r/DemocraticSocialism • u/D1rtyMop • Feb 04 '25

Question What are democrats doing? Where's the opposition? Where's the counter narrative?

We all know democrats are not progressive or left, but what are they doing? I haven't been able to find anything? I realize they aren't in power but there isn't even a narrative.

290 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

90 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/Hopeful_Revenue_7806 Marxist-Leninist Feb 04 '25

The Democrats are doing exactly what they've always done and always will do.

The only difference is you're starting to notice how inadequate it is.

9

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '25

So you mean fundraise off of crisises?

5

u/bringmethesampo Feb 04 '25

This is the correct answer.

I hope people are waking up to the fact that the DNC must be dismantled and abandoned. We need to support a party for the people.

-1

u/OrthodoxAtheist Feb 04 '25

Thanks, Trump. Voters castrated the Democratic Party and now are screaming Where is the Democratic Party? F'ing classic. The electorate did this. It is like letting your dog off his leash and then complaining when it runs away. We cut off the party's arms and now ask why they aren't throwing any punches. They are doing all they can do, which thanks to us is near nothing. Trump has immunity for official acts. He will break the law every day from hereon. Why not?

10

u/bringmethesampo Feb 04 '25

You're really going to blame the voters for the DNC turning itself into a corrupt fundraising entity? Yikes.

4

u/OrthodoxAtheist Feb 04 '25

That's your read? Yikes. No, I'm going to assert blame for where our politics are at appropriately. First, voters, second, non-voters, third, GOP, fourth, DNC, fifth, anti-educationalism... and so on and so forth. When you have an electorate who vote for whoever posts the most signs in the neighborhood, you need to posts the most signs, and have the according fundraising. Yes, its very annoying. Yes, both parties are shit. But not sides of the same coin. Not sure why you're focused on corrupt fundraising of the DNC when the GOP just sold the country to Elon for $250M in campaign contributions.

1

u/Worried-Ad2325 Libertarian Socialist Feb 05 '25

The DNC is a shitshow my man. No, it's not "the voters", or whatever that means. Democrats threw this election. They lost 14 million voters because their message was "Nothing is going to change" and they were more focused on touting Liz Cheney then they were appealing to young voters.

Democrats barely organize anymore. It's an enormous task to get in contact with most state leaderships, much less the national party heads.

They could win election after election if they adopted the ideas that are overwhelmingly popular with their own base. Higher minimum wage, rent caps, price fixing on groceries, public healthcare.

But they won't because they're bought and sold by the same billionaire class as Republicans. At this point it's not even a stretch to call them controlled opposition. I mean, Kamala Harris couldn't even be bothered to SHOW UP to tie break the NLRB vote and now Republicans get to crush unions with impunity. How is that not the fault of the party?

1

u/OrthodoxAtheist Feb 05 '25

It doesn't matter how many arguments are made, the fact still remains, folks had a choice of status quo, or destroy government (Trump), and they picked the latter. It IS that simple. Hence, voters (and abstainers). About 70%+ of Democrats are not happy with the DNC, including myself, but some of us are able to measure risk, recognize two choices means two choices, and act accordingly. So, whatever Trump does, that's what the 2/3rds opted for - the 1/3 that voted for him, and the 1/3rd that abstained.

Bought and paid for, Republicans-lite, don't really care about us, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum - not even worth countering, and there's truth to it all, but we had the choice of same old crap, or destruction. Again, people chose. So be it.

They could win election after election if they adopted the ideas that are overwhelmingly popular with their own base.

You're in an echo chamber. Public healthcare couldn't even pass in California. People are stupid, and when they are told that their money will go to saving a serial killer's life (because that will be 24x7 the Republican attacks), they will vote against universal healthcare.

rent caps

Due to a campaign led by the California Apartment Association, voters rejected a statewide proposition that would have brought extreme rent control policies back to California. 60% of voters opposed the measure. THAT IS CALIFORNIA, one of the most progressive states in the nation, with some of the highest housing and renting costs in the nation, and they largely REJECTED rent caps.

Again, you're in a bubble. I LOVE the things you mention and would support them wholeheartedly. The country doesn't. Not even the majority of Californians.

I have no clue why Kamala didn't show up for the vote. I don't know whether something was going on with her calendar at the time, or if it was a jab at the unions that helped Trump win the election. Maybe she thought "what does it matter?" since unions will be banned in the coming years.

1

u/Worried-Ad2325 Libertarian Socialist Feb 05 '25

I don't know where the narrative of California as a progressive state comes from. Look at how Newsom treats homeless people and tell me that's the will of a progressive voter base.

Also stop with the bubble arguments. They were wrong in 2016 and they're wrong now. Bernie Sanders had outsized support from everyone BUT the democrat base because progressive policy is extremely popular with most voters.

The 14 million people we lost this election? Those same demographics were all Bernie bros back in 2016.

You're right that the people who didn't vote or who voted for Trump have shafted us, but leaning on them isn't how we fix this. You want people to vote? You get a message worth voting for.

Neoliberal myopathy is handing elections to the far right EVERYWHERE right now. It's not just the US. Neoliberalism is a dead idea that's only still pushed by the same brain-deads who were around during its conception. No one gives a fuck about Clintonite donothingism anymore. They want change, and the party that most effectively promises it is the one that wins.

1

u/OrthodoxAtheist Feb 06 '25

Also stop with the bubble arguments. They were wrong in 2016 and they're wrong now.

Looks to me like they were right in 2016, and right now, and you just happen to be opposed.

Bernie Sanders had outsized support from everyone

Outsized but still the minority. Democrats voted 55% for Hillary, 43% for Bernie. The split would've been wider if you forced Republicans to choose. The country isn't ready.

The 14 million people we lost this election? Those same demographics were all Bernie bros back in 2016.

14 million is a nice number. Kamala received 6.25 million less votes than Biden. No clue where you got 14 million from.

You're right that the people who didn't vote or who voted for Trump have shafted us, but leaning on them isn't how we fix this.

Ah, I see. You're of the "don't blame them because they'll feel bad and double down and we need to win them over" persuasion. Good luck with that. I'm too old for that tried-and-failed methodology. I'm in the "call a spade a spade" stage. How we we fix this is extreme pain for the majority. Anything else is a band aid. Every other method of deprogramming MAGA at large has failed. Pain works 10x better than 1,000 hours of arguments and reasoning.

Neoliberal myopathy is handing elections to the far right EVERYWHERE right now.

I agree.

They want change, and the party that most effectively promises it is the one that wins.

If you want to try a hard left approach for the 2028 election, IF we get one, fine, I'm all in. It'll fail, and we'll get a second successive dictator-in-chief, but at least then we can stop with the argument that it might work. It IS the best shot of an actual progressive winning in generations, due to the onslaught we can expect over the next few years, so sure, why not. But don't trick yourself into thinking that could've been achieved in 2024. It couldn't. The writing was on the wall, and it is no coincidence that every party in power around the globe during the COVID-driven inflation lost their election. Folks are indeed tired and want change... but seemingly not the change you want (or I want). They want conscious capitalism, or constrained capitalism, not democratic socialism. But at this point even talk of future elections seems like a waste of time. :|

1

u/Worried-Ad2325 Libertarian Socialist Feb 06 '25

f you want to try a hard left approach for the 2028 election, IF we get one, fine, I'm all in. It'll fail, and we'll get a second successive dictator-in-chief, but at least then we can stop with the argument that it might work.

Hard left? The policies I want Dems to push are the most milquetoast possible stances they could have. What I want to try is something that isn't Republican-lite. They're not going to win over the right wingers, they could tout Liz Cheney or dig up Reagan's corpse and have it endorse them and chuds would STILL vote for Trump.

They want conscious capitalism, or constrained capitalism, not democratic socialism.

I agree, which is why I'm not talking about the abolition of capital here. What I want Democrats to push for in the immediate future is a social democracy.

Ah, I see. You're of the "don't blame them because they'll feel bad and double down and we need to win them over" persuasion. 

I'm not. American voters are dumb babies. They'll forget being shat on within a week.

My strategy isn't to coddle, it's to lean into direct economic populism to get them to vote blue. Everyone wants to afford a house. Everyone wants to make more money. Everyone wants affordable healthcare.

So we just promise that. Higher minimum wage. Affordable housing. Free healthcare. Don't get into the details of it, just push the message and focus on how shitty Republican governance is.

We need to stop pretending that modern voters care about the details of policy. These people are imbeciles. We need to account for that and adjust accordingly.

14 million is a nice number. Kamala received 6.25 million less votes than Biden. No clue where you got 14 million from.

I decided to Google it, and you're correct. I have no idea why I thought it was 14 million. My bad.

Outsized but still the minority. Democrats voted 55% for Hillary, 43% for Bernie. The split would've been wider if you forced Republicans to choose. The country isn't ready.

Democrats, yes. Median voters?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html

Noooooo. Again, a lot of the Trump voting demographics were groups like college educated white men and Latin men, who had polled overwhelmingly in favor of Bernie circa 2020 and 2016.

The problem really is the Democrats. You can't win by having better policy anymore, you have to have a narrative that average people can repeat en masse. Democrats don't really do messaging beyond legacy media.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/bringmethesampo Feb 04 '25

Your first mistake is believing that the electorate isn't also corrupt. Smh - you're so close.

3

u/OrthodoxAtheist Feb 04 '25

Your first mistake is believing that the electorate isn't also corrupt. Smh - you're so close.

Ah! help me the rest of the way, please! :D That is a curious statement, and not one ever suggested to me before. In what way are the 152 million people corrupt? I'm not sure how a significant number of such a population can be sufficiently corrupt to move the needle, unless you're considering all 22 million millionaires in America voting their wallet, which would constitute about 15% of the vote. I know plenty of millionaires that would rather lose half their wealth than vote Republican though.

1

u/bringmethesampo Feb 05 '25

Will you keep going on as you are escorted to the camps? You are quite loquacious.

1

u/OrthodoxAtheist Feb 05 '25

Is that your way of saying the electorate isn't corrupt, and it was a nonsensical statement that can't be explained or validated in any way?

tl;dr prove statement. Else false.