US Politics - It's a new dawn. It's a new day. It's a new life for US

[Fez]

Fucking bullshit from SCOTUS...

Not only are they saying it's okay to run out the clock on crimes, but the case isn't even moot! This means Trump gets to keep the money!

[Guy Kilmore]

24 minutes ago, Fez said:

Fucking bullshit from SCOTUS...

Not only are they saying it's okay to run out the clock on crimes, but the case isn't even moot! This means Trump gets to keep the money!

Horrible precedent just set there.  

[SFDanny]

This is interesting: Portman isn't running in 2022

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

I won't respond to all of this because @DMC already did so in much greater detail than I could. But I do want to whole-heartedly agree with the bolded. It was kind of my whole point about US Liberalism, but you put it in such memorable and succinct terms.

As to the underline section, I picked West's attack on Obama for a reason. West is a figure, not only associated with the Sanders campaign, but he also has influence among the US Left because of his teaching and writings on civil rights and racism. His approach to Obama is a glaring example of the sectarianism of sections of the Left. The purity politics, if you will, of important parts of the Left. So, I don't dismiss his remarks or influence. He is, however, but one example of this problem.

Let me just say again, I approach these question from my experience as a trade union activist, now retired. Not as an academic. My views are shaped by being one of many helping to build coalitions of people to try to make the lives of working people, like myself, a little better. In that effort I learned the value of the old lefty idea of the united front. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which works well if one can see who is the greatest threat to working folks and differentiate between them and those with whom one might have serious disagreements. It's easy in the Trade Union context, because it almost always starts with the boss. It sometimes gets trickier in the broader social context because the question of getting rid of bosses altogether is seldom on the immediate agenda. 

But my experience is not only in the trade union movement. I have been active in my life in many different movements starting with my youthful experiences in marching against the War in Vietnam. All of which shaped my views and disdain for sectarian politics.

It seems to me obvious that there is a real fascist threat in this country, and that threat continues to be the main enemy of working people and people of all classes who value basic democratic rights. So I tend to get quite impatient with my fellow leftists who conflate allies with enemies. Labeling both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama as neo-liberals is but one example of this unfortunate tendency. Especially when the danger to us all is so very real. So, let me be very clear. In my view Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and most liberal politicians are allies in this struggle. And Cornel West or Bernie Sanders or the Green Party are not enemies. I don't think that is an analysis that I can take credit for, but it is one I believe in.

Donald Trump, Senators Cruz and Hawley, and Qnon, the Proud Boys, the militias, and the Nazis and the Klan are the enemy. The question is will the people who just united to throw Trump out of office stay together to finish the job? Or will we form a circular firing squad and destroy ourselves?

I beg you indulgence with my soapbox style of presentation, but it is a lifelong habit and is not easy to break.

This post is less directed at you specifically, and more at the mainstream Dems in general:

Get over it, neo-liberal isn't a fucking slur.  Slur is another word that means a few different things.  In a political context, I think we might be more careful about using it to label something, especially when it's used to defend the establishment over people representing oppressed groups.

I don't think it's fair to label West's critiques of Obama as sectarianism and purity politics.  Especially when he's seen the Dems wave black americans around like mascots and then fuck them over when it's convenient.  Just because they do it less than the GOP doesn't mean West owes them shit.  The Dem party leadership, including Obama, has come up short on issues like police brutality.  And income inequality.  Sure, Obama got the DOJ to investigate things like systemic police violence but he was terrible on things like Standing Rock and amping up drone warfare.  I don't think you get to point the finger at West who is asking the Left to do better. 

His use of the term neo-liberal was, from what I recall, specifically used to describe backing of the MIC, systemic racism, and warlike behavior abroad.  He was really clear about why he supported Stein over Clinton in 2016, and it was all about foreign policy.  

The mainstream Dems have a really long history of shitty anti-social behavior.  I understand the appeal of utilitarianism but you don't get to tell Cornell West he has to always back a guy like Joe Biden or give him the benefit of the doubt after voting for the Iraq War, the credit bill (black people with student debt have on average $25k more in outstanding loans), lying about getting arrested while trying to visit Nelson Mandela, or trying to find common ground with segregationists when possible.  

Neo-liberal isn't a slur, it might be an insult or a label but don't come after West with that argument.  Just because the Dems put up a better alternative than the GOP for shit doesn't mean Cornell West owes them obedience and default agreement. 

Especially when he voted for and supported Joe Biden.  That's being an ally.  Don't claim that West is labelling Biden an enemy (i realize you didn't but that's the implication).  It doesn't mean he has to shut his mouth and reflexively defend every thing Biden does.  West has every right to be suspicious of Clinton or Biden.  

edit: you can quibble I the right definition of the word, but don't make the implied argument that Cornell West is 'slurring' mainstream Dems by saying neo-liberal.  We know what his critiques are. No need to dismiss that as a 'slur' or tone police a guy trying to make the world better.  

[Fragile Bird]

34 minutes ago, Fez said:

Fucking bullshit from SCOTUS...

Not only are they saying it's okay to run out the clock on crimes, but the case isn't even moot! This means Trump gets to keep the money!

Oh. So the President is free to break laws all through his presidency and never face prosecution because the DoJ has declared he can't be prosecuted, and then afterwards it's moot. Kinda like the argument the Republicans are making about impeachment, it's moot now.

Lovely, very lovely! 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

I won't respond to all of this because @DMC already did so in much greater detail than I could. But I do want to whole-heartedly agree with the bolded. It was kind of my whole point about US Liberalism, but you put it in such memorable and succinct terms.

As to the underline section, I picked West's attack on Obama for a reason. West is a figure, not only associated with the Sanders campaign, but he also has influence among the US Left because of his teaching and writings on civil rights and racism. His approach to Obama is a glaring example of the sectarianism of sections of the Left. The purity politics, if you will, of important parts of the Left. So, I don't dismiss his remarks or influence. He is, however, but one example of this problem.

Let me just say again, I approach these question from my experience as a trade union activist, now retired. Not as an academic. My views are shaped by being one of many helping to build coalitions of people to try to make the lives of working people, like myself, a little better. In that effort I learned the value of the old lefty idea of the united front. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which works well if one can see who is the greatest threat to working folks and differentiate between them and those with whom one might have serious disagreements. It's easy in the Trade Union context, because it almost always starts with the boss. It sometimes gets trickier in the broader social context because the question of getting rid of bosses altogether is seldom on the immediate agenda. 

But my experience is not only in the trade union movement. I have been active in my life in many different movements starting with my youthful experiences in marching against the War in Vietnam. All of which shaped my views and disdain for sectarian politics.

It seems to me obvious that there is a real fascist threat in this country, and that threat continues to be the main enemy of working people and people of all classes who value basic democratic rights. So I tend to get quite impatient with my fellow leftists who conflate allies with enemies. Labeling both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama as neo-liberals is but one example of this unfortunate tendency. Especially when the danger to us all is so very real. So, let me be very clear. In my view Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and most liberal politicians are allies in this struggle. And Cornel West or Bernie Sanders or the Green Party are not enemies. I don't think that is an analysis that I can take credit for, but it is one I believe in.

Donald Trump, Senators Cruz and Hawley, and Qnon, the Proud Boys, the militias, and the Nazis and the Klan are the enemy. The question is will the people who just united to throw Trump out of office stay together to finish the job? Or will we form a circular firing squad and destroy ourselves?

I beg you indulgence with my soapbox style of presentation, but it is a lifelong habit and is not easy to break.

I have to assume that you not engaging with my responses in a debate you called me into means you either are accepting my points and arguing in bad faith, or you have decided for some arbitrary reason not to respond. I had intended to let it go, but your posts on this are fallacious--specifically, let's look at your point about Cornell West. You wrote, "West is a figure, not only associated with the Sanders campaign, but he also has influence among the US Left because of his teaching and writings on civil rights and racism. His approach to Obama is a glaring example of the sectarianism of sections of the Left. The purity politics, if you will, of important parts of the Left. So, I don't dismiss his remarks or influence. He is, however, but one example of this problem." You use a term purely created to dismiss leftist views (unlike your issue with "neoliberalism" which I have fully explained is the appropriate term used to describe modern Democrats, is not a slur, and you're conflating correlation and causation), yet simultaneously say that's okay. The problem here, for me, is that to say supporting West's worldview--that we choose people over corporation--is a "purity test." This is not a fucking purity test. This is literally about the lives of people. Some of us have suffered greatly under the current healthcare structure of the US. People watch friends and family sometimes go bankrupt, sometimes die. If that's "purity" then fuck everyone who isn't pure--they're all low-key sociopaths.

Also, BECAUSE liberalism and neoliberalism on a purely denotative level are nearly identical is more than enough reason why the term neoliberal is necessary in critiquing the democratic party. The vast majority of people in this country conflate "liberalism" with "leftism" so the distinction of neoliberalism (again, not a slur, and you've not shown any evidence that it is) is necessary when critiquing liberals from the left. 

ETA: Also, sectarian politics is not being created on the left. It's created because the "liberals" in control have shut out people who need help.

Because these voices are feeling so silenced by your line of "unity politics"--what you're about to see over the next two to four years (I base this on leaders on the left and the work they're now currently engaging in) is creating and using a third party to leverage power. This actually works quite well in a lot of European countries, but the insanity of people in the US and their adherence to no "purity" or "working together even if it means you get nothing" means we are in for a decade of terrible elected officials like Trump. 

Biden may be the best possible option to stave this off right now as he's actually including leftist voices here and there, but if people keep harping on this tone policing nonsense, we're in for a rough future.

@DMC So, you 've taken three whole seminars and never heard it mentioned. Wow. What's that prove? I'm taking my 9th research methods and statistics course (a minor in this is required for my degree), and four to five different professors--or statisticians currently working in academia--have looked at the money balling of political polling as one of the worst implementations of statistical research methods in the modern era. Guess what? Who care. You use your position as a grad student as though you have some privileged position to choose what information actually holds value. I suppose, you'll fit right in with the academic world of the 1950s, but I have to tell you--the privileging of your specific academic experience is a little offensive.  

[Mindwalker]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oh. So the President is free to break laws all through his presidency and never face prosecution because the DoJ has declared he can't be prosecuted, and then afterwards it's moot. Kinda like the argument the Republicans are making about impeachment, it's moot now.

Lovely, very lovely! 

Wow. So he won't even pay for his state crimes...

[DMC]

58 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

This is interesting: Portman isn't running in 2022

Considering where he's situated can't be too surprising.  He was almost certainly going to face a tough primary and tough general challenge.  And considering where the GOP is going compared to where he's at, it makes sense he'd say fuck it/it's not worth it.  Should make for a very interesting open seat race though.  And, I guess this makes it far more likely he votes to convict Trump, not that it matters.  Where it could matter is if Biden is actually successfully in finding some "bipartisan" support.  Could see this presage him getting on board with an immigration bill.

59 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

His use of the term neo-liberal was, from what I recall, specifically used to describe backing of the MIC, systemic racism, and warlike behavior abroad.  He was really clear about why he supported Stein over Clinton in 2016, and it was all about foreign policy.

Yeah I think using the term to describe the foreign policy consensus, as well as racial injustice and perpetuating global economic inequality, is a much more salient critique.  There's a clear through line there from post-WWII to today in which such a consensus/status quo remains relatively unchanged/stable.  Applying it to the domestic/economic policy of the Democratic party since FDR is where I have issues.

34 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

@DMC So, you 've taken three whole seminars and never heard it mentioned. Wow. What's that prove? I'm taking my 9th research methods and statistics course (a minor in this is required for my degree), and four to five different professors--or statisticians currently working in academia--have looked at the money balling of political polling as one of the worst implementations of statistical research methods in the modern era. Guess what? Who care. You use your position as a grad student as though you have some privileged position to choose what information actually holds value. I suppose, you'll fit right in with the academic world of the 1950s, but I have to tell you--the privileging of your specific academic experience is a little offensive. 

What the hell?  I was relating that in my experience political philosophers don't really care about this argument or the term - one way or another.  That wasn't even taking a position on the argument.  I don't know why you have such a problem with me discussing my personal experience regarding political philosophy when discussing a debate about political philosophy.  Or even mentioning that experience entailed my graduate student career.  Seems like this guy did the same exact thing:

On 1/23/2021 at 5:20 PM, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Indeed, how we define neoliberalism is complicated. The first time I really came across and analyzed this term was while I worked on my MA.

It's telling you focused on trying to make this a personal argument instead of responding to any of the substantive content in the subsequent dozen paragraphs of my post.  Especially telling for someone who's frequently admonishing me for being too adversarial and dismissive - urging me to be less combative and more civil while focusing on the substance of arguments.

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Oh. So the President is free to break laws all through his presidency and never face prosecution because the DoJ has declared he can't be prosecuted, and then afterwards it's moot. Kinda like the argument the Republicans are making about impeachment, it's moot now.

Lovely, very lovely! 

What a mockery this makes of America's supposed "vaunted system of checks and balances".

That term can be retired to the ash heap of fake slogans, there has been no credible checks on this outlaw Presidency, no consequences to his crimes and no balances when the other 2 branches have been in league with him the whole way.

What a disgrace.

[Fury Resurrected]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Fucking bullshit from SCOTUS...

Not only are they saying it's okay to run out the clock on crimes, but the case isn't even moot! This means Trump gets to keep the money!

If I steal money from my job and quit, the case is then moot?

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, Fury Resurrected said:

If I steal money from my job and quit, the case is then moot?

Of course not, that only applies if you're rich.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

51 minutes ago, DMC said:

Considering where he's situated can't be too surprising.  He was almost certainly going to face a tough primary and tough general challenge.  And considering where the GOP is going compared to where he's at, it makes sense he'd say fuck it/it's not worth it.  Should make for a very interesting open seat race though.  And, I guess this makes it far more likely he votes to convict Trump, not that it matters.  Where it could matter is if Biden is actually successfully in finding some "bipartisan" support.  Could see this presage him getting on board with an immigration bill.

Yeah I think using the term to describe the foreign policy consensus, as well as racial injustice and perpetuating global economic inequality, is a much more salient critique.  There's a clear through line there from post-WWII to today in which such a consensus/status quo remains relatively unchanged/stable.  Applying it to the domestic/economic policy of the Democratic party since FDR is where I have issues.

What the hell?  I was relating that in my experience political philosophers don't really care about this argument or the term - one way or another.  That wasn't even taking a position on the argument.  I don't know why you have such a problem with me discussing my personal experience regarding political philosophy when discussing a debate about political philosophy.  Or even mentioning that experience entailed my graduate student career.  Seems like this guy did the same exact thing:

It's telling you focused on trying to make this a personal argument instead of responding to any of the substantive content in the subsequent dozen paragraphs of my post.  Especially telling for someone who's frequently admonishing me for being too adversarial and dismissive - urging me to be less combative and more civil while focusing on the substance of arguments.

Because when I used my experience, it was to build on what we know, when you use it, it's purely dismissive.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Because when I used my experience, it was to build on what we know, when you use it, it's purely dismissive.

Right, I was being dismissive of the argument by writing a dozen paragraph post on it.

[Week]

3 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Dominion sues Giuliani, too. For 1.3 billion. Dear Dominion, please don't settle!

And shouldn't they sue T and Don jr., too?

I wonder if this is a strategy that builds up to a case against Fox News. It's a strong case on it's merits so far and will then uncover a lot in discovery. Based on what I've read about the breadth and detail in the case - they seem to be going after the 'little fish' first.

https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1353716125834612736

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah, when I want to insult the Dems I don't like, I agree that neo-liberal is disappointingly vague and nebulous.  I'm sure I've said it a few times over the years, but I try to be better.  I now try to use words language like "corporate shill" "imperialist" "war monger" or "deficit hawk".  

Those you've listed work for me and directly point to the damning behavior.

@Centrist Simon Steele to pretend that "neoliberal" isn't used as a slur is pretty absurd. That is often* the intent even if used as a euphemism.

*Often - it's pretty clear from context (i.e. conflating Reagan and Obama - as DMC pointed out)

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Just now, DMC said:

Right, I was being dismissive of the argument by writing a dozen paragraph post on it.

I'm telling you how your response reads. It's that you've never heard anyone in your area use the term and you question it's use because of that. That's dismissing the term. If you removed that section from your multi-paragraph response, your overall message would have remained the same, correct? So why include it? I used my experience to show that I agree with @SFDanny that the term itself it complex and can be misused, but that I don't believe it is (in most cases) being misused. To me, this whole debate is a way of ignoring the left of the party by dismissing the approach of their argument or their character.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

I wonder if this is a strategy that builds up to a case against Fox News. It's a strong case on it's merits so far and will then uncover a lot in discovery. Based on what I've read about the breadth and detail in the case - they seem to be going after the 'little fish' first.

https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1353716125834612736

Those you've listed work for me and directly point to the damning behavior.

@Centrist Simon Steele to pretend that "neoliberal" isn't used as a slur is pretty absurd. That is often* the intent even if used as a euphemism.

*Often - it's pretty clear from context (i.e. conflating Reagan and Obama - as DMC pointed out)

Reagan and Obama were both actively in support of the free market--that's not a conflation of the two. It's showing they shared a neoliberal approach to governance. I don't recall that anyone called Obama Reagan. They are not the same. Their active support of the free market is the same. 

I think the response from @larrytheimp about a page back is what I'd point you to for a rebuttal that it's a slur. Whenever you accuse people like me of "purity politics" is that a slur too? (Answer: no)

[Kalbear]

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Obamacare basically boiled down to, we're going to give the insurance industry a bunch of subsidies so that they offer plans to the poors. If you leave aside the patient protection act aspect of things, this is the government transferring tax payer dollars into the pockets of the insurance industry in order to  the absurd cost of insurance in this country.

It's really not this. 

The problem as I've mentioned before is that a whole lot of people in this country like their insurance and do not want to lose it. You can say that they're stupid for that (they aren't) or that you need them to move on and get on board (that's more fair) but a whole lot of people out there did not want to lose their existing insurance through their employers because it was both what they were familiar with and in a lot of cases actually pretty fucking awesome. 

So getting rid of their insurance completely? Not really feasible as an immediate solution. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I'm telling you how your response reads. It's that you've never heard anyone in your area use the term and you question it's use because of that.

I wasn't questioning its use.  If you actually read the paragraph, it started out by me saying there's no "correct" or "accurate" conceptual definition of neoliberalism.  That is why I mentioned my experience - to illustrate that from my understanding of political philosophy debates, there is no consensus on the "accurate" definition of neoliberalism.  Which, frankly, isn't a very controversial point, but one I wanted to emphasize off the bat because the immediate previous post was using the verbiage of "accuracy" and "correct."  That was the reason for its inclusion.  You trying to make a personal issue out of it by assuming some nefarious motives is completely uncalled for.

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Reagan and Obama were both actively in support of the free market--that's not a conflation of the two. It's showing they shared a neoliberal approach to governance. I don't recall that anyone called Obama Reagan. They are not the same. Their active support of the free market is the same. 

I think the response from @larrytheimp about a page back is what I'd point you to for a rebuttal that it's a slur. Whenever you accuse people like me of "purity politics" is that a slur too? (Answer: no)

That is an extremely reductive comparison of the two that serves no meaning other than to tie an unpopular Republican to a popular Democrat in an attack from the Left. 

"Their active support of the free market", again this has no meaning. That has been the MO for the history of the United States - nearly 100% of MCs, Presidents, etc. So, you have to mean something that is not altogether apparent from the language used here. Otherwise the response is, well, duh.

[TrueMetis]

16 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Reagan and Obama were both actively in support of the free market--that's not a conflation of the two. It's showing they shared a neoliberal approach to governance. I don't recall that anyone called Obama Reagan. They are not the same. Their active support of the free market is the same. 

I think the response from @larrytheimp about a page back is what I'd point you to for a rebuttal that it's a slur. Whenever you accuse people like me of "purity politics" is that a slur too? (Answer: no)

Could I ask you to define what you mean by free market here? Cause "support free markets" does not actually mean "neoliberal" neoliberal is an explicitly capitalist stance, but free market isn't. Free market socialism exists, and if you've ever spoken with anarchists many will happily tell you they're in favour of free markets. Given they want to abolish the state some will argue they're more in favour of free markets than capitalists.

And outside of just free market socialism and free market capitalism, there's those who argue that the free market isn't about government interference, indeed some of them argued that government interference was a requirement to ensure a free market.

So "Reagan and Obama were both actively in support of the free market" sure I'll buy that for the sake of argument. But did they mean the same thing when they say free market? I certainly don't think so. Reagan wanted deregulation, a key concept of both free market capitalism and neoliberalism, Obama didn't.