2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Socrates99]

@Drakle
^I am not sure if the people didn't see what Trump was in 2016. It's kind of hard to miss when he opens his mouth.
I suppose Johnie Rotten missed it, but he is like 2000 years old himself
Trump has to go. I just fear that Biden-co may mess this up, which I would hate.

@EgonSpengler exactly.

Trump's a grifter but a lot of people fell and still fall for the grift. Trump was seen as the antiwar choice and constantly punched his GoP opponents and Hillary from the left on that issue. Trump was anti austerity and repeatedly said he was the only Republican who wouldn't touch social security or Medicare, a left position. Trump said once the ACA was repealed he'd replace it with a system where everyone is covered and the government would pay for it, a left position. The tariffs and buy American stuff are not rightwing its passed off as pro worker, again left of most Republicans and a lot of Democrats.

His rhetoric might have been empty but he had cross appeal to many Americans. I personally know a few Obama to Trump voters. They're real, it took a lot of thought to wrap my head around it.

 

[Gorbles]

Do you run in any explicitly Anarchist or Marxist circles online? If you do, I'm skeptical that you haven't seen anyone saying something like this. If not, then it isn't so surprising.

Anarchists aren't explicitly leftist, though. I don't push myself into specific circles, no, but given your repeated criticism I'm surprised you do. I'd rather save that for the other thread though (genuinely, I like exploring peoples' leftism. I might have to wrap it up into a PM though, instead of what looks like a triplepost in the making).

I follow a range of folks of leftist persuasion, some more anarchist, some more Marxist, and so on. The only demographic I generally avoid are tankies (of any particular ideological persuasion). I mean, if your argument is "hardline Marxists and / or anarchist leftists that were hoping for a purely radically progressive position from a longtime senator and US politician", then that gets a little more specific, no? I've seen people disappointed that Sanders hasn't been more of a firebrand, but this is usually followed by (however grudging) acceptance that that's just how it has to be at the moment.

In general, and I can't speak specifically for any of them, more as a general range of feelings I get, these folks aren't the bridge-burning type. Even if they are critical of a specific thing, they're still going to push for the best chance in progressive politics, and that's still folks like Sanders (and AOC).

 

[stinkubus]

Do you run in any explicitly Anarchist or Marxist circles online? If you do, I'm skeptical that you haven't seen anyone saying something like this. If not, then it isn't so surprising.

I can't even fathom why anyone who would self apply the label "Marxist" would get that excited about what was fundamentally an incrementalist political campaign.

Failures of the system to reform itself are literally the only data point you can provide to others to advocate that the current state capitalist model must be abolished.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Elections are more than immigration and rhetoric towards the national organisations. Trump in 2016 was incoherent but did stop saying all the dumb economic rhetoric that costs Republicans votes. Of course, once he took office, he didn't actually care and let Paul Ryan and Pence run the show. Which is why he is seen as much more conservative.

Anyway, Sanders was a cipher to the general electorate in 2016. A lot of his primary vote was clearly anti-Clinton, and most never actually thought he had a chance. He didn't think he had a chance at first and was just running as an issue candidate. The general between Trump Vs Sanders almost certainly would lead to a third-party run, like Bloomberg which is an added chaos factor. But while Trump picked up some former Obama voters, Clinton also picked up a lot of former Romney voters. Sanders would not have received those votes and would have lost their more Democratic ilks. He also had a lot of negatives not seriously examined in the primary.


And I still find people saying that this is weak, is absurd.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the conservatives I know (who, by definition, are New England conservatives) were saying things like, "we need a businessman to run the country" and "oh god, not 'Clinton vs Bush' again." Of course, in a country this size and this diverse, all of these things could be true simultaneously (for instance, there aren't a ton of religious conservatives around here, and our Jewish community is secular and left-leaning, so Trump's support for Israel wasn't really a talking point in either direction).

 

[Lexicus]

Anarchists aren't explicitly leftist, though

Yeah, they are. Right-wing anarchism isn't a real thing that exists. But replace with anarcho-communists, if you prefer.

I can't even fathom why anyone who would self apply the label "Marxist" would get that excited about what was fundamentally an incrementalist political campaign.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply they were excited about Sanders' campaign to begin with. Many of these people saw him from the start as nothing but a wimpy social democrat, the "left wing of capital" as it were, and view his "capitulation" to the Democratic Party to be a vindication of the view they had all along.

 

[El_Machinae]

She got 6% or less. You cannot be seriously claiming she is a popular candidate.

2008 Biden withdrew his candidacy after getting 1% in Iowa's Primaries.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, they are. Right-wing anarchism isn't a real thing that exists. But replace with anarcho-communists, if you prefer.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply they were excited about Sanders' campaign to begin with. Many of these people saw him from the start as nothing but a wimpy social democrat, the "left wing of capital" as it were, and view his "capitulation" to the Democratic Party to be a vindication of the view they had all along.

Then you definitely run in more hardline circles than I do, and a lot of the folks I follow are generally along the "the state is broken and needs a revolution" kind of lines to begin with. Or maybe just more cynical circles, I dunno

Certainly, those folk don't sound very useful. They sound like the kind of leftist I normally clash with. Or maybe it's the anarchist bent - I know I'm definitely a "work to change the system" kind of guy. With protests, and whatever tools a populace has, for sure, but not outright "let everything burn and do something with the cinders". I don't often get a good enough answer for what we do with the cinders.

 

[EgonSpengler]

2008 Biden withdrew his candidacy after getting 1% in Iowa's Primaries.

Good point. Our primaries are not, "all the states vote and then we tally up the totals." The order in which the states vote is a point of constant debate. Harris suspended her campaign in December, before any of the primaries were even held, because she ran out of money. Of course you can draw a line between funding and support, but I don't think her vote-count can be used to show that nobody likes her.

 

[Drakle]

Good point. Our primaries are not, "all the states vote and then we tally up the totals." The order in which the states vote is a point of constant debate. Harris suspended her campaign in December, before any of the primaries were even held, because she ran out of money. Of course you can draw a line between funding and support, but I don't think her vote-count can be used to show that nobody likes her.

That is just an excuse. She could have theoretically run a smaller campaign near indefinitely. She knew that President was out of reach, and knew being VP would be best achieved by stopping when she did.

Anyway, it is easy to be negative on a choice. But who is actually a better choice than Harris for Biden?

1. Young enough to succeed him
2. Experienced enough politician to step in as President. Senate and executive experience.
3. Counterbalances him ideologically, demographically and gender.
4 No massive glaring flaws.

The biggest flaw isn't her record (she is more likely to be hit from the right, not the left), it is some of the strange choices she made in the primary.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can't even fathom why anyone who would self apply the label "Marxist" would get that excited about what was fundamentally an incrementalist political campaign.

If I understand the underlying theory, it's preferred that things get worse than marginally better in order to bring forward the revolution more quickly

 

[EgonSpengler]

That is just an excuse. She could have theoretically run a smaller campaign near indefinitely. She knew that President was out of reach, and knew being VP would be best achieved by stopping when she did.

I agree. In fact, I thought/think she should have dropped out sooner than she did. I'd have liked the Democratic field to be narrowed to maybe 4 candidates by the end of the Summer, and Harris was one of the people I'd probably have bumped off the stage by then.

 

[Ajidica]

This is parroting of party line propaganda portraying the US system to be pragmatic and practical. In a multiple party system, you negotiate and form coalitions after the elections and to do that the parties have to compromise. To give a little consideration. That is not happening in the US. It is basically a winner takes all situation and could not be clearer in the example of last primaries that formed the failed Democratic bid in 2016 and now repeating itself in front of our eyes in 2020. The progressive wing has been one of the largest factions and growing and they get nothing tangible at all. Useless Task-forces and condescension. The non-vision and non-agenda of the Biden/Kamala bid makes me fearful Trump may turn this around.

The "New Left" in the Democratic Party, for all the noise and media attention it can generate, is not a particularly large part of the Democratic electorate. The primary results showed that. Sanders consistently underperformed from his 2016 results and failed to demonstrate a strong path to victory.
In his recent speech to the DNC Sanders noted how many ideas associated with the 'New Left' have entered Democratic mainstream, or are at least under serious discussion. In previous speeches Sanders has noted how many policy ideas associated with the New Left, especially in terms of the climate and jobs programs, have been brought into the Democratic platform. I get it, the Biden/Harris platform doesn't make you happy; but to pretend it doesn't include significant policy wins for the New Left, or at least compromises on many key areas, is doing a disservice to the very real wins and accomplishments of the New Left.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the conservatives I know (who, by definition, are New England conservatives) were saying things like, "we need a businessman to run the country" and "oh god, not 'Clinton vs Bush' again." Of course, in a country this size and this diverse, all of these things could be true simultaneously (for instance, there aren't a ton of religious conservatives around here, and our Jewish community is secular and left-leaning, so Trump's support for Israel wasn't really a talking point in either direction).

In primaries I would have voted against any Clinton, any Bush, and for that matter any Kennedy or Obama, purely on the basis that in a country of over 300 million people surely we can come up with some very competent leadership that doesn't have the whiff of nepotism and family connections giving a great democracy a stink of two-family rule.

 

[AdrienIer]

There were very few leftists in congress until recently. Sanders, Warren, maybe Markey in the senate. No name comes to mind in the house before 2016 (Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal), then "the squad" in 2018 and now Cori Bush and maybe a few others in 2020. It might not be as strong as the tea party at its peak but it's growing with every election, and efforts made to oust them are defeated (Tlaib and AOC were primaried but easily won, Markey is facing a tough primary from the establishment's strongest asset in Massachussetts but it looks like he's going to be ok, etc).
The left wanted Sanders to be the nominee and it didn't happen, but it doesn't mean it can't get its candidate to win a national primary. The tea party has never had its candidate win a republican primary, and they started off much stronger in 2010, so it would be delusional to expect the left to take over the democratic party in the matter of 4 years.

 

[stinkubus]

If I understand the underlying theory, it's preferred that things get worse than marginally better in order to being forward the revolution more quickly

Replace preferable with inevitable and you'd be closer to what Marx actually wrote.

 

[Lexicus]

If I understand the underlying theory, it's preferred that things get worse than marginally better in order to being forward the revolution more quickly

No, the position is that reforms are self-defeating, insofar as reforms that reduce the profitability of the system will lead capitalists to simply disinvest, which can cause the economy to contract even more sharply than the problems which the reforms are designed to solve.

 

[sophie]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply they were excited about Sanders' campaign to begin with. Many of these people saw him from the start as nothing but a wimpy social democrat, the "left wing of capital" as it were, and view his "capitulation" to the Democratic Party to be a vindication of the view they had all along.

Eh, the Bernie proposition was more or less consistent with the later-era Marxist position, namely, incrementalist electoralism is worth pursuing insofar as it allows for an empowered/liberated proletariat to organize and begin to build power outside the political system. At the end of his life, Marx was spending most of his time working to build the power of the SPD, and was arguing for public-facing unity and solidarity in the interests of maintaining worker power, or at least the appearance thereof. Which is essentially what the Bernie movement was offering: an opportunity to bootstrap a renewed labor movement and knock off a decade or two from the long march project that has been the goal of the DSA/Brand New Congress/Justice Democrats in recent cycles. In that respect it's a Marxist position, and certainly one which most Marxists I know/saw - that is, non-mushbrained ultra-orthodox MLs/MLMs - were advocating for.

 

[Lexicus]

mushbrained ultra-orthodox MLs/MLMs

The people I'm talking about are basically this, or their anarchist equivalents.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Eh, the Bernie proposition was more or less consistent with the later-era Marxist position, namely, incrementalist electoralism is worth pursuing insofar as it allows for an empowered/liberated proletariat to organize and begin to build power outside the political system. At the end of his life, Marx was spending most of his time working to build the power of the SPD, and was arguing for public-facing unity and solidarity in the interests of maintaining worker power, or at least the appearance thereof. Which is essentially what the Bernie movement was offering: an opportunity to bootstrap a renewed labor movement and knock off a decade or two from the long march project that has been the goal of the DSA/Brand New Congress/Justice Democrats in recent cycles. In that respect it's a Marxist position, and certainly one which most Marxists I know/saw - that is, non-mushbrained ultra-orthodox MLs/MLMs - were advocating for.

When you mentioned the DSA etc a few days ago I was going to ask you to explain further, particularly in the context of Bernie, but then I got distracted and forgot to finish the post... but now you've basically answered my question so thanks.

EDIT:Looking back, I see now that I actually did post a quick inquiry at you, but I forgot to add specifics. Now I get to go back and see if you answered me...

Here is his campaign slogan and tag line for every ad:

I will run the government like a government instead of like an organized crime family

Careful... Americans absolutely loved The Sopranos, The Godfather, Goodfellas, etc., I'm sure FOX News can easily spin running the country like an organized crime family into a good thing and Trump supporters would lap it right up.

 

[Takhisis]

Remember he won the Republican primary by rejecting austerity, Medicare and SS cuts, along with all the other stuff.

And…

Elections are more than immigration and rhetoric towards the national organisations. Trump in 2016 was incoherent but did stop saying all the dumb economic rhetoric that costs Republicans votes. Of course, once he took office, he didn't actually care and let Paul Ryan and Pence run the show. Which is why he is seen as much more conservative.

Just as I pointed out earlier with the thing about warmongering, the Donald says anything and then will be not just reactionary but downright retrograde.