The Dems Don't Get It: How liberalism without a spine gave way to a party without a brain or soul

[Trotsky]

For (at least) ten years now, the Republican Party has had no legitimate political goals. Far removed from the days when some meager attempts at good faith policy making (see: George W. Bush's policies on retirement plans) occasionally interrupted windfalls for the wealthy and powerful, the party has now fully embraced its villainy and relished in the fact that its supporters don't really care. From being an opposition party concerned only with obstructing a country in recovery from their latest robbery, they are now a party in power that is blatantly, shamelessly, and (perhaps to their own shock alone) expeditiously working to enrich themselves, enable corruption, rip off normal American people, and dismantle any semblance of a functional democratic government that represents everyday citizens.

Yet, despite the Republicans' complete lack of good faith policy, their impeccable status as a global pariah and symbol for corruption, and their historically unpopular leadership, the Democrats have failed to even brush past a coherent oppositional message. Too concerned with retaining the appearance of civility and bipartisanship that the Republicans left cold in a ditch years ago, the Democrats have repeatedly floundered when faced with an opponent without such concerns or preoccupations with rightfulness.

At first, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee floated the slogan, “I mean, have you seen the other guys?” The title of the party’s new agenda, “A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages,” is barely an improvement. A Washington Post-ABC poll found that only 37 percent of people think the Democratic Party “stands for something.”

Even when they’re opposing the most heinous of Republican plans, Democratic elites can’t seem to muster a combative tone. When John McCain rushed to the Senate to help advance a bill that would strip millions of people of their health insurance, Democrats greeted him with a standing ovation, mistaking Beltway comity for genuine compassion.

So much for the opposition.

Recent debates between liberals and leftists about the best way out of the current mess have focused mostly on style (specifically, on the relative merits of civility and vulgarity — Jeet Heer versus Chapo Trap House) and on the meaning of words like neoliberalism. But while important, these debates have largely avoided the deeper question of how politics should be done — and here, too, liberals and leftists differ significantly.

The liberal faith that, as Heer puts it, “politics is about persuasion and coalition-building” instead of “domination politics” has hobbled the Democrats for decades. With Trump in office and the Republicans in control of thirty-two state legislatures, the stakes are too high to double down on what’s been a failed strategy. Indeed, the GOP would have already passed its monstrous health care bill if ordinary people had followed Democratic elites’ emollient lead instead of doggedly protesting.

As the Democratic Party continues to stumble through the political wilderness, promising tax breaks to small businesses, the Left has a unique opportunity to articulate a clear alternative to both Trumpism and the Democratic mainstream. To do so, we should look to the work of the Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe — in particular, her book The Democratic Paradox — as a guide.

For Mouffe — whose ideas have inspired the rising populist left across Europe — the liberal conception of politics is inadequate because it shies away from conflict. In The Democratic Paradox, she makes the case for an unabashedly confrontational (or in her terms, “agonistic”) left-wing politics to defeat the populist right.


In practice, this means telling a convincing “us-versus-them” story, naming political opponents clearly and without hesitation. It means rejecting the terms of debate set by the Right while also jettisoning language that no longer resonates with ordinary people. Doing so won’t often be polite, but the fight for a more just world is more important than the ruling class’s feelings.

Politics, Mouffe reminds us, is inherently conflictual. “Politics aims at the creation of unity in a context of conflict and diversity,” she writes. “It is always concerned with the creation of an ‘us’ by the determination of a ‘them.’” Mouffe calls this the drawing of the “political frontier.” Put more simply, it entails asking the old labor question, “which side are you on?”

Contemporary liberals reduce politics to the establishment of consensus through rational debate and the negotiation of compromises. They fail to grasp that politics is the struggle between intractable opponents, between an “us” and a “them.” In the process, they jeopardize the very things they ostensibly hold dear.

It’s no secret that the rich are engaged in an ongoing effort to dismantle what little remains of the welfare state and disenfranchise millions of people. Yet most Democrats would never dream of publicly singling out the “malefactors of great wealth.” They wouldn’t want to offend the bankers, CEOs, and real-estate developers — all potential members of the Democrats’ grand coalition. They wouldn’t want to be accused of fomenting class warfare, so they side with the business elite in the class war instead. As Mouffe writes, “to believe that one can accommodate the aims of the big corporations with those of the weaker sectors is to already have capitulated to their power.”

By shying away from confrontation, liberals have allowed the Right, which has no qualms about naming its political enemies, to define the terrain. For the last few decades, many liberals have simply accepted the “political frontiers” set out by Reagan and Thatcher. The entire project of Third Way centrism — typified by the Democratic Leadership Council, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair — was premised on the belief that there was no other way to win elections.

The dirty truth was that this mode of politics simply turned off a wide swath of voters. As center-left parties became proud creatures of the center and discarded historic attachments to the Left, many poor and working-class voters — the prime constituency for a left-wing, egalitarian politics — stayed home. Some of the disillusioned — especially white voters without a college education — looked for alternatives in places other than the Left.

“The ‘consensus at the centre’ form of politics,” Mouffe writes,

allows populist parties to appear as the only anti-establishment forces representing the will of the people. Thanks to a clever populist rhetoric, they are able to articulate many demands of the popular sectors scorned as retrograde by the modernizing elites and to present themselves as the only guarantors of the sovereignty of the people.

While published in 1998, Mouffe’s words could’ve easily been penned in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election.

Harnessing widespread discontent with the country’s economic system and political establishment, Trump managed to spin a compelling “us-versus-them” story with clear opponents: federal bureaucrats; Muslims; immigrants; journalists; those seen as disrespecting “our troops” and the police. For each of these categories, there was a corresponding demand.


Against this, Clintonite liberals offered depoliticized tolerance and declarations that “America is already great.”

But for the millions who stayed at home on Election Night — and for the Trump voters attracted to his (faux) economic populism — this rung hollow.

Acknowledging the inescapability of conflict is the first step toward constructing a left-wing alternative to the Trumpian “political frontier.” And telling a new “us-versus-them” narrative requires doing precisely what liberals warn against: placing corporate Democrats and Clintonites in the same camp as Republicans and the business elite.

As Mouffe points out, the quiet consensus that so many liberals prefer to a forceful left-wing politics hides the violent power relations that make that consensus possible: mass incarceration, capitalist exploitation, racism, patriarchy. Those who oppose policies that would make the lives of poor and working-class people better are our political enemies, regardless of their party affiliation.

Putting an agonistic left-wing politics into practice requires getting into the streets and into unorganized workplaces, where poor and working people are beset by exploitative bosses, callous corporations, and violent police. Already there are thousands of people involved in concrete struggles, working to harness a left-wing “us-versus-them” narrative to achieve electoral — and material — gains.

The Democrats should take note.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/democrats-trump-health-care-chantal-mouffe

​

The Republicans learned long ago that, even if you are not fighting for anything that is worth having to your supporters, so long as you are fighting you will win support. This could not have been more apparent than during the 2016 election when, despite the Republican Party and its to-be leader Donald Trump having zero substantive policy or remote interest in it, they were able to bludgeon their wisely pragmatic and endlessly poised liberal foes.

Now, two years later, the Republican Party has shed any lingering pretexts about being a "conservative" party. They will break budgets, they will openly suppress votes, they will openly cannibalize the government toward the interests of their corporate benefactors, they will freely abandon any notion of truth or honesty, they will swindle consumers and workers, and piss on children and the most vulnerable among us.

This is the Republican Party, and they are the enemy. They represent wealth. They represent power. They represent wealth and power in reaction to the democratic will of the people. They are fascists. And you don't reason with fascists or applaud and pamper them when they have fleeting moments of integrity (or feign such moments as is customary for disingenuous cunts like Jeff Flake). You call them fascists, you shine a spotlight on them, and you kick them in the teeth.

It's us versus them. And we aren't friends.

 

[bushman505]

Liberals are trash. Deal with it.

 

[abiG]

You again have shown that remarkable talent you posses for seeing an amazing amount of difference in sameness.

Your title could have referred to the dems themselves.

 

[SONNEN]

Sounds like a New York Times Op-Ed. lol so much fail, neo-cons are appeasers...

Boarders, language, culture has worked for centuries deal with it

 

[trac209]

Trotsky I think you just might have gone right over the deep end ...

 

[InternetHero]

The divisions seem to be what keeps the left from being ascendant, and keeps me from getting onboard.

I would like to see more Great Society style emphasis on tangible help for the lower classes without the madness and obsession with social engineering and zeitgeist for destroying traditional culture.

As someone who is socially fairly conservative, but economically more inclined towards the left, I am left with a choice between values and principles, or a party that "may" do the right thing economically, while actively trying to undermine my values and principles.

This is a book I intend to read on the struggle between those who would like to embrace more of the left, yet find the doors are often closed and the drivers behind the progressive movement, even to a progressive Christian, are not excited to have a progressive Christian along for the ride: https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Hope-Lessons-Learned-America/dp/071808232X

I haven't read it yet, but read a few reviews and excerpts that might illustrate this dilemma.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Trotsky I think you just might have gone left over the deep end ...

ftfy

 

[SBJJ]

To be fair, the people commenting in this thread probably didn’t really read it. But then again, I didn’t read it.

Hell, no one is going to read it. We all know what it’s going to say

 

[Ripskater]

You call them fascists, you shine a spotlight on them, and you kick them in the teeth.

Leftists promoting more violence.

Maxine Waters? Eric Holder? Is that you?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Leftists promoting more violence.

Maxine Waters? Eric Holder? Is that you?

Yeah, lefties have been so peaceful up until now. Maybe they should shoot up the Republican Congressional baseball team or something like that to send a message. Maybe they could yell about healthcare as they do it to really twist the knife.

 

[second sight]

No political goals, what had a Trump been doing

 

[Metusalemi]

I guess violence IS the answer for people of higher intelligence, education, morals, tolerance and compassion.

 

[Ripskater]

This is a book I intend to read on the struggle between those who would like to embrace more of the left, yet find the doors are often closed and the drivers behind the progressive movement, even to a progressive Christian, are not excited to have a progressive Christian along for the ride: https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Hope-Lessons-Learned-America/dp/071808232X

I haven't read it yet, but read a few reviews and excerpts that might illustrate this dilemma.

There are some who call themselves "progressive Christians." Be careful following them. The progressives in general hate God, hate God's word, love sin, like abortion, get caught up in some false morality of "social justice" that often contradicts the message of the Gospel. I do believe you can be saved and be a liberal, but to be accepted in general by democrats, Christian progressives would have to denounce many Christian stances.

I don't want conservative politics preached in place of the Gospel either. I want the Gospel preached from the pulpit. That is what saves people. And Christ alone can change hearts. Policy can give freedom, but it can't change hearts or save souls.

 

[abiG]

To be fair, the people commenting in this thread probably didn’t really read it. But then again, I didn’t read it.

Hell, no one is going to read it. We all know what it’s going to say

I did.

Cliffs:

 

[Trotsky]

No political goals, what had a Trump been doing

Passing a tax bill that was panned by economists? Attempting to pass a healthcare bill that would have increased prices and kicked thousands off of coverage (and was likewise panned by consumer and patient groups)? Gutting worker protections and consumer protections in favor of giant corporations? Deregulating financial institutions and lenders that led to the last financial collapse? Appointed swindlers and con men to the government?

As I said earlier, all of the party's current policies (read: I don't necessarily attribute them to Trump, as I think he's well-meaning and had them forced upon him by his betters) are shamelessly aimed at upward distribution and corruption. This much is undeniable when viewing the entirety of 20th century political policy.

The party/Trump's only arguably meritorious policies for everyday citizens, namely their supporters, are social policies on (1) immigration, (2) gun rights, and (3) abortion. But those are simply a veneer for the important stuff, and this is fairly obvious from taking a look at the party's inconsistent history on all three issues.

I did.

Cliffs:

It's hard for me to believe that your stupidity isn't physically painful for you at all times.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Passing a tax bill that was panned by economists?

Economists hate him! Find out how our republic got massive gains with this one weird tax cut trick.

 

[58miles]

Economists hate him! Find out how our republic got massive gains with this one weird trick.

Maybe the Economists talked to his former business partners or witnessed the magic he worked at Trump Casino, Trump steaks and Trump vodka

 

[rokzilla]

Talk about a hack, Jesus have mercy on your soul.

• Matthew 19:25-26
  
  25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Maybe the Economists talked to his former business partners or witnessed the magic he worked at Trump Casino, Trump steaks and Trump vodka

I never heard of Trump Vodka so I just looked it up. It was discontinued years ago, but bottles are currently going for between $1000 and $2500. Lol. Trump fanboys paying up nicely for that Trump and Tonic. Also, apparently it was considered a great Passover vodka because it was supposed to be more kosher than other vodkas.

And they say you can't learn anything in the War Room.

But yeah, Trump was right and economists were wrong about the tax cut.

 

[InternetHero]

There are some who call themselves "progressive Christians." Be careful following them. The progressives in general hate God, hate God's word, love sin, like abortion, get caught up in some false morality of "social justice" that often contradicts the message of the Gospel. I do believe you can be saved and be a liberal, but to be accepted in general by democrats, Christian progressives would have to denounce many Christian stances.

I don't want conservative politics preached in place of the Gospel either. I want the Gospel preached from the pulpit. That is what saves people. And Christ alone can change hearts. Policy can give freedom, but it can't change hearts or save souls.

I feel you, I understand seeing it that way from your point of view.

However, there are still many progressive Christians trying to do good things in the world, some who are saintly. People are never are our enemies here, ideas are.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. ECT.

Now when it comes to progressive Christians there is a problem: They often lose their salt. In the face of the race, class, and gender push against the Christian tradition, their friends and colleagues say, "How could you support this?" It is negative on feminism (In a very, very modern context...), homosexuality (ditto), and this, this, this... few can stand against the voices of their peers.

As well, America is a "Conservative" enterprise in that traditionally it was made on Enlightenment and Puritan ideas. Puritans watch out for themselves, are industrious because they feel God wants them to put their energy into their vocation/world, and the best chance to let them have a try was to make a land where anyone had a fair chance to succeed.

More or less America gave them the chance that Europe with strict hierarchy could not.

At the same time, the poor are still those we want to help, and Christians do a lot of the helping of course.

When one sees impoverished black shanties that go on for miles one has to take pause, when one sees other groups mired in poverty we know that -

A - A lot have made bad choices, even generation to generation.

B - A lot are trying, and we should always do our best as the society to help those who are trying.

Then though, comes the huge problem...

1 - Globalism - a lot of jobs and vocations for the poor are drying up, and the despair of wordly pursuits and drugs are waiting. I am a "globalist," however, the cultural harm is a severe penalty for the huge increase of economic enrichment across the world.

2 - AI

The same men who are eager to do brain transplants and replace humanity with their creations, are the same types of people who are pushing robots to do your job, and my job, and someday everyone's job.

The elite has no love of mankind anymore, and we are all fragmenting on our old lines of resentments and hatreds.

If you are poor, you're job will be the first to go... the American system of "run the race to win" will not work much longer, because in the past there was a fair way to run, and a fair agreement that women, minorities, or anyone else should be given that same opportunity.

Now people want what they want, and the path to success is arduous at best, because the men designing it have no idea where creating AI masters of industry ends, and we begin, and when we ready their literature the "terrifying" conclusion is most of them do not care, or are hostile to the human condition to begin with.



If we are concerned with Christianity and Culture, how do we contend with this?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Liberals are trash. Deal with it.

Like.