Different times call for different measures. The pendulum swings back and forth and we are now at a time when the swing from one extreme is palpable. FDR came to office in a similar time. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's was a similar time. We are at another.
There are times for half measures, but this is not one of those times. Instead we must take advantage of the opportunity to move toward real solutions to real problems. We may not always agree on everything, but when we agree on 90% of the issues, squabbling over the remaining 10% is a good way of achieving nothing. Eventually the pendulum will begin to swing back. We must not waste the finite time we have.
I agree! There used to be a much higher tax rate for the likes of billionaires. Now they have a fit if you want to raise their taxes by a couple of dollars. I think that if billionaires threaten to leave a State or the US, because of a tax hike, after using taxpayers infrastructure and labor then they should be charged a hefty "exit" tax. Their should also be a law against them coming in and gutting companies and towns for their own greed. MAGA Republicans have already proven that they are against the working class, we don't need a bunch of super moderate Dems abetting their cause.
We have the same problem with the Labour Party, here in the UK. Once a true left-wing, union-backed party, they moved to the centre, to counter Thatcherism. But, not only have they not returned to their left-wing roots, they are now right of centre. They are doing nothing for the people they historically represented - and guess what? The people are NOT happy. And, because of that, PM Starmer has been forced to resign. But the party as a whole still does not get it!
It is absolutely obvious, to anyone outside of the Labour Party, that inequality, (and the influence of the super-rich on politics), is the problem. But they still refuse to raise taxes or do anything, meaningful, about money in politics.
And as politics continues to fracture in the UK, (with the two-party system disintegrating), Labour are rabbits in the headlights. They are losing votes to Reform on the right and The Green Party on the left. What's even more perplexing, is Labour came to power, with a massive majority, two years ago, but have have failed to implement a single radical policy that would benefit the average person. Clueless.
Even more astonishing... Because of Labour's abandonment of the left, The Green Party have marched straight into that void, and seen a massive surge in support. People want real change - that tackles real problems - and The Greens are offering that. And still... Labour tinker with minor detail, doing their best not to upset the status-quo.
Sorry, 60 meters from shore and 40 meters from the drowning person. The liberal centrist walks away satisfied that his actions met the drowning man more than half way. That is centrist liberal realism.
Yes. The right never gives a shit whether the public thinks they’re going too far. We worry ourselves sick that they might be mean and call us the L word if we try to change things.
I'm with Kant and his categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
Get out there people, don't be wall-paper. Don't live in a kleptocracy. The billionaires won't help you - don't enable them to play you for "proles" and suckers.
I agree entirely with NH. I would make clear, incrementalist, and moderates, are not only dem party voters/supporters, but the dem establishment leaders of the Democratic Party as an institution. The DNC, DCCC, Majority Democrats, PAC money, the Hakim Jeffries , the Chuck Schumer, etc.; these are the people and internal structures that develop , write, and promote these deceptive narratives.
Pay attention, not to the predictable push back of republicans to the recent anti-establishment dem winners in NY and around the country, but to the push back that comes from the dem party establishment, and its corrupted backers.
If the opponent, for these purposes, is the center-left Democrat, then I think we have to put a little more work into understanding how they think. It's hard, because the ideas are so obviously wrong, and the left has making the same criticisms of them for literally centuries: you can find the exact same arguments as the ones here in The Nation in the 90s, or numerous works from the 60s, or MLK, Malcolm X, Douglass, Du Bois, Lincoln, etc.
Why do they keep thinking that nearly-imperceptible incremental progress -- which these days at best occurs 2 out of every 10-20 years when Democrats have their brief trifecta -- is superior to the alternative? These people are, as a whole, the most educated class of Democrats -- most have degrees from elite schools, and the vast bulk of their policies are developed by academics and other specialists who know far more about the detailed machinery of government, history, economics, and politics, than all but a few elite on the far left. So why, with all this vast, well-credentialed knowledge, do they continue in this deeply flawed strategy, decade after decade?
I have my own theories of course, but I'll leave the question open-ended here. But it must have something to do with the academic system upon which it is all based, and any critique of modern gradualism may need expansion to the much broader system on which it firmly rests.
“Achieving your political ends means, first, accurately assessing who your opposition is and what it will take to overcome them.”
I disagree. Achieving political ends means, first, winning elections and gaining political power. Without power, the moral high ground is meaningless (legislatively).
I agree with the stated policy goals of DSA and the political and policy goals of the movement. I support wealth taxes, universal healthcare, universal basic income, and expanding the Supreme Court. However, we should not confuse “centrist” with “moderate” and we have to recognize that a Dem Socialist simply cannot win the Senate seat in North Carolina, for example. Better to have a candidate who can actually win and caucus with Dems than another Republican.
I do not advocate a return to status quo. Trump and his team have torn down institutions and the proper response is not to rebuild them back to where they were in 2015. We need new institutions that help people live their best lives. But we must be realistic about what can be accomplished and the need to actually win elections to do it.
Different times call for different measures. The pendulum swings back and forth and we are now at a time when the swing from one extreme is palpable. FDR came to office in a similar time. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's was a similar time. We are at another.
There are times for half measures, but this is not one of those times. Instead we must take advantage of the opportunity to move toward real solutions to real problems. We may not always agree on everything, but when we agree on 90% of the issues, squabbling over the remaining 10% is a good way of achieving nothing. Eventually the pendulum will begin to swing back. We must not waste the finite time we have.
I agree! There used to be a much higher tax rate for the likes of billionaires. Now they have a fit if you want to raise their taxes by a couple of dollars. I think that if billionaires threaten to leave a State or the US, because of a tax hike, after using taxpayers infrastructure and labor then they should be charged a hefty "exit" tax. Their should also be a law against them coming in and gutting companies and towns for their own greed. MAGA Republicans have already proven that they are against the working class, we don't need a bunch of super moderate Dems abetting their cause.
Absolutely.
We have the same problem with the Labour Party, here in the UK. Once a true left-wing, union-backed party, they moved to the centre, to counter Thatcherism. But, not only have they not returned to their left-wing roots, they are now right of centre. They are doing nothing for the people they historically represented - and guess what? The people are NOT happy. And, because of that, PM Starmer has been forced to resign. But the party as a whole still does not get it!
It is absolutely obvious, to anyone outside of the Labour Party, that inequality, (and the influence of the super-rich on politics), is the problem. But they still refuse to raise taxes or do anything, meaningful, about money in politics.
And as politics continues to fracture in the UK, (with the two-party system disintegrating), Labour are rabbits in the headlights. They are losing votes to Reform on the right and The Green Party on the left. What's even more perplexing, is Labour came to power, with a massive majority, two years ago, but have have failed to implement a single radical policy that would benefit the average person. Clueless.
Even more astonishing... Because of Labour's abandonment of the left, The Green Party have marched straight into that void, and seen a massive surge in support. People want real change - that tackles real problems - and The Greens are offering that. And still... Labour tinker with minor detail, doing their best not to upset the status-quo.
#VoteGreen
"While they imagine that picking a more modest starting point marks them as realists, it actually marks them as marks."
Excellent wordplay aside, this statement is some astute fire.
Sorry, 60 meters from shore and 40 meters from the drowning person. The liberal centrist walks away satisfied that his actions met the drowning man more than half way. That is centrist liberal realism.
Yes. The right never gives a shit whether the public thinks they’re going too far. We worry ourselves sick that they might be mean and call us the L word if we try to change things.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. Thank you so much for crystallizing this analysis so well.
Loved this. It made so much sense to me.
Excellent! The right will continue to move the center; being a "centrist" means you fail to fight for your principles
Excellent thoughts once again Hamilton.
I'm with Kant and his categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
Get out there people, don't be wall-paper. Don't live in a kleptocracy. The billionaires won't help you - don't enable them to play you for "proles" and suckers.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair, 1935
I agree entirely with NH. I would make clear, incrementalist, and moderates, are not only dem party voters/supporters, but the dem establishment leaders of the Democratic Party as an institution. The DNC, DCCC, Majority Democrats, PAC money, the Hakim Jeffries , the Chuck Schumer, etc.; these are the people and internal structures that develop , write, and promote these deceptive narratives.
Pay attention, not to the predictable push back of republicans to the recent anti-establishment dem winners in NY and around the country, but to the push back that comes from the dem party establishment, and its corrupted backers.
Also, the air-conditioned air of labor-management conference rooms and bargaining tables.
If the opponent, for these purposes, is the center-left Democrat, then I think we have to put a little more work into understanding how they think. It's hard, because the ideas are so obviously wrong, and the left has making the same criticisms of them for literally centuries: you can find the exact same arguments as the ones here in The Nation in the 90s, or numerous works from the 60s, or MLK, Malcolm X, Douglass, Du Bois, Lincoln, etc.
Why do they keep thinking that nearly-imperceptible incremental progress -- which these days at best occurs 2 out of every 10-20 years when Democrats have their brief trifecta -- is superior to the alternative? These people are, as a whole, the most educated class of Democrats -- most have degrees from elite schools, and the vast bulk of their policies are developed by academics and other specialists who know far more about the detailed machinery of government, history, economics, and politics, than all but a few elite on the far left. So why, with all this vast, well-credentialed knowledge, do they continue in this deeply flawed strategy, decade after decade?
I have my own theories of course, but I'll leave the question open-ended here. But it must have something to do with the academic system upon which it is all based, and any critique of modern gradualism may need expansion to the much broader system on which it firmly rests.
“Achieving your political ends means, first, accurately assessing who your opposition is and what it will take to overcome them.”
I disagree. Achieving political ends means, first, winning elections and gaining political power. Without power, the moral high ground is meaningless (legislatively).
I agree with the stated policy goals of DSA and the political and policy goals of the movement. I support wealth taxes, universal healthcare, universal basic income, and expanding the Supreme Court. However, we should not confuse “centrist” with “moderate” and we have to recognize that a Dem Socialist simply cannot win the Senate seat in North Carolina, for example. Better to have a candidate who can actually win and caucus with Dems than another Republican.
I do not advocate a return to status quo. Trump and his team have torn down institutions and the proper response is not to rebuild them back to where they were in 2015. We need new institutions that help people live their best lives. But we must be realistic about what can be accomplished and the need to actually win elections to do it.
I’m soaking in my tub, strategically positioned soap, bubbles, and gold chain.