@King Creole...the Slovenian cac. Step on in.

[Berniewood Hogan]

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Stump for racists and expect to get cut slack, Brehs.

 

[King Kreole]

@Berniewood Hogan

How many days you got left before you can change your username man? That shyts gonna be stuck on you like a tattoo of an ex come the DNC

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

@Berniewood Hogan

How many days you got left before you can change your username man? That shyts gonna be stuck on you like a tattoo of an ex come the DNC

I'll keep this name for the next ten years. Bernie will win. Bernie will be re-elected. Bernie will consider running for a third term.

 

[Pressure]

@King Kreole don't feel too bad. @Broke Wave is a Canadian with an obsession with American politics.

He even lost a ban bet on whether I make over 100k,but pleaded to the mods to make sure he didn't have to stick to it. :Obeezyha:

@FAH1223

 

[intra vires]

First, thanks for taking the time to write out a good rebuttal! Very much appreciated.

This is an interesting take. I don't think I'm arguing that the progressive wave would have never taken place if Hillary was elected, but rather that the shape would have been altered and the timing crucially delayed compared to this timeline.

While I agree that the frustration with the Obama Administration's failures is an animating characteristic of this progressive wave, I don't see how the election of Hillary Clinton (and consequential legitimization of the centrist, neoliberal ruling order) would have been as hospitable an environment for both the practical and ideological movement of the progressives. As you correctly point out, the relative success of the '16 Sanders candidacy proves that people knew something was wrong with the existing order (hell, Occupy was 2011 and Brand New Congress was formed after Sanders conceded, so those are more points of evidence), but it was only in Clinton's loss that people saw just how ill-equipped the current order was to deal with the current crises of our era. I really don't believe Bernie would be as powerful and influential as he is now if he was just the gadfly loser to President Clinton as opposed to the guy who would have beaten Trump. Justice Dems formed in response to Trump's victory. If Hillary had won, do you believe there would have been millions taking to the streets to protest the Obama Administration's failures? I don't see where that groundswell of political energy amongst the masses comes from. Most of them still love Obama! Trump's election was a mass education in how fukked up the system is, and it provided legitimacy to out of the box solutions. I don't think it's a fluke that none of these progressives ran or got elected during the Obama years. He was an anesthetic. The 2014 midterms had a turnout of 36.4%! The progressive movement is one of the masses, it is impossible to have a progressive wave in a sub-40% turnout year.

Neoliberalism doesn’t need to be legitimized; unfortunately, it already is. The Obama Administration demonstrated that, even at its best, the liberal brand of politics is insufficient at accomplishing systemic change. Income inequality grew, the largest banks got bigger, endless wars continued, TPP was drafted under the Obama administration, etc. These things would have carried over into the Clinton administration.

Sanders pushed Hillary left and increased his own notoriety while doing so. While he obviously wouldn’t primary Clinton, he’d be doing the same thing he’s doing right now because he’s been doing it his entire career. The opportunities he’s had to practice movement politics would persist under Clinton. Walmart and Disney would still be shyt corporations, so people would still be mobilizing for fair wages. Healthcare would have still been challenged by the GOP, so calls to improve the ACA and add a public option or attempt M4A still happen. The student debt crisis, which will contribute to the next recession, would still be looming. It doesn’t make sense to mention OWS and still think that people wouldn’t have cause to mobilize under a Clinton Administration. She wouldn’t have been going into her term with Obama’s favorability, so plenty of people would criticize her. Progressives have been elected to Congress before, during, and after Obama’s presidency. Hell, the chairs of the CPC were elected in 2012 and 2016 respectively. High turnout helps the entire Democratic Party win elections and all forms of movement politics require the masses (see tea party protests). Progressive politicians and movements aren’t special in either regard.

Let's take it out of the realm of hypotheticals for a moment. Look at the actual actions being taken by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Leadership to marginalize the progressive movement right now. The only reason the progressives are able to fight back is because they have a broad, popular mandate and are supported by the people. The idea that they would be just as powerful without the shadow of Donald Trump lurking over the entire proceedings seems a stretch to me. He's an existential phenomenon. Surely the structural issues that people were noticing would have continued, but the movement would be neutered by Hillary telling everyone everything is ok. I believe the progressive wave is inexorable, but I think we would have had to wait another cycle for things to really pop off, and by then the structural volatility would have rendered the fascist response far more palatable to the masses.

People weren’t acting like everything was okay under Obama, you’re mistaking people’s nostalgia for the actual sentiment during that time. His apologists frame his failures as around the dealing with financial recovery and his naivete about Republican obstructionism. His left-leaning critics recognize his politics were never progressive in the first place. The claim isn’t that things would have played the exact same way, it’s challenging the absurdity that Trump was necessary to fuel a progressive wave. You give Trump more credit than he deserves, not all these mobilization efforts are related to his victory. Amazon trying to move to NYC, the Yemen War resolution, push back on Venezuela, the future of Healthcare, and things like the GND and the fight for $15 all would have happened irrespective of which party occupied the White House. Initiatives to engage prospective voters and initiatives for criminal legal reform (e.g. restoring voting rights to former convicts) predate Trump. Hell, progressives don't even have a monopoly on those issues. You have a hard time imaging people working for change outside of a Republican hellscape and that’s simply not the case.

If Joe Biden wins the nomination, God help this country. It's above me now.

To your point about Trump and the Judiciary, I've long believed that the courts - in their current state - are hopelessly fukked. Trump has been an absolute beast as remaking the courts in his image, but he didn't invent conservative judicial philosophy, its been there for a while now, stymying progressive legislation. I think your analysis here is correct. It's an institutionalist fantasy to believe the progressive wave can unfold with the courts as they are. Ultimately, they need to be remade one way or another. FDR faced similar intransigence from the Supreme Court, but he understood that power is not a submissive force, it's a dominant force, and threatened to pack the motherfukker. Luckily, we have a nominee this time around who believes the same. It's one of the biggest reasons I'm a Liz booster, she understand that structural changes that need to be made to the American political system and is willing to follow through on them. I have no illusions about the depth and breadth of the rot in this system. The overhaul will need to be dramatic. You can't get there by half-steps or incrementalism. Trump provided the context and just cause for those necessary, dramatic actions.

The courts weren’t “hopelessly fukked” until after the Republicans won in 2016. Scalia’s death was the first time in decades that the liberals had a shot at getting the majority on SCOTUS. McConnell’s gamble was simple, worst-case Hillary nominates Garland again and the best-case was the GOP nominee gets to fill it. He wasn’t going to hold it open indefinitely. The federal courts were never filled with Federalist Society cronies to this degree. Yes, Originalism has been encroaching our legal system for decades, but this is unprecedented. None of the people running will be able to wield power the way FDR did, and I have reservations about whether they would if they could. They’ll have two terms, at best, and this is bigger than “packing” SCOTUS. Anyone who claims to be a progressive shouldn’t act nonchalant about the damage the Republicans have done to the administrative state under Trump or the effort it will take to repair it. It is the main vehicle for enacting progressive change.

The reality is President Warren/Sanders will accomplish far less than their starry-eyed supporters would like to believe. You generally only have enough political capital to pass 2-3 major bills (more like 1-2 in this climate); even if Warren wins the presidency, she’s going to have figure out what to prioritize. Knowing how to enact structural change and having the ability to implement it are two separate things. It would take an exorbitant amount of political capital to remove the filibuster and there isn’t enough Senatorial support to think that will happen. I'm not just talking about conservadems like Manchin either. The climate crisis needs to be taken more seriously, even if the model is adaptability. Healthcare is still a prominent issue largely thanks to the GOP. What about voting rights and partisan gerrymandering? These are the things that make the electorate appear to be more conservative than it is and if you want to have a healthy democracy, where you can maintain power, they must be rectified. If/when another recession happens you can throw much this out the window because that will be the priority. Sure, legislation addressing income inequality and financial reforms can be passed in an omnibus bill during the recession, but it won't be a clean bill and it would take additional capital to reject compromising amendments. Even if you can get a movement going, and Warren really isn’t a movement-oriented politician, you’ll still have to make legislative tradeoffs. FDR wasn’t exempt from this reality, to pass the New Deal he had to appease racists. This was done by intentionally crafting it so the legislation could be implemented in a racially discriminatory manner. There are always tradeoffs.

 

[King Kreole]

Neoliberalism doesn’t need to be legitimized; unfortunately, it already is. The Obama Administration demonstrated that, even at its best, the liberal brand of politics is insufficient at accomplishing systemic change. Income inequality grew, the largest banks got bigger, endless wars continued, TPP was drafted under the Obama administration, etc. These things would have carried over into the Clinton administration.

Sanders pushed Hillary left and increased his own notoriety while doing so. While he obviously wouldn’t primary Clinton, he’d be doing the same thing he’s doing right now because he’s been doing it his entire career. The opportunities he’s had to practice movement politics would persist under Clinton. Walmart and Disney would still be shyt corporations, so people would still be mobilizing for fair wages. Healthcare would have still been challenged by the GOP, so calls to improve the ACA and add a public option or attempt M4A still happen. The student debt crisis, which will contribute to the next recession, would still be looming. It doesn’t make sense to mention OWS and still think that people wouldn’t have cause to mobilize under a Clinton Administration. She wouldn’t have been going into her term with Obama’s favorability, so plenty of people would criticize her. Progressives have been elected to Congress before, during, and after Obama’s presidency. Hell, the chairs of the CPC were elected in 2012 and 2016 respectively. High turnout helps the entire Democratic Party win elections and all forms of movement politics require the masses (see tea party protests). Progressive politicians and movements aren’t special in either regard.

Yes, my entire point is that neoliberalism needed to be de-legitimized, and a neoliberal order incarnate losing the most dramatic election in our lifetimes did just that. Those of us on the left have been paying attention to the structural rot that neoliberalism has brought about, but the masses weren't hip to the severity of this situation. It took Trump's election for the progressive movement to reach the critical velocity needed to actually effect change and bring about the wave. The Democratic leadership vacuum caused by Clinton's loss was an accelerant in this process.

You mention that in the event of Clinton's victory, Sanders would be doing the same thing he's been doing his whole career. Exactly. He'd be pissing into the same wind he was during the entire Obama era and before when he was a relatively obscure figure. His public profile and power is now at its zenith, which is a testament to the current political atmosphere. There would simply be no space for Bernie to become arguably the defacto ideological leader of the Democratic Party with a President Clinton, just as he had no space to be so with a President Obama. I mention OWS because it failed. It died on the vine, collapsing because it was regarded by the masses as a fringe movement (and went through internal issues, but that's another story). It didn't even win any scalps like the Tea Party did. We're already seeing this post-Trump progressive movement affect the levers of power like the Obama era progressive movement was never capable of.

Again, I'm not saying the 2016 election invented the left, it's been percolating for years, but its emergence as a legitimate mass movement that can embed itself in the political power structure was inextricably and causally tied to the results of the 2016 election. But I think our difference here boils down to whether or not one considers this new progressive movement of "The Squad" and the front runner candidacies of Liz and Bernie are special or if they're just another link in the chain of fringe progressives.

People weren’t acting like everything was okay under Obama, you’re mistaking people’s nostalgia for the actual sentiment during that time. His apologists frame his failures as around the dealing with financial recovery and his naivete about Republican obstructionism. His left-leaning critics recognize his politics were never progressive in the first place. The claim isn’t that things would have played the exact same way, it’s challenging the absurdity that Trump was necessary to fuel a progressive wave. You give Trump more credit than he deserves, not all these mobilization efforts are related to his victory. Amazon trying to move to NYC, the Yemen War resolution, push back on Venezuela, the future of Healthcare, and things like the GND and the fight for $15 all would have happened irrespective of which party occupied the White House. Initiatives to engage prospective voters and initiatives for criminal legal reform (e.g. restoring voting rights to former convicts) predate Trump. Hell, progressives don't even have a monopoly on those issues. You have a hard time imaging people working for change outside of a Republican hellscape and that’s simply not the case.

I think this is an interesting and legitimate frame of historical analysis, but its one I disagree with. I find it too abstracted from ground level truths. The degree to which people were engaged in the political process under Obama is night and day from what we're seeing now, and the evisceration of the Democratic Party under Obama is evidence of this. It may seem absurd to believe Trump was necessary to fuel a progressive wave until you realize just how necrotic the American political body has become. Sub-40% voter participation rates are the sign of a decaying democracy. Trump seems to have resuscitated it. It's an absurd argument but America is an absurd place.

I'm quite sympathetic to your analysis because I think we generally tend to overemphasize the roles of individual actors or events in broad historical unfoldings, but I think your take is an overcorrection in this instance. It seems as if you're saying the 2016 election was relatively unimportant with regards to both progressive and (small d) democratic movement, and that just doesn't track with what I've been witnessing. If all these progressive advances would have happened regardless, it doesn't matter if Trump was elected or not. Some of them, like fight for $15 or Amazon's HQ2 fukkery, I agree would have emerged under a Clinton administration, but others, like Yemen or M4A or GND, I absolutely do not see the political context in which the progressive movement could make such advances under a hostile ally like the Clinton administration as opposed to the hostile enemy like the Trump administration. All of that shyt is already in a precarious position due to Democratic leadership like Nancy Pelosi fighting back, I cannot imagine it prevailing with the Democratic president putting her heavy thumb on the scale as well.

I truly believe Trump's election was an inflection point in American history. Maybe I'm living in a bubble, but in my actual life I've seen much more activation of leftist advocacy amongst my friends, family, and broader community. I don't have a hard time imagining people working for change under a Clinton administration, I just have an easier time imagining breaching the threshold of critical mass progressive politics under this current situation.

The courts weren’t “hopelessly fukked” until after the Republicans won in 2016. Scalia’s death was the first time in decades that the liberals had a shot at getting the majority on SCOTUS. McConnell’s gamble was simple, worst-case Hillary nominates Garland again and the best-case was the GOP nominee gets to fill it. He wasn’t going to hold it open indefinitely. The federal courts were never filled with Federalist Society cronies to this degree. Yes, Originalism has been encroaching our legal system for decades, but this is unprecedented. None of the people running will be able to wield power the way FDR did, and I have reservations about whether they would if they could. They’ll have two terms, at best, and this is bigger than “packing” SCOTUS. Anyone who claims to be a progressive shouldn’t act nonchalant about the damage the Republicans have done to the administrative state under Trump or the effort it will take to repair it. It is the main vehicle for enacting progressive change.

The reason I say the courts were/are hopelessly fukked is that most of the changes that will need to happen in order to truly enact a progressive society will be, in all likelihood, unconstitutional. Like critical elements of the GND, Wealth Tax, monopolization, I don't see Hillary appointed judges altering the current trajectory on any of these. I also don't see the progressive movement capitulating to the right-wing courts on these issues, so I'm actually pretty relatively sanguine when it comes to overcoming the courts. I definitely agree that the damage is deep, but I do not share your pessimism on the potential for FDR-esque wielding of power by Liz or Bernie. I legit have faith.

The reality is President Warren/Sanders will accomplish far less than their starry-eyed supporters would like to believe. You generally only have enough political capital to pass 2-3 major bills (more like 1-2 in this climate); even if Warren wins the presidency, she’s going to have figure out what to prioritize. Knowing how to enact structural change and having the ability to implement it are two separate things. It would take an exorbitant amount of political capital to remove the filibuster and there isn’t enough Senatorial support to think that will happen. I'm not just talking about conservadems like Manchin either. The climate crisis needs to be taken more seriously, even if the model is adaptability. Healthcare is still a prominent issue largely thanks to the GOP. What about voting rights and partisan gerrymandering? These are the things that make the electorate appear to be more conservative than it is and if you want to have a healthy democracy, where you can maintain power, they must be rectified. If/when another recession happens you can throw much this out the window because that will be the priority. Sure, legislation addressing income inequality and financial reforms can be passed in an omnibus bill during the recession, but it won't be a clean bill and it would take additional capital to reject compromising amendments. Even if you can get a movement going, and Warren really isn’t a movement-oriented politician, you’ll still have to make legislative tradeoffs. FDR wasn’t exempt from this reality, to pass the New Deal he had to appease racists. This was done by intentionally crafting it so the legislation could be implemented in a racially discriminatory manner. There are always tradeoffs.

Yeah I've been banging this drum since the election season started, and it's one of the main reasons I'm a supporter of Liz over Bernie. Congressional gridlock and unrepresentative composition have rendered it a useless vessel, so my focus is 1) the executive realm and the expanded list of powers that can be wielded unilaterally in these times of the Imperial Presidency, and 2) the mass movement needed to swing things from the grassroots up. M4A is, in reality, not happening in the next administration unless something drastic happens. Same goes for any other large piece of progressive legislation. But there is a lot of shyt that can be done at the executive level to undo the fukked state of things, particularly as it pertains to the FTC, Treasury, DoJ, HUD and militarily. Plus, I'm not sure the traditional rules of political capital apply in these extraordinary times. Tradeoffs undoubtedly exist, but that doesn't mean massive change can't take place. But I think your analysis is very sober.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It actually makes perfect sense if you can wrap your head around the fact that I hate America.

Well shut the fukk up then.

 

[yseJ]

The reality is President Warren/Sanders will accomplish far less than their starry-eyed supporters would like to believe. You generally only have enough political capital to pass 2-3 major bills (more like 1-2 in this climate); even if Warren wins the presidency, she’s going to have figure out what to prioritize. Knowing how to enact structural change and having the ability to implement it are two separate things. It would take an exorbitant amount of political capital to remove the filibuster and there isn’t enough Senatorial support to think that will happen. I'm not just talking about conservadems like Manchin either. The climate crisis needs to be taken more seriously, even if the model is adaptability. Healthcare is still a prominent issue largely thanks to the GOP. What about voting rights and partisan gerrymandering? These are the things that make the electorate appear to be more conservative than it is and if you want to have a healthy democracy, where you can maintain power, they must be rectified. If/when another recession happens you can throw much this out the window because that will be the priority. Sure, legislation addressing income inequality and financial reforms can be passed in an omnibus bill during the recession, but it won't be a clean bill and it would take additional capital to reject compromising amendments. Even if you can get a movement going, and Warren really isn’t a movement-oriented politician, you’ll still have to make legislative tradeoffs. FDR wasn’t exempt from this reality, to pass the New Deal he had to appease racists. This was done by intentionally crafting it so the legislation could be implemented in a racially discriminatory manner. There are always tradeoffs.

dap+rep. a rare post that eludes agenda/bias and reflects on reality damn. I need this paragraph printed out somewhere

 

[Black Panther]

Thread is hilarious AF.

 

[grazazaza]

The breh @Pressure with the receipts

 

[Pressure]

I forgot I made this.

 

[Cognito]

We have Doncic gang in Higher Learning

 

[King Kreole]

I just find it funny that for all that wild shyt I was posting 4 years ago about Trump being a potential change agent BEFORE he showed how he'd govern, we now have half of HL talking about sitting out the election and helping Trump get a SECOND term to teach America a lesson because Bernie didn't beat Biden in a fair fight.

Just something I find funny.

Carry on.

 

[King Kreole]

We have Doncic gang in Higher Learning