US Politics: Does the fat man singing count?

[SFDanny]

On 12/4/2020 at 9:27 AM, Simon Steele said:

Elite progressives. Hm. Look, I want some stats if you're going to say "most." Not "these people that actually count for a million people." I'd actually be more interested in what the DSA is saying about Tanden as they represent the progressive movement most fully around the country. Hell, at this point, with the progressive movement--the people on the ground working--Chapo Traphouse would probably be more accurate at relaying the pulse of the movement than Elizabeth Warren. I don't know their stance, nor care, but the fact you use the elite class as a gauge is where your misunderstanding is coming from.

And, yes, "as noted in your article" meaning "as noted in the article you linked and liked" or whatever. I can't parse the rest of that sentence/paragraph.

Pardon me, but this is a point that often seems to get in the way of any real discussion - whose politics represents the word "progressive"? I have tremendous respect for many people in DSA. They do not, however, represent the broad section of either elected officials or activists who call themselves progressive. They are arguably the largest part of the organized socialist left in the United States after the recent growth of it as an organization, but being a progressive is not defined by a belief in the goal of socialism. Even if some socialists define themselves as part of the progressive movement. A case In point is indeed Elizabeth Warren, who is both a self described progressive and pro-capitalist. She is hardly the only example.

An important case in point is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Obviously, the Caucus includes many more members across a broad ideological spectrum than people who call themselves socialists. As far as I know, there are only two members of the Progressive Caucus who are also members of DSA - Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When we conflate DSA membership with what makes a progressive, or even who leads progressive thought, we make a profoundly sectarian error. 

And as I'm sure you know, Bernie Sanders, himself is not even a member of DSA, and to my knowledge has never been one. I'm not even sure how people can really call him a socialist, although he does. He aspires to bring about a form of "socialism" that is based on capitalist nations with well developed social democratic safety nets. While I would love to have most of those social democratic reforms of US capitalism, it ain't socialism. There is this basic idea of social ownership of the social means of production to what is socialism. Socialism is about power. It is about ownership and control from that ownership, not just a better life under capitalism. As important as that is. But I digress.

Progressivism has a long history in the US, and it is based in the idea that progress can be made for the great majority of people to produce a better life. Inherent in that idea is that it is not just the realm of the Capitalist owners to decide the fate of everyone. Government and the representatives of the working people have a say and can make difference. Both President Roosevelts were progressives. Perhaps the ideological difference between the two expresses the breadth of the progressive idea.

A rather more important comparison is that the progressive idea of making positive change through government intervention in people's lives won the day on November 3rd. Eighty million people plus bought into that idea and kicked out Trump. Objectively, Biden represented that progressive change. That was not an endorsement of socialism. Even if we wish it was. Even if socialists, including the DSA, participated in that effort. It is not even an endorsement of the progressive movement. It is an endorsement for change. The only way to make that change happen is to hold the power of that eighty million people together in a broad coalition that includes people like Neera Tanden and many more people the socialist left don't particularly like.

[DMC]

So sounds like Jaime Harrison is a shoe-in to be the next DNC chair.  Between his plainly demonstrable fundraising abilities and experience as a state party chair he seems like an ideal candidate on paper.  He also spearheaded the DNC's "Every ZIP Code Counts" program, which strongly suggests he'd have a more "50 state" approach to party-building.  I'd still like to hear his own thoughts on the direction and strategy he envisions the DNC employing.

[ThinkerX]

The conservative trolls infesting my Facebook are becoming ever more strident in their insistence that Trump won the election and the Biden's victory is nothing but fraud.  Getting to the point where I'm wondering about violent acts on their part after Biden is sworn in - say a dramatic increase in armed idiots attempting to kidnap governors or shooting up malls or whatnot.  

That said, I've also been contemplating something else.  First, I take it as a given that Trump will be handing out (and maybe selling pardons) to assorted cronies over the next month or so.  Likely, he'll pardon himself, though that might not sit well with the SC (will DMC be able to hear Roberts laughter over his stereo system?) Now...assuming that Trump's efforts to pardon himself flop (likely?  who knows with the current SC?)  that leaves Trump open to federal charges - and potentially cronies who would be compelled to testify against him because their 5th amendment rights went away upon being pardoned.  If my reasoning is correct (don't know) then Trump could be in serious criminal jeopardy - but he's still going to have a rabid fan base.  Hmmm....

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Pardon me, but this is a point that often seems to get in the way of any real discussion - whose politics represents the word "progressive"? I have tremendous respect for many people in DSA. They do not, however, represent the broad section of either elected officials or activists who call themselves progressive. They are arguably the largest part of the organized socialist left in the United States after the recent growth of it as an organization, but being a progressive is not defined by a belief in the goal of socialism. Even if some socialists define themselves as part of the progressive movement. A case In point is indeed Elizabeth Warren, who is both a self described progressive and pro-capitalist. She is hardly the only example.

An important case in point is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Obviously, the Caucus includes many more members across a broad ideological spectrum than people who call themselves socialists. As far as I know, there are only two members of the Progressive Caucus who are also members of DSA - Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When we conflate DSA membership with what makes a progressive, or even who leads progressive thought, we make a profoundly sectarian error. 

And as I'm sure you know, Bernie Sanders, himself is not even a member of DSA, and to my knowledge has never been one. I'm not even sure how people can really call him a socialist, although he does. He aspires to bring about a form of "socialism" that is based on capitalist nations with well developed social democratic safety nets. While I would love to have most of those social democratic reforms of US capitalism, it ain't socialism. There is this basic idea of social ownership of the social means of production to what is socialism. Socialism is about power. It is about ownership and control from that ownership, not just a better life under capitalism. As important as that is. But I digress.

Progressivism has a long history in the US, and it is based in the idea that progress can be made for the great majority of people to produce a better life. Inherent in that idea is that it is not just the realm of the Capitalist owners to decide the fate of everyone. Government and the representatives of the working people have a say and can make difference. Both President Roosevelts were progressives. Perhaps the ideological difference between the two expresses the breadth of the progressive idea.

A rather more important comparison is that the progressive idea of making positive change through government intervention in people's lives won the day on November 3rd. Eighty million people plus bought into that idea and kicked out Trump. Objectively, Biden represented that progressive change. That was not an endorsement of socialism. Even if we wish it was. Even if socialists, including the DSA, participated in that effort. It is not even an endorsement of the progressive movement. It is an endorsement for change. The only way to make that change happen is to hold the power of that eighty million people together in a broad coalition that includes people like Neera Tanden and many more people the socialist left don't particularly like.

My point wasn't that this group was or wasn't progressive, it's that you can cherry pick a group to represent something like "universal praise for Biden's cabinet picks." I was emphasizing that by doing this, you actually remove voices of so many progressives.

The real argument here is the straw manning that so-called liberals do to the progressive branch--such as calling their opposition to members of Biden's potential cabinet "stupid." Like with Neera Tanden, it's because she was mean to progressives that they don't like her, whereas I explained all the valid reasons progressives think she (and many picks) are bad ones. Obama did it recently too in terms of the whole defund the police fiasco. He said, "“The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?” he added. “And if you want to get something done in a democracy, in a country as big and diverse as ours, then you’ve got to be able to meet people where they are. And play a game of addition and not subtraction.” Defund the police is not about "feeling good among the people you already agree with"--it's a black activist message that organically arose from the pain inflicted on the black community. So, Obama's doing the thing where he's generally criticizing someone (I assume congressional progressives who didn't actually use that term in 99 percent of their campaigns) by calling it virtue signaling--when it was and still is a cry for help. It's reducing the complex reasons behind these movements to "you're virtue signaling" or "you're upset Tanden picked on you on Twitter." These are divisive tactics that the neo-liberal core of the Democratic party love taking part in, and then they act like progressives are the bad guys for breaking away from them. 

Either way, this all came from the polemic that progressives criticizing Biden's cabinet picks are likely stupid and don't even know why they dislike those picks. My point about the DSA was to emphasize that the metric of who is progressive and who isn't has excluded a large number of progressives who have legitimate reasons for opposing Biden's cabinet.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Neera Tanden, Biden’s pick for budget chief, runs a think tank backed by corporate and foreign interests

In her nine years helming Washington’s leading liberal think tank, Neera Tanden mingled with deep-pocketed donors who made their fortunes on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in other powerful sectors of corporate America.

At formal pitches and swanky fundraisers, Tanden personally cultivated the bevy of benefactors fueling the $45 million to $50 million annual budget of the Center for American Progress.

...

 

Between 2014 and 2019, CAP received at least $33 million in donations from firms in the financial sector, private foundations primarily funded by wealth earned on Wall Street and in other investment firms, and current or former executives at financial firms such as Bain Capital, Blackstone and Evercore, according to a Washington Post analysis of CAP’s donor disclosures and some of the foundations’ public tax filings. In the same time period, CAP received between $4.9 million and $13 million from Silicon Valley companies and foundations, including Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropic organization.

CAP reports its donations only in wide ranges, making an exact figure impossible to determine. Other notable corporate donors include retail giant Walmart, insurer CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, defense contractor Northrop Grumman and for-profit college operator DeVry Education Group.

...

 

CAP’s ties to corporate and foreign interests are not unique among Washington think tanks. Though frequently cast as independent, scholarly sources of expertise, many think tanks are backed by the same businesses and foreign governments that hire Capitol Hill influence peddlers. These think tanks essentially operate as unregistered lobbyists, reaping the benefits of tax-exempt status while disclosing limited information about their donors.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

My point wasn't that this group was or wasn't progressive, it's that you can cherry pick a group to represent something like "universal praise for Biden's cabinet picks." I was emphasizing that by doing this, you actually remove voices of so many progressives.

The real argument here is the straw manning that so-called liberals do to the progressive branch--such as calling their opposition to members of Biden's potential cabinet "stupid." Like with Neera Tanden, it's because she was mean to progressives that they don't like her, whereas I explained all the valid reasons progressives think she (and many picks) are bad ones. Obama did it recently too in terms of the whole defund the police fiasco. He said, "“The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?” he added. “And if you want to get something done in a democracy, in a country as big and diverse as ours, then you’ve got to be able to meet people where they are. And play a game of addition and not subtraction.” Defund the police is not about "feeling good among the people you already agree with"--it's a black activist message that organically arose from the pain inflicted on the black community. So, Obama's doing the thing where he's generally criticizing someone (I assume congressional progressives who didn't actually use that term in 99 percent of their campaigns) by calling it virtue signaling--when it was and still is a cry for help. It's reducing the complex reasons behind these movements to "you're virtue signaling" or "you're upset Tanden picked on you on Twitter." These are divisive tactics that the neo-liberal core of the Democratic party love taking part in, and then they act like progressives are the bad guys for breaking away from them. 

Either way, this all came from the polemic that progressives criticizing Biden's cabinet picks are likely stupid and don't even know why they dislike those picks. My point about the DSA was to emphasize that the metric of who is progressive and who isn't has excluded a large number of progressives who have legitimate reasons for opposing Biden's cabinet.

My point is that people who call themselves progressive and are quick to exclude people who they disagree with in the broad group of progressives are doing a disservice to the movement for change by attacking Biden's nominations. There is no one yet nominated, and their likely won't be such a person nominated, that merits this kind of sectarian nonsense. It's one thing to push for people you would like to see in the cabinet. It is another thing entirely -  an entirely destructive thing - to attack nominees once their names are put forth and join with the right-wing's joy in weakening this government before it is even constituted. Neera Tanden is not the enemy. But there are real enemies to democracy out there. Let's fight them.

That is fundamentally different from what Obama did. President Obama supports the aims of the very movement that put forward the slogan he was critical of. He just thinks such slogans are self-limiting in building the breadth of the movement needed to make the demands of the movement a reality. He is right. Not that he can change what the leaders of the movement think are the best way to put forth their demands. 

When I was a young man, many years ago, I was involved in many marches to end a war that was obviously unjust and was killing millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans. I also thought that the way to do that was through the most militant demands possible. I found out that there were many who disagreed with me, and that if I didn't listen to others who had a different point of view of what we should be saying, then the movement got a lot smaller than what was needed to actually accomplish stopping that war. It felt good to be militant. It felt even better when the war came to an end because the broad majority of the American people would no longer support it.

"Defund the Police" is, in my opinion, a tactical mistake as a slogan. The idea of changing policing as we know it and how we prioritize the funding of it is an idea that the broad majority of the people of this nation can and will support. We "just" have to be able to build the connections between the people who constitute that broad majority. "Defund the Police" doesn't help do that. That's the point Obama was making.

The problem here however, it seems to me, is both in the formulation of the slogan and the unwarranted reaction to it. Movements develop their slogans and aims through stages, and this slogan maybe changed as it develops, but it is also wrong to blame the slogan for problems of the Democratic Party in the last election. "Defund the Police" was never the slogan of the Democratic Party. It was never the slogan of the Biden/Harris campaign. That Trump seized upon it to push the message that Democrats wanted to get rid of the police in all forms and places isn't surprising in the least. It was a lie, and still is a lie. That is what Trump does. He lies. So the problem is that too many Democratic Candidates were not ready to push the message on social justice / police reform in a way that made sense to many voters. That's the problem of the Democratic Party, not the movement for social justice and police reform. Not the movement to end police killings and brutality. One can criticize the makers of the slogan, but the real problem lies in getting out the message on this subject that reflects the Democratic Party is leading the way forward.

So, when I listen to Obama's criticisms of a slogan by a movement he supports, I understand. When I hear James Carville and others blame Democratic losses on the "Defund the Police" slogan I want to puke.

[Zorral]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/us/politics/trump-presidency-election-loss.html?

My own take on this is any attempt to add shoggoth to the ranks of Shakespeare's or any other classic losers in history is at the same level of joke he's always been.  Macbeth was not a joke.  Nor was Julius Caesar.  Lear only became a pathetic joke in his senile dementia dotage. 

Put Shoggoth into the ranks where he belongs, along with Mugabe. Shoggath isn't even with Duvalier. Though do not get us wrong -- shoggoth's as evil as any of them ever were or dreamed of being, and executed as much damage and horror.  But he was always laffed at by those he tried most to impress, such as Putin, MBS,  and even the guys in Brasil, the Philippines and North Korea.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, SFDanny said:

snip.

 Obama supports ending police brutality so much that he asked the NBA not to go on strike about it.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 Obama supports ending police brutality so much that he asked the NBA not to go on strike about it.

Right, cuz that's an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Obama didn't "ask" NBA players anything - they called him seeking advice.  After, btw, he expressed support for the Bucks strike.  He then advised the players to use their leverage to agree to return to play in exchange for the owners agreeing to establish a social justice committee and take immediate meaningful action, which is what happened:

Quote

Before NBA games returned on Saturday, the league and players association released a joint statement announcing that all teams were working to turn their arena into a safe voting location for the 2020 election in November. Arenas may also be used for voter registration and as ballot receiving boards. It’s a trend we’ve started to see emerge throughout professional sports over the last month to ensure the public can vote in a safe environment during the pandemic.

The league will also work with its network partners to create advertising promoting voting and voter access.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, cuz that's an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Obama didn't "ask" NBA players anything - they called him seeking advice.  After, btw, he expressed support for the Bucks strike.  He then advised the players to use their leverage to agree to return to play in exchange for the owners agreeing to establish a social justice committee and take immediate meaningful action, which is what happened:

 

Yes, much better to have a social justice committee than let the players actually call attention to the issue.  At some point, this isn't disagreeing on 'tactics', it's disagreeing on goals.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yes, much better to have a social justice committee than let the players actually call attention to the issue.  At some point, this isn't disagreeing on 'tactics', it's disagreeing on goals.

Why you think them continuing to strike was going to call further attention to the issue than they already had is beyond me.  I also don't really see how it's disagreeing on "goals" rather than tactics.  Regardless, point is you're completely wrong to say Obama "asked" the players to stop striking.  They asked him for his advice, he gave it, and considering the results they clearly agreed with his advice.  If you wanna disagree with the NBA players and Obama's "tactics," fine, but don't insinuate bullshit like Obama pressured NBA players because he doesn't care about police brutality.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why you think them continuing to strike was going to call further attention to the issue than they already had is beyond me.  I also don't really see how it's disagreeing on "goals" rather than tactics.  Regardless, point is you're completely wrong to say Obama "asked" the players to stop striking.  They asked him for his advice, he gave it, and considering the results they clearly agreed with his advice.  If you wanna disagree with the NBA players and Obama's "tactics," fine, but don't insinuate bullshit like Obama pressured NBA players because he doesn't care about police brutality.

 

Fine, he didn't ask - he advised.  That's a distinction without a difference.

I'm sure he cares about police brutality, just not as much as he does about watching sports or not rocking the boat.   .  

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Fine, he didn't ask - he advised.  That's a distinction without a difference.

Being asked for advice is definitely an important difference than asking the players to stop striking - which he didn't actually do to begin with.  Acting like "it's a distinction without a difference" is either entirely disingenuous or incredibly stupid.  Just like you ridiculously asserting he cares more about watching basketball or "not rocking the boat."

ETA:  Here's LeBron's own recounting of what happened, certainly doesn't sound like a "distinction without a difference" - 

Quote

"Milwaukee was playing Orlando that day and then I believe OKC and Houston for the next game and then our game was the last game I think, it was just us versus Portland," James said on the show. “So when Milwaukee did what they did, and rightfully so, we understood that there was no way that none of us can go on the floor. We stand as a brotherhood. We are a brotherhood in our league and we stood with the Milwaukee Bucks and what they wanted to do."

James shared how much he appreciated the leadership and guidance Obama provided him during that time.

"But there was a time that we wanted to leave too, the Lakers and myself included," James continued. "We were ready to leave and we were trying to figure out if we leave or if we stay, what is our plan? What is our call to action? I am lucky enough to have a friend in the 44th president that allowed me and allowed CP (Chris Paul) to get on the phone with him and get guidance.”

 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

 Obama supports ending police brutality so much that he asked the NBA not to go on strike about it.

imp or troll? which is it Larry? You get to decide.

[GrimTuesday]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Being asked for advice is definitely an important difference than asking the players to stop striking - which he didn't actually do to begin with.  Acting like "it's a distinction without a difference" is either entirely disingenuous or incredibly stupid.  Just like you ridiculously asserting he cares more about watching basketball or "not rocking the boat."

ETA:  Here's LeBron's own recounting of what happened, certainly doesn't sound like a "distinction without a difference" - 

 

I honestly don't think that he is one to look to for bold leadership on basically anything based on his track record. Let me preface this with the fact that we all like Obama, and I believe him when he says that he supports the cause of racial justice but he is no activist. He is the type who wants to see a reasonable chance of success before he will stick his neck out and if he thinks that the wind shifts, he'll pull back. Now, this isn't always a bad thing, people like that can be useful as deal makers and middle men in political bargaining, but that type of person does not drive change. Obama is the type of person you want when the time comes to get something across the finish line, not the person running a movement.

I read in an article that Obama is fond of telling people an anecdote about FDR where while talking to a labor organizer, he was purported to have said something along the lines of "I agree with you. Now, make me do it", and I think that sums up Obama perfectly.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I honestly don't think that he is one to look to for bold leadership on basically anything based on his track record. Let me preface this with the fact that we all like Obama, and I believe him when he says that he supports the cause of racial justice but he is no activist.

Yeah I really don't care to get into an argument on the pros and cons of Obama's style of leadership, particularly in the specific context of the NBA players' reaction to the Kenosha shooting.  All I was pushing back on was the implication Obama in any way pressured the NBA players to cease striking and especially the absurdity that he cares more about watching basketball than combatting police brutality.

[DireWolfSpirit]

13 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

I honestly don't think that he is one to look to for bold leadership on basically anything based on his track record. Let me preface this with the fact that we all like Obama, and I believe him when he says that he supports the cause of racial justice but he is no activist. He is the type who wants to see a reasonable chance of success before he will stick his neck out and if he thinks that the wind shifts, he'll pull back. Now, this isn't always a bad thing, people like that can be useful as deal makers and middle men in political bargaining, but that type of person does not drive change. Obama is the type of person you want when the time comes to get something across the finish line, not the person running a movement.

I read in an article that Obama is fond of telling people an anecdote about FDR where while talking to a labor organizer, he was purported to have said something along the lines of "I agree with you. Now, make me do it", and I think that sums up Obama perfectly.

I've heard Amy Goodman tell this story, she's even better than Obama at it lol.

Here it is in a article-

This relates to a story she had told earlier in the night, a story about A. Phillip Randolph and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Randolph, a prominent rights leader, met with President Roosevelt and detailed the solutions he wanted to see in order to combat the problems of poverty and discrimination. Roosevelt listened, and finally said, “I agree with you, now go out and make me do it.”

https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2016/04/journalist-amy-goodman-inspires-students-to-get-involved

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Neera Tanden, Biden’s pick for budget chief, runs a think tank backed by corporate and foreign interests

 

 

A good friend of mine from college works at Bain Capital. Should I not talk to him again?

Big money will always have a seat at the table. This is life. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

I honestly don't think that he is one to look to for bold leadership on basically anything based on his track record. Let me preface this with the fact that we all like Obama, and I believe him when he says that he supports the cause of racial justice but he is no activist. He is the type who wants to see a reasonable chance of success before he will stick his neck out and if he thinks that the wind shifts, he'll pull back. Now, this isn't always a bad thing, people like that can be useful as deal makers and middle men in political bargaining, but that type of person does not drive change. Obama is the type of person you want when the time comes to get something across the finish line, not the person running a movement.

I read in an article that Obama is fond of telling people an anecdote about FDR where while talking to a labor organizer, he was purported to have said something along the lines of "I agree with you. Now, make me do it", and I think that sums up Obama perfectly.

What?

This is laugh out loud bonkers and captures everything that is wrong with the radical left. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

A good friend of mine from college works at Bain Capital. Should I not talk to him again?

Big money will always have a seat at the table. This is life. 

Wow, your friendship to a Bain Capital employee is an exactly analogous situation to Tanden's, and having been made aware of it I now I recant and accept that we should never, ever point out Democrats' ties to moneyed interests.