No. You misunderstand. I’m not saying they sre right wing in the global sense. I’m saying in the context of US politics they’re still not moderate. They are on the radical right wing of their party. These are Democrats that are against equal rights. Against women’s rights. Against Healthcare reform. Against 4th amendment rights. Against police reform. Plus a whole lot more. These are not moderates. Those are not moderate positions in the Democratic Party. Those are all radically to the right of what the members of the democratic party favor.
The media keeps calling the moderates because they’re trying to shift the Overton window to the right, more. That’s why it’s so important that we not continue to use that language as if it’s normal.
I understand and only disagree slightly because we’re pretty darned close to being on the same page. I’m just accounting for the Overton window, and you are essentially rejecting it (not its existence, just what it’s done to US politics, which is part of the reason I was specifying US politics).
I get your point and essentially agree; I think it’s a small detail. Only thing I would say is that: Even those Democrats are for more human rights than the fascists. Which is why it’s important to vote blue in the general, but vote for any better options in the primaries, and support better options before the primaries when it counts the most.
And why it’s important to criticize Democrats, but be careful not to overly “both sides” it, which is what fascists preach becuse it gets people to stay home.
That’s why I’m making the distinctions I do… and why it’s both important but sort of trivial at the same time. Important for reasons I stated, but a trivial disagreement with what you’re saying.
I hope that makes sense and rings true enough :)
Absolutely will say I am extremely frustrated with the Democrats holding us back. But also with the American people who, for example, the reason Democrats didn’t support equal marriage rights was because the PEOPLE also didn’t… they’re slower to adapt than the general progressive populace - slow enough that that problem is getting worse and worse - but they also HAVE gotten more progressive over time. But that progress has slowed.
So yeah, it’s a big fuckin’ mess. But I’m like 95% or 98% with you on everything, I think :)
DSA and progressive Democrats are centrist. Actually they’re Eisenhower Republicans. Centrist or Establishment Democrats statistically serve only corporate lobbyists (who offer them campaign contributions, PAC support, dark money and cushy high-paying jobs when they’re voted out).
So the Blue Dog Democrats are essentially doing the same thing that Republicans do, only they might listen to different lobbyists. Historically, Republicans like big oil more and Democrats like big media more.
Stupid take considering how many centrist Democrats just got primaried.
Right wing Democrats. Not centrists.
Yes, although everything is relative. Democrats are US-centrist and global-right. That’s still simplified, but…
I emphasize my initial “yes” part of my comment, though, in emphasizing that I basically agree with you, sadly. heh
No. You misunderstand. I’m not saying they sre right wing in the global sense. I’m saying in the context of US politics they’re still not moderate. They are on the radical right wing of their party. These are Democrats that are against equal rights. Against women’s rights. Against Healthcare reform. Against 4th amendment rights. Against police reform. Plus a whole lot more. These are not moderates. Those are not moderate positions in the Democratic Party. Those are all radically to the right of what the members of the democratic party favor.
The media keeps calling the moderates because they’re trying to shift the Overton window to the right, more. That’s why it’s so important that we not continue to use that language as if it’s normal.
Take my upvote.
I understand and only disagree slightly because we’re pretty darned close to being on the same page. I’m just accounting for the Overton window, and you are essentially rejecting it (not its existence, just what it’s done to US politics, which is part of the reason I was specifying US politics).
I get your point and essentially agree; I think it’s a small detail. Only thing I would say is that: Even those Democrats are for more human rights than the fascists. Which is why it’s important to vote blue in the general, but vote for any better options in the primaries, and support better options before the primaries when it counts the most.
And why it’s important to criticize Democrats, but be careful not to overly “both sides” it, which is what fascists preach becuse it gets people to stay home.
That’s why I’m making the distinctions I do… and why it’s both important but sort of trivial at the same time. Important for reasons I stated, but a trivial disagreement with what you’re saying.
I hope that makes sense and rings true enough :)
Absolutely will say I am extremely frustrated with the Democrats holding us back. But also with the American people who, for example, the reason Democrats didn’t support equal marriage rights was because the PEOPLE also didn’t… they’re slower to adapt than the general progressive populace - slow enough that that problem is getting worse and worse - but they also HAVE gotten more progressive over time. But that progress has slowed.
So yeah, it’s a big fuckin’ mess. But I’m like 95% or 98% with you on everything, I think :)
DSA and progressive Democrats are centrist. Actually they’re Eisenhower Republicans. Centrist or Establishment Democrats statistically serve only corporate lobbyists (who offer them campaign contributions, PAC support, dark money and cushy high-paying jobs when they’re voted out).
So the Blue Dog Democrats are essentially doing the same thing that Republicans do, only they might listen to different lobbyists. Historically, Republicans like big oil more and Democrats like big media more.
Let’s hope it’s a turning of the tide!