this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
180 points (67.8% liked)
Political Memes
6253 readers
3764 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Could you summarize his reasoning? A podcast isn’t accessible for a lot of people browsing Lemmy. I’m also not prepared to simply defer to an “expert” when it comes to political science.
I’m skeptical. It doesn’t make much sense to me that the US would be further right under HRC than Trump, who caused a generational shift to the right and literally tried to overthrow the government. Or that the US would be further left under Trump than Biden. Under Biden, we’ve seen some of the most muscular regulation of corporations in a generation.
The North Korean defector in this meme is also celebrated by the alt-right for her “anti-woke” ramblings, which has me questioning this angle.
The FTC has been in the news for proposing an extremely progressive legal theory of anti-trust called the New Brandeis school. They’ve sued Meta, Google, Microsoft, and many others on anti-trust grounds. Biden appointed the main and most progressive legal theorist behind the movement, Lina Khan, surprising even progressives.
We probably also need new legislation if and when democrats retake congress, but the will is certainly there if voters will reward it.
Really you can’t find a single one? What do you think the policies of the FTC in relation to what it will sue over is? It’s a regulation. Because it’s a regulatory agency regulating an industry. I honestly don’t even know what you would want the FTC to do. There is a consensus that they have been surprisingly active.
I don’t know what you think a “regulation” is, or what you mean by “crafting new ones”. Your question doesn’t make much sense to me.
If you’re asking in good faith and wanting to learn, not just win an internet argument, let’s get into it. The pro-corporate anti-trust standard since the Reagan years is called the “Consumer Welfare standard”. According to that standard, to simplify, a merger is bad if it leads to market inefficiency or higher prices for consumers. It’s a hyper libertarian standard. It is notoriously hard to prove and has led to massive concentration of the market.
The New Brandeis School takes a broader look at the market harms, such as harms to the labor market or to market platform choice. That means, to simplify, that a greater range of corporate behavior is deemed unacceptable that we’re previously considered fine. When corporations are found violating the new standard, they are sued by the FTC, and the courts decide the penalty. So your question doesn’t make sense. Change in enforcement regimes is what a regulation is.
I’m not even sure what this means. Bill Clinton was not exactly pals with Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich. I’m not sure why or how Clinton would have ushered them into power. What was the devil we knew?
Telecommunications Act 1996
What happened to the other cow? It was aliens, wasn’t it?
You still going on about ol’ hilldawg?
No, but the post I responded to was
If I had Musk’s kind of money I would pay for Hilldawg to be the next republican nominee and sit back and watch the show on a private island.
His premise is that both Democrats and Republicans are corporatists that will resort to fascism to stave off any movement from the worker class in America. He teaches political science. This has nothing to do with the North Korean meme lady.
Nothing you said supports the claim that voting for the “lesser evil” always pushes the economy further right.
Voting for abolition ended slavery. Voting for pro civil rights party got us civil rights. Voting for pro-labor politicians got us labor protections and the new deal. And in recent years, Trump oversaw the greatest transfer of wealth to the elite rich in history, while Biden has installed the most aggressively progressive FTC in a century. Against this history of obvious progress, what actual evidence does this guy cite?
During the civil war, not at the ballot box.
After years of protests and violence, not at the ballot box.
After years of social movements, strikes, violence and a the Great Depression. Not at the ballot box.
Most significant political changes in America happen in the streets, not at the ballot box.
It was obviously both. The violence without actually implementing the political policies would have been pointless.
Show me an example where voting for the lesser evil leads to the adoption of more right wing policies. That is the specific claim you are supposedly defending.
It’s not my opinion, it’s August Nimtz’s. I do agree with it though. FDR did the New Deal. Lincoln did the Emancipation, LBJ did civil rights. Public opinion was a factor, but it was the threat of social unrest that enacted them. As for the example of right wing policies, each Democrat caters to corporations. Maybe not as much as the Republicans, but they still do. After Reagan, we voted for the lesser evil Clinton, who did Welfare Reform and repealed Glass-Steagall. After Bush, we voted for the lesser evil Obama, and change. There was no change, he kept Bush’s surveillance state, did more drone strikes and the War on Terror. Promised healthcare, but borrowed it from Romney and the Heritage Foundation. Then after Trump, we settled for the lesser evil and Biden. Who promised his corporate funders that “nothing would fundamentally change.” We still don’t have healthcare, no campaign finance reform, no student loan forgiveness, scuttled a railroad strike, and is currently complicit in a genocide. If you think we are headed in the right direction; by all means vote for Biden. I see the systemic problems with the electoral duopoly and have no misconceptions that if we continue on this path, social unrest will facilitate the state to quell strikes, protests and riots. Business as usual never necessitates change, only the threat of violence from a social movement can do that. But we need to do that now, before it’s too late. I’m not telling you who to vote for, I will vote for Biden myself. But I’m under no illusion about the situation we are in, and what it takes to get out of it. I’m just disseminating information I found helpful and encouraging. It is better to be an informed electorate than an uninformed one.
You haven’t shown how Democrats led to a further move to the right compared to Republicans. For example, Obama tried to pass universal healthcare with a public option. Zero Republicans voted for it, and the public option was defeated by independent Joe Lieberman. If there were one more Democrat in the senate, we would’ve had universal healthcare.
Meanwhile, Republicans under Trump literally tried to repeal Obamacare. The reason why progressive policies don’t pass is NOT because too many people vote for Democrats, but because too few do.
That’s ridiculously untrue. You’re looking at two examples.
How about Civil Rights, the New Deal, Women’s suffrage, Pure food and drug act, the Meat Inspection act, Social Security, Medicare, the Sherman Act, Glass-Steagall Act, minimum wage laws, workers compensation laws, and on and on and on.
All pre-Reagan. Neoliberalism has been the DNC way ever since.
Yes because the American public shifted to the right post Reagan, in reaction to the Cold War and stagflation. Dems reacted by shifting to the median voter, to neoliberalism, especially because the left keeps listening to bad advice and staying home instead of voting.
They ain’t moving left.
Before Sinema, it was Manchin. Before Manchin, it was Lieberman. And if it wasn’t them, it would have been another Democrat. They’re always one vote away. Curious.
Yeah, why do Progressives’ always have to ask for more rights and a better standard of living? Can’t they just be happy with the way things are?
None of these respond to my points. Democrats passed Obamacare. They were one vote away from going even further left with a public option. Meanwhile, Republicans were ALL votes away from any healthcare reform. Claiming that Democrats made the country go further right than Republicans is completely bizarre.
And have coasted on it for a decade and a half.
Yes it’s pretty disappointing. And even worse, during Trump, the US was much closer to repealing Obamacare than extending it.
But why describe this as Democrats coasting instead of blaming Republicans? Are you expecting Democrats to expand publicly funded healthcare without control of the House, and barely controlling the Senate with two conservative Dems?
Because they keep expecting gratitude for taking the plan Obama ran on and nerfing it down to what Clinton ran on. And not doing anything at all in the intervening years to improve it. It's been 15 years. All we're getting now is minor piddly shit that the party tarts up as the greatest thing in the history of mankind.
Do they expect gratitude? Obamacare hasn’t been a major piece of marketing in a long time, except when Republicans demand it be repealed.
In fact, that’s revisionist history: Democrats were heavily punished for Obamacare by voters, not rewarded. Polling showed that the farther left public option, called “death panels” by the right, was even less popular. The left, as is typical, quickly abandoned Dems to “teach them a lesson”, and we had 8 years of “Tea party” crazies controlling congress.
Here's you touting it because Democrats haven't had any successes that have approached it in 15 years:
https://lemmy.world/comment/5373174
Congratulations on killing it for Republicans then. How'd that work out for the party? Oh yeah, Republicans still voted against you and you alienated the people who voted for you.
But at least you get to blame everyone to your left for the results of your party's greatest accomplishment: killing the public option.
I am not touting it. The specific claim we’re discussing is whether voting for democrats cause right leaning policies compared to voting for republicans. It didn’t. Nothing you’ve said has addressed this point.
It doesn't and I never said it did. But let's not pretend that it's preventing right leaning policies or putting left leaning policies in place.
Obamacare is a left leaning policy compared to what came before. So I’m not pretending anything. It is very bizarre to claim otherwise.
15 years.
Is it? The Affordable Care Act was a palliative. It served its purpose of pretending to solve a problem, but making it worse. Life expectancy is declining, housing is becoming unaffordable, college tuition continues to rise, there’s a mental health epidemic. Even when Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency, nothing substantial changes. Maybe next time, right?
Yes, the US should’ve also passed a public option. That would’ve made the US system very similar to those in Scandinavian countries (who don’t have single payer btw). But again the reason we didn’t get it is not because we had too many Democrats! Remember: that’s the extreme thesis you’re defending and providing no evidence for.
How do Scandinavian countries get their progressive policies? It’s not by voting for the right leaning party!
Thank you so much for your patient and clear defense of reason. The person you're arguing with is certainly not arguing in good faith -- they are constantly throwing out partial truths and never once addressing your actual point. You're adding a lot of value in the way you're commenting, and I salute you.
Lol. TIL: Good faith means you have to agree with me.
That is not my thesis. My thesis is that it doesn’t matter if it is Republicans, or Democrats. You are never getting ranked choice voting. It is a threat to DNC control. The government is captured by corporations through special interests and lobbying. It’s never getting better with voting. Only with a social movement will things change.
You explicitly said you endorsed Nimitz, who said voting for the lesser evil leads to right leaning policies. Now you’re defending the much more modest thesis that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. You never said this before. Even this less crazy thesis is extremely dubious. I’ve given dozens of examples of how voting matters.
Other countries have changed voting systems. How did they do it, despite it threatening control by the ruling parties? Voting, actually. I agree that it will take a social movement, but it’s utterly bizarre that you seem to think that’s somehow orthogonal to voting. Trump had historically low favorability even amongst Republicans until he won. His winning an election caused a social movement to take root.
You're not wrong.
Thanks