Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Week]

13 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Would you take Mitt Romney, Joe Manchin, Hochul?

Angus King, Sinema ...

I'd describe as socially liberal with conservative economics and politics.

(Sometimes)saying the 'right' things while not being willing to change the status quo. I.e., not removing the debt ceiling, not adding to/packing the court, putting some actual teeth in the DoJ instead of Merrick, etc.

[DanteGabriel]

Strangely, I hear "centrist" most often from (white male) right wingers to describe themselves. They don't believe in parties, just in good sense policies. Then it'll come out in further discussion that they've never voted for a Democrat, they think women make too much fuss about abortion access, and that minorities should quiet down and recognize how good they have it.

[JGP]

Feels like Centrist's become more of a dirty label for those more willing to accommodate political compromise. Or so it seemed in the Leftie circles I followed before I deactivated my Twitter.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

. So the term "centrist" really doesn't tell me much about what position a person actually advocates.

 

On some issues, or areas of policy, sure.  But in others, say economics, it tells me quite a bit. 

Or when discussing a political spectrum that includes say, other wealthy democracies, it's pretty easy to a spectrum of policy choices and label them "left, right, center".

And more broadly, a centrist is someone who strongly supports the status quo, and when willing to make some changes wants to do it slowly, with broad consensus, and without changing any power structures or wealth distribution. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Strangely, I hear "centrist" most often from (white male) right wingers to describe themselves. They don't believe in parties, just in good sense policies. Then it'll come out in further discussion that they've never voted for a Democrat, they think women make too much fuss about abortion access, and that minorities should quiet down and recognize how good they have it.

I think I’m a genuine “centrist”.  I also think I stepped back from the “right wing” quite some time ago.  I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, Abortion rights are important, and minorities have every right and reason to demand equal treatment.

Edited July 7 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Week]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think I’m a genuine “centrist”.  I also think I stepped back from the “right wing” quite some time ago.  I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, Abortion rights are important, and minorities have every right and reason to demand equal treatment.

Do you support both enshrining those rights as well as aggressive action to support those rights? (i.e., putting abortion clinic on federal land in states that are restricting abortion)

Or just fundraising/teeth gnashing over deaths due to lack of care or abuse of minorities (including those lacking documentation)?

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think I’m a genuine “centrist”.  I also think I stepped back from the “right wing” quite some time ago.  I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, Abortion rights are important, and minorities have every right and reason to demand equal treatment.

I think within two years we'll have you in linen pants, rocking a hippie beard and voting for Jill Stein. 

Edited July 7 by TrackerNeil

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

33 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think within two years we'll have you in linen pants, rocking a hippie beard and voting for Jill Stein. 

Jill stein… is unlikely. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

49 minutes ago, Week said:

Do you support both enshrining those rights as well as aggressive action to support those rights? (i.e., putting abortion clinic on federal land in states that are restricting abortion)

Or just fundraising/teeth gnashing over deaths due to lack of care or abuse of minorities (including those lacking documentation)?

Yes… I’m ready to enshrine the right to abortion in federal law.  Lacking documentation?  What?

[Week]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes… I’m ready to enshrine the right to abortion in federal law.  Lacking documentation?  What?

*Undocumented immigrants.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, Week said:

*Undocumented immigrants.

Yes.  Everyone in the US has rights.  That has always been my position.

[Zorral]

 

 “Centrism isn’t change — not even incremental change. It is *control*" as somebody somewhere said (not me -- not smart enough to say that).

Edited July 7 by Zorral

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 

 “Centrism isn’t change — not even incremental change. It is *control*" as somebody somewhere said (not me -- not smart enough to say that).

So… radicalism… or nothing?

[Zorral]

Since when is radicalism the antithesis? Or, at least the only anthesis?  Radicalism is that because that is the stance of centerism about any change at all.  Centerism means status quo, for me, and for mine.

Edited July 7 by Zorral

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Since when is radicalism the antithesis? Or, at least the only anthesis?  Radicalism is that because that is the stance of centerism about any change at all.  Centerism means status quo, for me, and for mine.

If not radicalism… what?

[Zorral]

52 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If not radicalism… what?

Morality? Equality? Honesty? Ethics? Education? All of these are considered radical too, so we'll just stick with the status quo which has an ever accelerating contraction of opportunity for absolutely everyone who isn't white and obscenely wealthy men, while everyone else has more oppression, repression, murder, starvation, etc.

But seriously, folks, can you point to anything in the last 100 years (since the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement, which were anything but centerist, and labeled extreme radicalism and communism by those who were centrist),  where whatever you all think centerism is has actually progressed civil liberties and opportunities, and lessened oppression for anyone who was a white wealth man?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Morality? Equality? Honesty? Ethics? Education? All of these are considered radical too, so we'll just stick with the status quo which has an ever accelerating contraction of opportunity for absolutely everyone who isn't white and obscenely wealthy men, while everyone else has more oppression, repression, murder, starvation, etc.

But seriously, folks, can you point to anything in the last 100 years (since the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement, which were anything but centerist, and labeled extreme radicalism and communism by those who were centrist),  where whatever you all think centerism is has actually progressed civil liberties and opportunities, and lessened oppression for anyone who was a white wealth man?

The new deal wasn’t radicalism.  If anything it was a center left move.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The new deal wasn’t radicalism.

Tell that to the corporations of the time.  Tell that to the corps who were determined not to help out Britain against the nazis, before extremism on that side forced the US essentially to the extremism of declaring war on Japan and entering the war in Europe, when Roosevelt was determined to loan military materiel to the nations attacked by Germany and Mussolini.  They screamed frackin' blood murder.  And, they've been screaming ever since, rolling it all back at every possible turn, at every possible increment.

Have you read the histories of time?  Have you even read a single biography of Eleanor Roosevelt and the abuse she received just by herself, regardless of her husband?  In fact, many to this day blame it all on her.

Edited July 8 by Zorral

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

37 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Tell that to the corporations of the time.  Tell that to the corps who were determined not to help out Britain against the nazis, before extremism on that side forced the US essentially to the extremism of declaring war on Japan and entering the war in Europe, when Roosevelt was determined to loan military materiel to the nations attacked by Germany and Mussolini.  They screamed frackin' blood murder.  And, they've been screaming ever since, rolling it all back at every possible turn, at every possible increment.

Have you read the histories of time?  Have you even read a single biography of Eleanor Roosevelt and the abuse she received just by herself, regardless of her husband?  In fact, many to this day blame it all on her.

I’m aware of how FDR was attacked.  I’m also aware he won election to the Oval Office 4 times.

[Zorral]

Because he wasn't a centrist -- he dared to DO, and even though he didn't get what all was wanted and needed, as Eleanor advocated for all the time  -- what he got was was called communism. NOT CENTRISM.

Bu the way, what do you call Truman's decision to nuke Japan: centrism or extremism.

What it always looks like to someone from the outside, when it comes to actual extremism, centrists call, "We had no choice."

Others also see, "No choice."

Edited July 8 by Zorral