Why Can't The Left Win?

[Lexicus]

I'd also like to point out that at least @rah is engaging in good faith arguing,

The problem isn't that he's not arguing in good faith, the problem is that the argument he's making is just silly. Remember the original point here was that I said the Left has won many historical fights and accomplished much of its historical purpose, and rah took issue with that and said I was being unfair to moderates.

So, let's look at any concrete example. Take the ACA. Assuming we don't just go fascist, I am confident that a few decades from now it will be regarded not as an awesome policy accomplishment but as a shameful capitulation to the insurance industry. Much like the work of moderates from the antebellum period is now regarded as a shameful capitulation to slavery and the slaveholders. Or the position of moderates on Vietnam is now understood as genocidal. Or the position of moderates on civil rights is now understood as moral cowardice.

This whole debate is a funhouse mirror. Thanks to moderates we stayed in Vietnam years and years after it became obvious to everyone with a brain that the war was unwinnable. Thanks to moderates (in particular, special shout-out to arch-moderate Joe Biden!) the court-ordered integration of our public schools still hasn't come close to being accomplished sixty years after Brown v Board of Ed.

I was marching for gay rights way before many so called leftists were.

Then your position on gay marriage was leftist, not moderate.

And your attempts to shame are just another form of bullying.

No one started shaming moderates until you decided to make the silly (and in some contexts, frankly, offensive) claim that moderates deserve credit for the historical victories of the Left. I don't think moderates are all evil or whatever. That's not what I'm trying to argue. Not everyone can be a hero, not everyone can push the envelope on every issue all the time. That's fine; that's the way things are. I just find it absurd that you want the people who are not heroes, the people who do not push the envelope, to be praised for the victories that really are the work of radicals who refused to accept the world as it was. They don't get any special praise. Martin Luther King Jr is a special snowflake; he gets special praise. But I'll be damned (literally) if I praise he white moderates he disparaged from that cell in the Birmingham jail.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It seems like 'moderate' has multiple meanings. I'm surprised that @rah doesn't prefer the term 'independent', for example, but maybe that has other connotations he doesn't like. I've known people who called themselves independents who sounded like libertarians to me, but they didn't like being called libertarian. To me, in US politics, it seems like 'moderate' is someone who identifies with one of the two major parties but who doesn't always toe the party line. In the Northeast, for example, there are a lot of people who describe themselves as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative." Massachusetts elects 'moderate' Republicans as its Governor all the time. Susan Collins in Maine is often called a moderate.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Take the ACA. Assuming we don't just go fascist, I am confident that a few decades from now it will be regarded not as an awesome policy accomplishment but as a shameful capitulation to the insurance industry. Much like the work of moderates from the antebellum period is now regarded as a shameful capitulation to slavery and the slaveholders. Or the position of moderates on Vietnam is now understood as genocidal. Or the position of moderates on civil rights is now understood as moral cowardice.

Come on man, comparing the ACA to Vietnam is just...yeah that's not a fair comparison. In any case, the example wasn't answering the question of what awesome laws were passed thanks to moderates, it was what big laws have been passed thanks to moderates. And I tend to think people will see ACA as the flawed first step to something better, not as an evil law in and of itself. And for people like me who got health insurance thanks to it, it was a godsend, as flawed as it is.

 

[Lexicus]

In the Northeast, for example, there are a lot of people who describe themselves as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative."

socially liberal but fiscally racist

 

[Lexicus]

Come on man, comparing the ACA to Vietnam is just...yeah that's not a fair comparison.

Is it? How many excess deaths will there be under the ACA compared to a system that actually guarantees healthcare for all Americans? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Is it? How many excess deaths will there be under the ACA compared to a system that actually guarantees healthcare for all Americans? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

You should be comparing it to not having any health care reform, not an alternative that could not have passed in 2010 and may only just pass now if the Democrats have massive success in 2020 - the kind that's not very likely in the Senate.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Fence sitting
I was marching for gay rights way before many so called leftists were. You guys have no idea what you're talking about.
Moderates make up their own minds on how they come down on the issues and decide WHEN they do. I wasn't shamed into anything.

And your attempts to shame are just another form of bullying.

And yet despite marching for gay rights you somehow saw no dissonance in having supported a party and movement that condemned lgbt people to suffer.

Congratulations on recognizing that lgbt people are human beings, come back when the Conservative movement as a whole shares that epithany and stops actively trying to **** us over, but until then you are an outlier who broke free from the vicious programming forced upon you by the GOP.

 

[El_Machinae]

Let's face it, LGBT rights are actually common sense. What happened in Canada is that brave LGBT folk fought for visibility and that allowed charismatic LGBT folk to convince those of liberal bent that the conservative views were wrong. And then eventually the power of the moderate middle overwhelmed the issue.

If the issue involves actual common sense (AGW, UHC, etc), then it's just the slow grind of counter-programming. That requires wooing those of intelligence and charisma and time. If it's a new framing of a moral sensibility, I've no idea what works.

 

[EgonSpengler]

socially liberal but fiscally racist

Yeah, it's incompatible, and, yeah, those folks are usually white, suburban men. I think what they really mean is "I don't like paying taxes."

 

[Lexicus]

You should be comparing it to not having any health care reform, not an alternative that could not have passed in 2010 and may only just pass now if the Democrats have massive success in 2020 - the kind that's not very likely in the Senate.

You may be right, I'm just saying that's not how people are going to see it a few decades from now.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Let's face it, LGBT rights are actually common sense. What happened in Canada is that brave LGBT folk fought for visibility and that allowed charismatic LGBT folk to convince those of liberal bent that the conservative views were wrong. And then eventually the power of the moderate middle overwhelmed the issue.

If the issue involves actual common sense (AGW, UHC, etc), then it's just the slow grind of counter-programming. That requires wooing those of intelligence and charisma and time. If it's a new framing of a moral sensibility, I've no idea what works.

But the left won't achieve its aims by saying the moderates will come around in the end.
Moderates only come around when the consensus has moved.
If the left does nothing the right certainly won't and we will see the consensus moving rightwards. Have done on economics for the last 40 years.
Moderates tend to dislike conflict, they go along with whatever seems less trouble.

 

[MaryKB]

No one started shaming moderates until you decided to make the silly (and in some contexts, frankly, offensive) claim that moderates deserve credit for the historical victories of the Left. I don't think moderates are all evil or whatever. That's not what I'm trying to argue. Not everyone can be a hero, not everyone can push the envelope on every issue all the time. That's fine; that's the way things are. I just find it absurd that you want the people who are not heroes, the people who do not push the envelope, to be praised for the victories that really are the work of radicals who refused to accept the world as it was. They don't get any special praise. Martin Luther King Jr is a special snowflake; he gets special praise. But I'll be damned (literally) if I praise he white moderates he disparaged from that cell in the Birmingham jail.

I feel that "moderates" are like someone who watches a crime happen ... sure he doesn't actively partake himself, but he doesn't do anything to help either. He doesn't consider someone's suffering to be worth his time and effort.

 

[rah]

Egon is probably on to something. Maybe independent is a better term sometimes.
I don't take want it to seem I'm taking credit. It was the left's victory, but there are some moderates/independents that have a small share in it.
Neither side has the majority and it usually takes convincing the middle for either side to get something done.

 

[Lexicus]

Independent is a term that relates to partisan affiliation, not ideology.

 

[Lexicus]

I feel that "moderates" are like someone who watches a crime happen ... sure he doesn't actively partake himself, but he doesn't do anything to help either. He doesn't consider someone's suffering to be worth his time and effort.

Yeah, I mean, in some cases I would totally agree with this. In other cases I think moderates can be more analogous to people who give shelter and supplies to the guerrilla resistance against the evil empire but are unwilling to fight themselves for whatever reason.

 

[MaryKB]

Yeah, I mean, in some cases I would totally agree with this. In other cases I think moderates can be more analogous to people who give shelter and supplies to the guerrilla resistance against the evil empire but are unwilling to fight themselves for whatever reason.

I can totally see that ... how do you view such people who are also giving intel to that evil empire? I feel if you pick a side and only help that side, you're not really a "moderate" any more, you're just less active on that side. So like you can support your resistance without fighting yourself, you know what I mean?

You could never actively participate in any activities, but still vote for progressive issues, and I wouldn't call you a "moderate." In your example, I'd view a moderate as someone who says "I'll help either the resistance or the empire, whoever is more convincing today. And if I do give your resistance some shelter and supplies, and you end up winning, make sure you reward me for my role."

 

[rah]

Independent is a term that relates to partisan affiliation, not ideology.

No, independent is a term that means choice not clouded by partisan affiliation.

 

[Farm Boy]

But the left won't achieve its aims by saying the moderates will come around in the end.
Moderates only come around when the consensus has moved.
If the left does nothing the right certainly won't and we will see the consensus moving rightwards. Have done on economics for the last 40 years.
Moderates tend to dislike conflict, they go along with whatever seems less trouble.

The consensus moves when the moderates do. Or when the consensus has moved you have new moderates. And they get to work trenching the new line with conservatives where it's been won. Either way, it's a silly point to bicker. The less radical are less radical than the more radical. I think it stands up to scrutiny.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel right now "independent" means "viewing the Republican platform as tolerable."

 

[Lexicus]

No, independent is a term that means choice not clouded by partisan affiliation.

I am not sure why you think you're contradicting me here.

I can totally see that ... how do you view such people who are also giving intel to that evil empire?

"Fair game"

You could never actively participate in any activities, but still vote for progressive issues, and I wouldn't call you a "moderate." In your example, I'd view a moderate as someone who says "I'll help either the resistance or the empire, whoever is more convincing today. And if I do give your resistance some shelter and supplies, and you end up winning, make sure you reward me for my role."

Yeah, I mean, I don't really disagree with this. Depends on the larger context of the hypothetical.

In real life it tended to be hardcore Communists who made up the resistance against the Nazi empire in Europe. The moderates of the time mostly collaborated.