Correction: I said an individual that was required to be anti-capitalist would not be progressive. At the very least, I'd argue it's very hard to find one that doesn't also strongly critique capitalism. You could get them to stop talking about it, perhaps, but that's an argument to their morals, which would then also have a bearing on the progressives they'd be able to get on board for voter share.
My other point was that - especially in the US - it's very difficult for any progressive to be seen as not "scary" to gun owners and religious types. Because when you say religious, you must (for this problem specifically) mean conservative Christians. Specifically economic conservatives who also happen to be Christians, or at the very least invested in the (relevant) Church and associated structures. Progressives, of pretty much any set of beliefs, are synonymous by name with "socialists" (a lot of the time). Enough of the time for the
specifics to not matter. The Red Scare never really went away. If you want to solve a problem, try and think on how to solve that problem. If someone as moderate as Bernie Sanders can be successfully demonised to the extent that the party doesn't want to endorse him as a viable candidate (I don't buy into the conspiracy stuff, but I do believe, simply, that the party much prefers other options, as they showed when they went with Clinton), you're going to struggle to find any named leftist, nevermind a progressive leftist, that can't be demonised in a similar fashion (on the national stage).
This is where the separation between national and state-level politics comes into play (as I understand it). Leftists can make gains in areas where support for them is higher than elsewhere. We've seen it happen. But this doesn't translate nationally. So when you say "this is what the left needs", I figure you have to be talking nationally, and I simply don't think that will work. Candidates don't exist in a vacuum.
So I don't get where you're coming from with "the left doesn't know how to win". The "left" absolutely knows how to win. They prove this at the state level (and below) across the US on a regular basis. They deliver on their promises, often facing literal sabotage from the right, at the same time. But regardless, the national ticket is a whole different ball game. You'd need buy-in from a majority of the Democratic Party, and as evidence has shown, there are way too many right-leaning and conservative types to make that kind of popular support happen. It's a different problem to here in the UK, where someone like Corbyn can become Leader of the Opposition and have a material impact. In the Democratic Party, that wouldn't happen in the first place (and the right-wing side of Labour are working to ensure that over here, too. It was never about Corbyn in particular - it's the politics themselves they don't want).
I feel it's pretty uncontroverisal to say "the two-party system is broken". A lot of folks across the political spectrum would likely agree with that statement. The problem lies in addressing the faults. When you talk about "the left" not wanting to learn, I have literally no idea what you're on about. Are you on about the small amount of relatively progressive names in the Democratic Party (like AoC, and so on)? Or are you on about all leftists throughout the US in terms of enacting changes to the political system (be it local, state-wide or federal)?
It doesn't mean being a leftist, no. But I was talking about this:
Because of your complaints about me putting stuff to the centre.
I never said you had to pass any purity test, though given that you don't actually describe yourself as a leftist I have no idea what relevance referencing the No True Scotsman fallacy does here. You were the one asking what good blaming the centre does. Very little, because they're prone to blaming people politically-left of them for their losses. There ye go, an answer
So I asked what good does blaming the "left" does? I'm still waiting for that one.
If anything, all this proves is that "the left" is a grouping that defies any collective definition (which is why I often have it in quotes). But the point still stands. If someone with a majorly-different set of political archetypes defined by some kind of social label (like centrist, leftist, progressive, you name it) is being lectured at by someone outside of their in-group . . . what good does that do? I'm asking you the same question you're asking me. Not that I think lecturing any centrist does any good, of course, but with regards to defeating "the right", obviously the other (however poorly-defined) archetypes are ultimately grouped together in some fashion. These archetypes are still required, otherwise you get moronic takes like Farm Boy insisting that taxing churches is somehow suppressing peoples' faith. I get it, I understand where it's coming from, and it's still moronic. And part of it relies on painting people as being "unprogressive" because they don't agree with his conservative principles. I'd say it's astounding irony, but it's pretty par for the course for some of the takes we see around here.
As a part of the larger strategy, winning "the left" is
also a part of
actually winning. Centrists frequently win elections on the claim that the left needs to support them to defeat "the right". And then nothing happens, nothing changes, and the next election the "left" are once again told they
have to vote for the moderate candidate. Guess what! People are getting sick of that kind of demand, because by the evidence it isn't apparently a winning strategy. The "left" has a problem, or a set of problems? Sure. So does liberalism. So does centrism. Hillary Clinton was not a leftist figurehead (progressive or otherwise). You might have thought that given her loss in 2016 we'd perhaps reconsider what was necessary to move the needle against right-wing candidates, but here in we in 2022, in a thread in CFC OT, with pressure being put on "the left" in a thread about
anyone defeating "the right". If you genuinely want to help defeat "the right", a good first step would be to stop framing everything as being to do with the actions of a group that you aren't in. And you're not. Both by your own description, by what you choose to support. There are no "net positives". Someone will always lose out from a proposal. Right-wingers in particular, wouldn't you think? It's remarkably easy to frame something as
not being a net positive. So you're not a leftist by both the qualifications you impose on proposals from "the left" that you would support (without actually giving any examples, so it's hard to work out your personal measure of net positivity to boot - hence why I'm going on mine, which is rather utilitarian), nor are you by dint of talking about the inherent difficulty of defining said group.
You can
absolutely support left-leaning proposals without being a leftist. There's no qualification there. The problem is saying "I'm on the left, and this is what I think the left needs to do to improve", and then going on about how "the left" is hard to define (you're right, it is) when critiqued on the specifics of being a leftist. It's
tiring. It, ironically, gets us nowhere when it comes to defeating "the right", in any context. The problem should be what we
all need to do. From a societal perspective, and from a legislative perspective. The legislative perspective absolutely introduces problems with regards to the consensus required, and thus, the voters necessary. For sure. But we're not even there yet. We're still at "the left is doing things wrong, and I as a person who isn't a leftist thinks they should do X". How do you even know? How are you, personally, quantifying "the left",
@El_Machinae. It's hard-to-define, sure. So what does it mean when you use it yourself?
Progressive healthcare alone (or anything approximating it) gets gutted on sight. If the Democrats as existing in the current power structure cannot get through bills as they'd like, what hope does any realistic progressive platform have?
