I have no idea. My answer will likely be more tailored to the UK.
W/o power you don't get to enact your principles.
And that is what I provided: a platform for maybe actually winning. Defeating the right is about winning. I think that the left hasn't won and won't win until they actually come up with a platform they can articulate. I don't see it here nor in the real world of politics. The right wingers are pretty clear about where they want the nation to go: lower taxes, less government, more religion, more money as speech, more guns, more for the rich, more power to the few. Even if they do not adhere to some of those in actuality, they clearly have a vision that people understand. The progressive left has failed to present any such vision beyond more government spending. The left cannot and will not win until they can tell people their vision for how things should be. I have been astonished that even here none of the leftists are willing to describe what their desired future looks like or how to get there. Your "I have no idea." encapsulates that failure perfectly. You pooh-poohed my suggested platform as not progressive and yet cannot articulate one yourself.
And that is what I provided: a platform for maybe actually winning. Defeating the right is about winning. I think that the left hasn't won and won't win until they actually come up with a platform they can articulate. I don't see it here nor in the real world of politics. The right wingers are pretty clear about where they want the nation to go: lower taxes, less government, more religion, more money as speech, more guns, more for the rich, more power to the few. Even if they do not adhere to some of those in actuality, they clearly have a vision that people understand. The progressive left has failed to present any such vision beyond more government spending. The left cannot and will not win until they can tell people their vision for how things should be. I have been astonished that even here none of the leftists are willing to describe what their desired future looks like or how to get there. Your "I have no idea." encapsulates that failure perfectly. You pooh-poohed my suggested platform as not progressive and yet cannot articulate one yourself.
It is true that many people do vote against people and things; it is also true that they will work harder to vote for things that they want. They Progressive left offers nothing for them to vote for. Everything I listed in my "progressive platform" is apparently too centrist. You surprised me by retreating into "My answer will likely be more tailored to the UK." given that you have been pretty vocal about US politics, but whatever. Go ahead and tell us how the British Progressives should platform themselves in elections.
Nah, you said what the left "needed" was a particular type of individual. You then segued into talking about a platform without recognising my criticism of your theoretical individual that the leftists apparently need.
Good assumptions though!
Nah, you said what the left "needed" was a particular type of individual. You then segued into talking about a platform without recognising my criticism of your theoretical individual that the leftists apparently need.
I mean, we're apparently playing hardball with motivations and whatnot now, hah. No idea how that happened. You getting a bit prickly that I'm not letting you move the goalposts? I didn't have an answer for your new goalpost - after you answered my questions with one of your own - because at the mo I'm replying late at night and on my mobile at the moment. Haven't been on a huge deal over New Year, for obvious and clichéd reasons
Leftists have no trouble defining a platform. There's a lot of problems in selling that platform. Optics, and so on. I find it distasteful, but hey, it's real. You could argue it's a part of the same problem but I find it useful to distinguish "having good ideas" and "convincing people on them" because they're problems with different solutions.
I took issue not with your alleged platform, but this theoretical individual you were originally talking about. This individual by your provided criteria would not be progressive, so they're not what any aspect of progressive leftism needs. Pure and simple. I didn't say the policy topics you touched on were centrist, but you did ignore me on the reality that the gun advocates and the like will object on things like progressive healthcare. It's not as simple as "don't fight US politics on guns". Which was your idea, for the record. The two-party system is so entrenched that people will vote for or against something purely based on who put it forward. We're heading the same way here in the UK. The failures in the voting system combined with a lack of accountability of our elected representatives undermines the whole system. It's a systemic problem.
Like, you're a smart guy. I don't understand why you're retreating to "the left is bad because the left can't win". Was Clinton bad because she couldn't win against a rubbish businessman? If so, why does she still have any political clout? It's never just about winning. It's about recognising why defeats happen, and learning from them. This often involves an uneven playing field, because a lot of leftist goals go against key capitalist and related US systems (healthcare, prison rights, etc).
On that topic, "yes it's unfair deal with it" is something I see a lot, too. It's crap advice. It's advice from people who don't care about the left actually winning. So why should we listen further? Convince me.
I wasn't objecting to a political figurehead needing to be charismatic. Or the need for a leader in general.
I wasn't objecting to a political figurehead needing to be charismatic. Or the need for a leader in general.
BD outlined, with some specificity, the requirements for a candidate for the progressive left. I replied with a similar level of detail on the suggestion. There's nothing wrong with suggesting something, but I feel like BD didn't take to criticism in this case too kindly.
Regardless, I likely don't have an answer that'll make him happy. That doesn't mean I can't criticise his ideas. It's like discussing a video game, to some extent. Players don't need to be developers to critique the game. We don't need to have solutions ourselves to know that something's inadequate.
The thread might be "how to defeat the right", but I'm still not seeing many suggestions from centrists that don't involve fobbing off the problem leftwards
Nobody said otherwise.
Nobody said otherwise.
Regardless, they also need us. We (leftists) get blamed when centrists lose against right-wing candidates, for crying out loud. Why is it not the centre's fault, when it is the left's fault when they don't get the centrist vote? How does that work?
It'd be a funny election if all left-wingers decided not to vote, that's for sure. In the UK or the US.
It's also funny that you talk about ideological purity, because that's also what we get accused of if we don't want to vote for an apparently-tactical choice. But it's never ideological purity when centrists don't vote for a leftist (even if it's the tactical choice). Funny that
