretic.
deleted by creator
No, not really. I’m not saying all ideologies are equally valid, nor am I saying that we should all be nihilists. I’m talking about belief being replaced by data, facts, and evidence. It’s about making a distinction between subjective ideals and morals, and objective truths.
Every society is going to have their morals and ideals. That’s a good thing, and a necessary thing, but not all systems are equally effective at turning an ideal into a reality. It’s not enough to believe that a system will achieve the ideal, you have to rely on science and facts to construct the system that will achieve the ideal.
I’m talking about belief being replaced by data, facts, and evidence.
Biden and Harris just did this with the economy and lost every swing state, plus the electoral college and the popular vote.
You cannot tell people their lived reality is wrong because numbers on a piece of paper say otherwise.
You can’t remove human emotions and feelings from humanity, and it looks pretty clear to me that the average American feels like liberalism isn’t working for them, despite the economic numbers saying everything is great.
It’s about making a distinction between subjective ideals and morals, and objective truths.
Ok, here’s a truth: centrist liberalism cost the Democrats the election, as evidenced by the fact progressive policies were passed in states that didn’t vote for Harris.
The Democrats, as evidenced by 2016 and 2024 (and arguably 2016), cannot win with just their liberal base. They need to court other voters, and they chose in 2016 and now 2024 to move right and try to court Republicans, who statistically will not vote for Democrats, instead of trying to appeal to the leftist/progressive wing of the party.
Sure seems like the data and the people are repudiating liberalism, so… Sure sounds like liberalism is the wrong one here, otherwise, wouldn’t they have won?
Sure seems like the data and the people are repudiating liberalism, so… Sure sounds like liberalism is the wrong one here
I don’t necessarily disagree, but if the problem isn’t ideology itself but just that we have the wrong ideology in place, well, what do we replace it with? What’s the “right” ideology? I’m not opposed to getting rid of liberalism, but I don’t want to see it replaced with something that will be no better, or even worse, for the average person. Like I said, I don’t think all ideologies are equal, and I DO think there are ideologies that are worse than liberalism. I don’t want a worse ideology to replace liberalism, just because some people believed it was better. By all means, let’s replace liberalism, I don’t think it’s working well enough, but let’s use facts, data, and evidence to determine what that better ideology would be.
but if the problem isn’t ideology itself but just that we have the wrong ideology in place,
If it’s the wrong ideology in place, the ideology itself is wrong. This is redundant.
what do we replace it with?
Well, we keep trying liberalism and centrism, and it’s not working, so how about literally anything else other than conservatism/fascism?
What’s the “right” ideology?
The one that actually benefits the people who are supposed to be represented by the system instead of the wealthy elite at the top. It’s literally that simple:
Campaign on popular policies that the working and average person will actually want and benefit from.
I don’t want a worse ideology to replace liberalism, just because some people believed it was better.
Then keep running liberalist campaigns, shifting right every election, and keep snagging those L’s.
Y’all keep thinking liberalism will work, and y’all keep demonstrably losing, so why are you so sure liberalism is better than any other ideology without trying anything else?
but let’s use facts, data, and evidence to determine what that better ideology would be.
So just continue ignoring the electorate and their human and emotional wants and needs, and thus, keep losing. Got it. 👍
And you wonder why millions of Democrats stayed home. “I believe we should change the system, but I don’t think the system is worth changing without hard facts, data, and evidence.”
Go look at the 2024 election results, bud, and then check out the 2016 results, and then the skin-of-their-teeth 2020 Democratic win, and you’ll see all the data, facts, and evidence you need.
Your ideology lost, and the fact y’all keep thinking “maybe if we do it again, but more conservative” is going to work election after election. It’s literally the definition of insanity, but you want facts and evidence?
Sure.
The one that actually benefits the people who are supposed to be represented by the system instead of the wealthy elite at the top.
What would that be? The liberals at least have specifics, they have a system. You have some vague goals. It’s not enough to tell people you’re going to make their lives better, you have to tell them how you’re going to do it.
Campaign on popular policies that the working and average person will actually want and benefit from.
What would those be?
Y’all keep thinking liberalism will work
I don’t.
so why are you so sure liberalism is better than any other ideology
I don’t.
Your ideology lost,
Yes, it did. It lost conclusively. But it’s not liberalism. My ideology is democratic socialism, and, yeah, it lost. It was a massacre.
What would that be?
Biden adopted policies from Bernie’s platform in 2020. Bernie runs on a solidly progressive (at least for the US) platform with actual goals and steps to reach them.
His campaign has admitted that, they know progressive policies will win.
The liberals at least have specifics, they have a system.
The liberals have the status quo, which Americans repeatedly poll they don’t feel is working for them anymore and they want change, and “we’re not the Republicans.”
I wouldn’t call that specifics or a system, it’s just “We’re not the other guys.” There’s nothing in their messaging to give people hope.
And, just to add: these are supposed to be people who were elected to work on behalf of their constituents, many touting ivy league degrees and law careers.
They know what policies are popular, and they’re supposed to be so smart, so why can’t they figure out how to make it happen? Like, is their job supposed to be showing up to cast a vote a few times a year? They’re supposed to be hearing our problems and finding solutions to them.
It’s not enough the electorate has to give them money and support them regardless of their unpopular policies, they need us to draft their legislation too?
What would those be?
Bernie’s 2016 and 2020 platforms, to use at the bare minimum as a framework to build off of.
A minimum wage increase that actually reflects what the American worker should be earning, with it tied to inflation.
Student loan forgiveness, that seems to be a big one. I’d argue they’d win a lot of people over if they ran on a platform to forgive credit card debt accrued during the insanity that was the Pandemic.
Stronger workers rights and stronger unions.
The end to price gouging and corporate greed. Making stock buybacks illegal or heavily fined, mandating money be put back into the company, taxing corporations and the wealthy via the appropriate means, ending tax loopholes for the wealthy. >
Ending Citizen’s United, enshrining abortion/bodily autonomy/LGBTQ+ rights into law, enshrining voting rights, automatic voter registration at the age of 18, making voting day a federal holiday, or even making voting mandatory to ensure larger turnout.
Getting rid of the electoral college, changing FPTP, age limits or reform for elected officials, ending lifetime appointments for SCOTUS, SCOTUS ethics laws with actual teeth, expanding the SCOTUS.
I came up with those based on conversations with friends and coworkers and by just casually paying attention to the news. I have an associates degree from a community college, why am I being expected to brainstorm and come up with ideas for a liberal elite with ivy league training and access to national polls and research, and millions of dollars to further test which ideas would resound with voters.
Or go ask the Dems who won reelection on progressive platforms despite those states going to Trump. Or ask the electorate like they’re supposed to during the primaries, but the DNC robbed us of those again because their hubris said “We’re not fascism, regardless of candidate” would be enough to win.
And before you start “But Biden did those things/Harris campaigned on those things,” did she? A significant chunk of Americans didn’t know Biden dropped out on election day, do you really think they care about the minutiae of campaign policy? And do you really expect them to be inspired when they’re being told “We’re just gonna maintain the course”?
I don’t.
Then why keep defending it? The left and progressives keep asking for anything progressive, and the liberals ask us to meet them in the middle. We do, they take a step back, and ask us to meet them in the middle again.
They either run on progressive ideas, and put in the work I would expect of a mulimillion dollar national political organization to figure out what those policies are. From working class Americans, not their corporate masters deciding everything for us.
Or they keep losing. Americans want change, and they’re tired of the excuses from the Dems while Repubs actually get things done. And make their constituents feel heard. Unlike the dem liberals, who seem to think they’re enlightened and entitled to condescend to the rest of us because they know better. Their facts and data and evidence says so.
Yes, it did. It lost conclusively. But it’s not liberalism. My ideology is democratic socialism, and, yeah, it lost. It was a massacre.
So you’re either a troll, or completely out of touch with reality.
A Democratic socialist is asking me for popular, progressive policies that would reflect what the average person would want, while defending liberalism as a “necessary evil” because we don’t know if any other system would be popular?
So let’s just try nothing, got it.
I’m done with this conversation, at best your eyes wide shut, and at worst you’re a troll. Any further information I have to convey, or any further questions you have that you think will be so profound, will be searchable via Google.
I’d recommend you start there, maybe with Bernie’s website, since you claim to be a Democratic Socialist but don’t seem to be familiar with the progressive platform of probably the most open and self-identified Democratic Socialist in American politics: Bernie Sanders.
Ideology is a sociopolitical model of the world. To understand complex system, we have to reduce it to key factors. It’s important to remember that it is a fallible oversimplification, but without one we are lost in the noise, blindly reacting to immediate change.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s just ideology so often becomes like a religion, and adherents become similarly incapable of absorbing new information or data, adapting to changes, or analyzing their system critically or objectively.
