AOC and other progressives called on Joe Biden to not appoint lobbyists to his cabinet. Biden does it anyways and AOC says "good news and an encouraging choice." She failed to say it's good news for banks and corporations. Now she's got tens of thousands of her followers believing that Biden's chief of staff is good for the people. What does she get out of doing this? It's gotta be something. Klain arrives with K Street roots - POLITICO "Good news and encouraging choice." - AOC
I would rather have a business-elite in the President's cabinet than an idealist like Jimmy Dore. I think Dore is right about the hypocrisy of politics, but oh what short memories we have; Dore has done a complete 180 on Cortez, Warren, Sanders, Khanna, Chomsky, Yang, and every other idealist he once indexed to dunk on the establishment. I don't mean to say that we shouldn't change our views over time, but Dore tends to fume when people reject progressive appeals and then he fumes when the loudest progressives turn out to be careerists. Yet still, every other show he's melting down and reading sassy progressive Twitter. Been in this loop for like 3 years now.
I suppose it was never possible for Sanders to become the Dem candidate...given the extent to which middle America is terrified of "communism"(perhaps still suffering from PTSD from the nuclear threat in the Cold War). https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/22/joe-biden-declares-i-beat-socialist-bernie-sanders/ "Joe Biden declares 'I beat the socialist' Bernie Sanders, in pitch to Wisconsin voters" Let's see if Biden can win those two senate votes in Georgia in January, now that the electors have the chance to ensure a functioning congress...
Nuttin to see here, AOC is learning how Congress REALLY works, spout crap for the consumption of the yokels back home, while going along to get along. No doubt a future Speaker.
Yeah but to be fair to those weary of socialism and communism, both ideologies seem to devour western values (property rights, individual liberties, profit, etc). To be clear, I go to all the local activists' Zoom meetings and rallies and protests where I live, and the people claiming those labels are quite unpalatable to me as well in that they truly want to strip away the most valuable features of the country (law enforcement, judicial system, land ownership, equality under the law, republicanism). The "socialists" and "communists" I've met do not view a means for legal recourse in a court as anything good; they want the courts to go and for consensus to determine crimes and punishments, not the law. They do not want procedural fairness in America because they only value ideals of perfect uniformity in all aspects of life. They don't even want people to have property rights to their own home! I have a bias, yes, but these are folks who once mocked me as a "white supremacist" for making the case that individual behavior is more explanatory than racial identity with regard to my judgments. I was told that my disrespect toward group identity revealed that I "as a white man" have never needed group protection... These are mostly novice political authoritarians by my view, so I can see where Biden is appealing when he claims to have "beaten the socialist". On that note, have you seen any leading voices in either party bother to define what socialism is or is not? I mean Biden uses the heuristic but does he ever explain precisely how a certain policy position is or is not "socialist"? Sorry for the early morning rant!!!!
Are future Speakers the most tenured or the most capable or the most high-visibility? Or the best-looking? Or the most persuasive? Or the most trusted with maintenance of a given legislative status?
He sides with the working class. You're with corporate America. You're not gonna win a popularity contest.
Bernie's policies are overwhelmingly popular. He lost because the voters were told he couldn't beat Trump. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...n-night-fox-polls-what-americans-want.580712/
They're the best at raising money from. I thought you knew how politics works? Jimmy knows this. Pelosi's prowess as a fundraiser helps her secure speakership • OpenSecrets
Every Democrat who ran on Medicare for All won their election. Even in Republican districts. Only corporate Dems lost.
Amazing! If the US population as a whole really is to the Left of Biden on policy (which disproves my US post cold-war PTSD anti-'socialist' thesis), then the failure of Sanders - a man who loves the US, loves people, and thinks economic fairness is as important as 'freedom' - his failure to gain the support of the DNC, is indeed a tragedy. But how will you explain a Dem failure to win the senate in the upcoming Georgia election, now that Trump is gone, if the Repubs maintain control of the senate?
No, politics is not as simple as Jimmy thinks and yes it helps to have great fundraising but Speakers need much more human capital rather and political acumen than just financial capital. Unless of course there is no honest government and businesses are making committee appointments and selecting who takes power 2rd in the line of succession from POTUS. Speakers probably don't even need to moderate debate in Congress or have any experience or a long history of "success" however defined, as "they're the best at raising money". For what it's worth, I can't see AOC managing to truly be a Speaker, nor do I think she could manage that level of raised money without doing something stupid and getting caught. She presents as a cultural radical to me and no way would I want her moderating any debate over legislation.
Ah...so now I understand your position: Sanders maybe, AOC definitely not. But let me explain; AOC is "radical" (we can leave out the 'cultural'* bit) because she understands MMT, ie, she knows we can dismiss economic orthodoxy and authorize the sovereign currency-issuing government to create money alongside the orthodox method of money creation in private banks when they write loans (create deposits) for credit worthy customers. (FYI, the issue is the available resources and productive capacity of the nation, and the necessity to constrain TOTAL expenditure - whether public or private - to said output). Actually proved by this pandemic; there is no need for the federal government to be saddled by $trillions of debt in order to maintain the economy in hibernation, while the mass of non-essential workers will be unemployed, but must still pay their living expenses. OTOH, Stephanie Kelton told me that Bernie still accepts orthodoxy, ie, he still thinks he must raise taxes or borrow from the (money bags in) the private sector....at interest..... * I can forgive AOC for her "identity" politics, since orthodoxy is a disaster for the economically disadvantaged, such as the long term unemployed, and refugees escaping from war and poverty.
I did not support any Democratic candidate in this election. I did not feel that any one of them would look after my interests. That is way over my head. Every time I think I'm smart, there is something new to learn. As I understand you, Sanders would fund employment programs and economic aid programs by increasing taxation while taking "bad" loans from money-lenders (which is the SOP), whereas Cortez is of the thought that these practices are essentially short-sighted? Regarding identity politics: Why forgive it? Why forgive politicians who appeal to one's immutable characteristics to gain themselves to any constituency? There is some interesting research which shows that high-identifying members of any group will react with anger when their ID-group is perceived to be devalued within elite political discourse, and this seems obvious. However, that's not all; devaluation of one's identity (or a perception of devaluation) contributes to decreased feelings of both internal and external efficacy (external, in that we believe politicians care what we think / internal, in that we feel capable of participating in politics). As efficacy decreases, unconventional forms of civic engagement become favorable (protest, activism - that which is done outside of an institution), and this manifests as a sort of community nationalism that is based on identity. The cherry on top is an erosion of liberal tolerance for out-groups. Increased ID devaluation (or slanted valuation) --> increased anger --> decreased efficacy --> increased community nationalism --> decreased tolerance This to me is how Trump and the Reps. (and to be sure, their partisan opponents too) have done a harm to the country; it is not that I necessarily need to condemn any policy - it is that our politics uplifts winning demographics and belittles those perceived as impediments to victory. The result is people screaming in each others' faces (like they have been for some time now).[/QUOTE]
