Summary

Following Kamala Harris’s unexpected defeat, Democratic leaders are scrutinizing their party’s failures, particularly with working-class voters.

Figures like Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Ro Khanna argue the party lacks a strong economic message, especially for those frustrated with stagnant mobility and neoliberal policies.

Sanders emphasized Democrats’ disconnect from working-class concerns, while Murphy criticized the party’s unwillingness to challenge wealthy interests.

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison announced he won’t seek re-election, leaving the party’s leadership in flux as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries prepare to assume top roles amid a Republican resurgence.

  • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Not believing in climate change does not make someone a fascist

    Weirdly, no where in my argument do I claim this. But if a person isn’t a fascist or isn’t at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.

    Murphy was talking about accepting people who don’t want to be aligned with MAGA. That is plainly a strategic imperative.

    No he said:

    But here’s the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren’t 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.

    He didn’t mention the MAGA movement or how aligned with MAGA a person wants to be in that.

    your meter is too sensitive.

    The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth’s climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There’s no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument’s meter not picking this up?

    I suspect I would be more hands-off about correcting some harms

    Sorry, what harms are those? =/

    I would take FDR 2.0 if that’s what can defeat MAGA, but I don’t have confidence that it’s a good approach. I do think the wealth/income gap is a threat to liberty and stability.

    Billionaires have formed an oligarchy around Trump who is threatening to deport millions of people, round up homeless people into camps, and be a dictator on day one. This state of affairs is directly derived from late-stage capitalism and the 40 years of neo-liberalism that enabled the rich to extract wealth from everyone else.

    People want a populist narrative. We can easily give them that since it’s the truth. That’s what the Democrats were lacking in their campaign that Trump used to win, a populist narrative. Democrats spent the months between the DNC and election day appealing to moderate Republicans. Their reward was around 10 million fewer votes. Murphy is another Democrat who refuses to listen and is part of the Democrats predictable shift to the right in response to this loss.

    There can be more than one lesson to learn from an election. People do need to learn to leverage power and vote for Democrats in elections, but the Democrats need to learn from their mistakes as well. Or at least be co-opted by people who learned the lessons for them.

    • BobQuixote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      But if a person isn’t a fascist or isn’t at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.

      Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person’s opinions makes them functionally a fascist? I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism. Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism. This descent into madness has been really hard to watch. If any of them were to renounce Trump, I’d welcome them eagerly.

      The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth’s climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There’s no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument’s meter not picking this up?

      I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you’re so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent. And if someone opposes Trump I am not terribly concerned about their thoughts on the climate.

      Sorry, what harms are those? =/

      I don’t know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?

      • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person’s opinions makes them functionally a fascist?

        No, that’s why I separated the two in my argument.

        I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism.

        How in good faith does a neoliberal doubt the science? They definitely incorrectly doubt the magnitude of change to our society that is required to fix climate change, sure. But the science itself?

        Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism.

        Neoliberalism is part of how those people got to fascism. It’s much easier for a fascist to convince people to adopt fascists positions when they already have neoliberal ideas in their head. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems. It’s a smaller jump to convince neoliberals to change the people in society than it is to convince them to change institutions they believe are infallible.

        This descent into madness has been really hard to watch.

        Yes, but in hindsight it is clear how we got here. Neoliberalism and the right-wing information sphere are two of the major culprits.

        If any of them were to renounce Trump, I’d welcome them eagerly.

        We don’t get this for free though or by comprising all of our positions. Democrats have been trying to reach across the aisle for a while. They failed in this election in large part because of that continued attempt to reach moderate Republicans. What Democrats need is a populist narrative. This will rally people around our side of the issues.

        I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you’re so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent.

        Not if we have to comprise our positions to get them in the tent. We need full speed ahead on climate change action. If we have to go the speed we are now, slower, or backwards like we will be in a few months, then that isn’t a useful alliance.

        I don’t know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?

        I think you’re referring to harm to other living, breathing people. You want to be a part of the big tent? Time to spill the beans on your positions. Whether they’re considered political or otherwise. A bulleted list is fine. edit: typos