Two paths for the democratic party

[hawkeyetraveler]

Pretty much everyone agrees the Democratic Party needs a major overhaul and most people agree we need a strong 2+ party system. It seems like there are two common themes emerging as to the direction the democrats should take.

Progressive Populism: I would call this the Bernie Sanders / AOC plan for America. Very similar to many European democracies where the government is providing a good social safety net when needed, where the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the Green New Deal gets implemented, etc.

Abundance Agenda: @Nole Lou introduced this concept to HBOT in a separate thread. It has adherents from both liberal and conservative circles. It acknowledges we need a smaller, more capable Federal government. It argues the democrats must be the party of EFFECTIVE government, recognizing that what we have today does not work and by defending it democrats shoot themselves in the face. But it also recognizes Trump’s approach is bad for America. It argues for streamlined regulation focused on economic growth and solving real problems like the lack of affordable housing in blue cities.

So I thought a poll would be interesting. What direction do you want to see the Dems take here?

 

[Hawkfan_08]

But please give me a viable candidate.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

But please give me a viable candidate.

Agreed. I recognize the poll may be difficult because it is more focused on philosophy than on an actual candidate.

 

[JasonTAlexanderJR]

Anyone who voted for Trump and think hes doing a great job are imbeciles

 

[WDSMHAWK]

I don't think they need to go full Bernie (even though I'd love it) but I think a step or two in that direction is needed.

 

[Hawkfan_08]

Agreed. I recognize the poll may be difficult because it is more focused on philosophy than on an actual candidate.

I'm just saying hypothetically going forward. The poll is fine, no need to change anything.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Pretty much everyone agrees the Democratic Party needs a major overhaul and most people agree we need a strong 2+ party system. It seems like there are two common themes emerging as to the direction the democrats should take.

Progressive Populism: I would call this the Bernie Sanders / AOC plan for America. Very similar to many European democracies where the government is providing a good social safety net when needed, where the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the Green New Deal gets implemented, etc.

Abundance Agenda: @Nole Lou introduced this concept to HBOT in a separate thread. It has adherents from both liberal and conservative circles. It acknowledges we need a smaller, more capable Federal government. It argues the democrats must be the party of EFFECTIVE government, recognizing that what we have today does not work and by defending it democrats shoot themselves in the face. But it also recognizes Trump’s approach is bad for America. It argues for streamlined regulation focused on economic growth and solving real problems like the lack of affordable housing in blue cities.

So I thought a poll would be interesting. What direction do you want to see the Dems take here?

What about the “abundance agenda” promotes abundance? Was that explained? There’s certainly nothing about a smaller govt by itself that does so. We’re getting that now. And I’m not sure who would argue against a more capable, highly effective govt at any size.

 

[BrunoMars420]

What about the “abundance agenda” promotes abundance? Was that explained? There’s certainly nothing about a smaller govt by itself that does so. We’re getting that now. And I’m not sure who would argue against a more capable, highly effective govt at any size.

The problem with our government is there are no risk controls in place. There is a reason why no one really blinks an eye when tax payer money is going to wild places and the defense department failing audit after audit.

The spirit of DOGE is correct but the way they are doing it is incorrect. It is an interesting in time with government and technology and how that will transform the feds

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The problem with our government is there are no risk controls in place. There is a reason why no one really blinks an eye when tax payer money is going to wild places and the defense department failing audit after audit.

The spirit of DOGE is correct but the way they are doing it is incorrect. It is an interesting in time with government and technology and how that will transform the feds

There is nothing about DOGE that is correct. Not one thing. It has nothing to do with making govt more accountable, more efficient, or more effective. It was never meant to do that. DOGE is chaos and that’s exactly what was intended. Democracy can die in chaos as easily as in darkness. Maybe faster.

 

[TarponSpringsNole]

We need social safety nets. One payer health care, extended maternity leave etc. I’d happily pay more in taxes as these things help to better everyone in society.

But I think the cultural rot is much too extensive at this point. It’s become an “only me” society that cares not one wit about the person next to them, let alone their community.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Voted Trump, would gladly Vote Dem if the candidate was focused on the right things.

I'm a centrist.

 

[Tom Paris]

We need social safety nets. One payer health care, extended maternity leave etc. I’d happily pay more in taxes as these things help to better everyone in society.

But I think the cultural rot is much too extensive at this point. It’s become an “only me” society that cares not one wit about the person next to them, let alone their community.

Still, one party is far less “only me” than the other one.

 

[TarponSpringsNole]

Still, one party is far less “only me” than the other one.

Absolutely. It’s akin to the Kama Sutra versus missionary with “mother”.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

The Democratic Party’s first step should be to fine tune their messaging so it has an appeal to a wider audience. They then need to stop championing wedge issues that most people don’t care about.

Perhaps after they look themselves in the mirror they can then figure out that America is full of inbreds and idiots and you have to at the very least make some type of overture to the dregs of society to win elections.

Oh, and you can’t win the presidency at this time in history running a woman. Latinos, Muslims, and black men will reject her.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Still, one party is far less “only me” than the other one.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

It’s become an “only me” society that cares not one wit about the person next to them, let alone their community.

So, the Jesus-y part of MAGA.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How so?

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

How so?

Who do you think has been in charge as we have watched this fracture?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

At the moment, the vote is

Bernie = 12
Abundance = 8
Unchanged Dems = 0

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

The Democratic Party’s first step should be to fine tune their messaging so it has an appeal to a wider audience. They then need to stop championing wedge issues that most people don’t care about.

Perhaps after they look themselves in the mirror they can then figure out that America is full of inbreds and idiots and you have to at the very least make some type of overture to the dregs of society to win elections.

Oh, and you can’t win the presidency at this time in history running a woman. Latinos, Muslims, and black men will reject her.

Fwiw, it's actually really impressive how well the Dems keep everyone under the tent happy. The viewpoints of several of the groups do not agree at all other than, white man bad, as an example in your muslim/lgbtq communities. How you grow the tent wider and keep everyone will be challenging.

I would contest that was a reason some dems stayed home however. Who is the dem party, as the Op suggest? The vocal "socialist" side wants to believe it is the future but the money is with corporate dems.


Good thread.

 

[NDallasRuss]

The Democratic Party’s first step should be to fine tune their messaging so it has an appeal to a wider audience. They then need to stop championing wedge issues that most people don’t care about.

I agree with this. Part of the reason Kamala lost (in addition to her just not being a good candidate) is that there were too many things that she and other Ds supported that only appealed or mattered to a very small number of people, but were divisive enough to turn off a whole lot more. For instance: Trans in womens sports only benefits a small number of people. They spent a lot of time, effort, and political capital to keep backing it, and all it did was give Rs a very fiery issue for them to campaign on for a pretty easy win.

At least play to the majority of people that make up the center, during the campaign. Run a good candidate who isn't 100 years old, or an obvious slimeball, who looks nice, speaks well, and can naturally get people to like them. Have that candidate campaign on a lot of things that it's easy for people to nod along to, and hard to argue against. Give the voters American prosperity, packaged in a way that appeals to everyone: the rising American tide will raise all ships, and we're going to make sure that the tide keeps rising, and that everyone has the best ship they can.

For other issues like immigration, it's okay to recognize that immigration/border laws need to be followed, and that there's also an opportunity to fix a broken system so there's an effective path to citizenship for those people that deserve it and do it the right way.

 

[LunchBox50]

The spirit of DOGE is correct but the way they are doing it is incorrect. It is an interesting in time with government and technology and how that will transform the feds

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

[Finance85]

I voted for Chase Oliver. Apparently non-binary thinking isn't recognized here.

I would vote for a Democrat if they voted for spending cuts, especially to the military and foreign aid, and reduced the size of the federal government, and government regulation overreach. I would consider voting for a Republican under the same conditions, with the added condition they repeal the Patriot Act and stop pushing government endorsement of religion. As for the latter, that doesn't mean freedom from religion.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

the rising American tide will raise all ships, and we're going to make sure that the tide keeps rising, and that everyone has the best ship they can.

Most people (and all Republicans) who spout this cliche leave out the highlighted part. Thanks for including it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

As for the latter, that doesn't mean freedom from religion.

Why not?

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

The other side of this conversation is that the premise is misplaced. Why always the Democratic Party in need of a makeover?Why never the party that currently resembles a heaping pile of MAGAt-infested elephant shit? Why never them?

After all, Team Trump only benefits a fraction of the population. Not only that, but they seem hellbent on anal raping the rest of the American population with an elongated cucumber. And still the majority of these idiots will gleefully bend over, grab their ankles, and squeal to high heaven just so they can lament about a handful of transgender women ****ing up women’s sports. It’s colossally stupid, and yet that is the path millions of imbeciles have chosen—to take Trump and Elon’s fascist-filled dildo straight up their mud whistles.

In short, I am done musing about what Democrats need to change. It’s time for the American people to start figuring out what they need to change. Don’t tell me it’s the Democratic Party that needs a serious makeover when you have Team Trump turning the executive branch into a trashy reality TV show morphed into a white trash soap opera. It’s like inspecting two flawed faces—one with a couple giant zits on the chin and the other something akin to the travesty once on @joelbc1’s face—and then concluding it’s the chin that needs makeup.

Folks, the pimpled chin is not the problem right now.

 

[Rifler]

The spirit of DOGE is correct but the way they are doing it is incorrect.

I can agree with this,.. However, we are in such a financial world of shit right now, I'm willing to see cuts being made incorrectly until such time that they can start being made correctly...

 

[Moral]

Democrats joining up in compromise politics over the years has just shifted the Overton window to the right. The left has almost exclusively been running neoliberals since 1992 which was a big driving force away from workers and towards business interests. What we are seeing now is a result of two neoliberal parties which has created apathy and desperation, so much so that people fell for Trump's fake populism....twice. It damn near looks like the proposal is for a new Republican party to sit between a far right party and a barely left wing democratic party. So I would have no interest in that party.

When stuff like sending people to an El Salvadorian supermax prison/slave prison is happening or threatening Greenland, Panama, Canada, Iran, Yemen, Gaza, and other countries is occuring. When gutting agencies to make room for more tax cuts for billionaires is taking place, and you get some Democrats to join up with the CR funding bill then I would say it is absolutely not time to find more common ground between these two parties.

People will also find out that as a nation that strategy won't drum up much excitement at all. By the numbers it isn't even that popular on a sports board full of middle aged white guys which would be its key demographic and in it's nature it is supposed to have appeal because it feels compromising, but people have really seen decades of lost ground by the Democrats because of compromise. Compromise hardly feels like a good thing anymore.

To repair the nation Citizen's United must be drowned in the bath tub. PAC contributions need to be banned. Public funding of elections must be the only allowed form of funding elections. The electoral college needs to be done away with. There will need to be strong regulatory agencies because corporations will take every inch they can and Iowa has the cancer rates to show for it. A compromise party will deliver none of those.

 

[Finance85]

Why not?

There's a difference between not endorsing a religion and trying to erase religion, especially if someone claims to be offended. To put it simply, the difference is being forced to actively participate. Having a prayer before a HS football game is OK. Being forced to lead or say a prayer isn't OK.

 

[Colonoscopy]

I think the abundance agenda is a bit of a baseline expectation.

And then we have a big issue with growing wealth inequality and all its ramifications. I know the Bernie wing cares about this, and I think it has to be factored into any solution put forth... the exact details to a solution aren't clear, though.

So some intelligent synthesis of the two.

 

[BrunoMars420]

The other side of this conversation is that the premise is misplaced. Why always the Democratic Party in need of a makeover?Why never the party that currently resembles a heaping pile of MAGAt-infested elephant shit? Why never them?

After all, Team Trump only benefits a fraction of the population. Not only that, but they seem hellbent on anal raping the rest of the American population with an elongated cucumber. And still the majority of these idiots will gleefully bend over, grab their ankles, and squeal to high heaven just so they can lament about a handful of transgender women ****ing up women’s sports. It’s colossally stupid, and yet that is the path millions of imbeciles have chosen—to take Trump and Elon’s fascist-filled dildo straight up their mud whistles.

In short, I am done musing about what Democrats need to change. It’s time for the American people to start figuring out what they need to change. Don’t tell me it’s the Democratic Party that needs a serious makeover when you have Team Trump turning the executive branch into a trashy reality TV show morphed into a white trash soap opera. It’s like inspecting two flawed faces—one with a couple giant zits on the chin and the other something akin to the travesty once on @joelbc1’s face—and then concluding it’s the chin that needs makeup.

Folks, the pimpled chin is not the problem right now.

The Republican Party went through a huge overhaul at least twice the last 20 years with the Tea Party then MAGA. The recency bias is hitting Dems hard because they just lost everything and have their worst approval as a party at 27%.

To me the middle is expanding in America and wants another party other than the 2 party system. There are plenty on here in the middle that agree with the abundance agenda, better immigration enforcement, Federal safety nets, a more efficient government, etc… that escapes the right and left.

 

[Moral]

I can agree with this,.. However, we are in such a financial world of shit right now, I'm willing to see cuts being made incorrectly until such time that they can start being made correctly...

I wonder what that deficit looks like if we had not done the Bush tax cuts, Trump 1 tax cuts, a couple of 20 year wars, some Wall Street, AIG, auto industry and other similar bailouts. Plus the dreams of Trump 2 tax cuts that add 4.5 trillion more to the deficit. Hell we might not even need a fake government agency ran by a ketamine junky and some unvetted youngsters running around vacuuming up data, killing agencies without the real authority to do it, and creating likely security vulnerabilities.

The Republican strategy over the years with stuff like SS, USPS, or the whole government has been to damage and erode it to use as an excuse to remove or privatize instead of solving issues or strengthening services. The USPS would be on sound financial ground without the Bush law making them fund healthcare 75 years into the future or to say it another way funding healthcare for people that aren't born yet. SS could be on sound footing by raising the cap. We don't need to damage, destroy, privatize as a normal course of action.

 

[BrunoMars420]

I think the abundance agenda is a bit of a baseline expectation.

And then we have a big issue with growing wealth inequality and all its ramifications. I know the Bernie wing cares about this, and I think it has to be factored into any solution put forth... the exact details to a solution aren't clear, though.

So some intelligent synthesis of the two.

I think the populism is there for the growing wealth inequality and people have seen it grow year by year. We just need a younger leader to capture that and come up with a solution. The Abundance agenda is a great start but it means nothing if it is only a book and not being put into action.

 

[uihawk82]

Pretty much everyone agrees the Democratic Party needs a major overhaul and most people agree we need a strong 2+ party system. It seems like there are two common themes emerging as to the direction the democrats should take.

Progressive Populism: I would call this the Bernie Sanders / AOC plan for America. Very similar to many European democracies where the government is providing a good social safety net when needed, where the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, the Green New Deal gets implemented, etc.

Abundance Agenda: @Nole Lou introduced this concept to HBOT in a separate thread. It has adherents from both liberal and conservative circles. It acknowledges we need a smaller, more capable Federal government. It argues the democrats must be the party of EFFECTIVE government, recognizing that what we have today does not work and by defending it democrats shoot themselves in the face. But it also recognizes Trump’s approach is bad for America. It argues for streamlined regulation focused on economic growth and solving real problems like the lack of affordable housing in blue cities.

So I thought a poll would be interesting. What direction do you want to see the Dems take here?

The Dems like me know we need to get back to the basics. We all know there are needs and wants and needs are the main thing people have to have as a top priority.

FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights is a good start; people should have enough food, clean, water, clothing, and a roof over their head at a decent cost. Jobs are a need not a want so they need a decent yearly wage or salary. People should know they can get good healthcare at a reasonable cost. And good free schooling and affordable college for those who want a degree.

Jobs, food, a home, affordable and secure dental and medical care, old age assistance like SSec and late in life help, etc etc. These are what the Dems need to focus on first.

Dems have not forgotten about these things but they dont put them first; instead they have gone more to talking inflation, recession, stock market, economy etc which are more abstract compared to the other NEEDS that are listed.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

The Republican Party went through a huge overhaul at least twice the last 20 years with the Tea Party then MAGA. The recency bias is hitting Dems hard because they just lost everything and have their worst approval as a party at 27%.

To me the middle is expanding in America and wants another party other than the 2 party system. There are plenty on here in the middle that agree with the abundance agenda, better immigration enforcement, Federal safety nets, a more efficient government, etc… that escapes the right and left.

You just perfectly encapsulated everything I was talking about in my post—a large swath of Americans are idiots and don’t understand the issues.

This so-called “overhaul” in the Republican Party that started with the tea-baggers had absolutely nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with cloaked racism. That’s why you saw no tea-bagger at any point in time during W’s presidency, when the Clinton surplus disappeared and the national debt swelled to 10 trillion because of W’s vanity wars, protest wasteful spending.

Don’t get me started on MAGA.

So, yes, the MIB is colossally stupid and motivated to vote. We agree.

 

[Moral]

Looks like some other people see this the same way as me. It appears Koch and other wealthy people are behind this Abundance movement thing too. Kill it with fire.

The Abundance Agenda: Neoliberalism’s Rebrand

The new centrist push to regain control of the Democratic Party, with corporate money

prospect.org

 

[uihawk82]

I think the populism is there for the growing wealth inequality and people have seen it grow year by year. We just need a younger leader to capture that and come up with a solution. The Abundance agenda is a great start but it means nothing if it is only a book and not being put into action.

Correct, there is a huge need for a dynamic leader for the Dems.

Trump is an idiot and an asshole but he talks with a hyperbole and wildness that people are attracted to.

JFK was 40 when running for Prez and man could he deliver a speech and make his great points. I am sure there are people like JFK out there but they are not in politics. Sen John Ossoff is a very good speaker but he doesnt try to get in the spotlight.

 

[BrunoMars420]

Looks like some other people see this the same way as me. It appears Koch and other wealthy people are behind this Abundance movement thing too. Kill it with fire.

The Abundance Agenda: Neoliberalism’s Rebrand

The new centrist push to regain control of the Democratic Party, with corporate money

prospect.org

” In other words, the abundance faction argues that overregulation is the biggest issue standing in the way of progress.

That’s certainly true in some instances—again, we’re anti–restrictive zoning. But it’s not true across the board. Moreover, it fails to recognize the role of powerful incumbents who seek to limit abundance for their own purposes.”

I don’t think the abundance agenda is for removing regulation across the board. That is a false premise this author is working on. To me it is to have a very efficient federal government that will be cutting out a lot of the red tape that is simply not needed anymore. Ezra always brings up the California railway system as his prime example of what’s wrong with the current form of government.

Also, how do we know it fails to limit the power of incumbents? One can argue that with the abundance agenda it would streamline a lot of important projects and at the same time we can put and create SMART regulations in place to limit the power of people in these positions.

 

[Moral]

” In other words, the abundance faction argues that overregulation is the biggest issue standing in the way of progress.

That’s certainly true in some instances—again, we’re anti–restrictive zoning. But it’s not true across the board. Moreover, it fails to recognize the role of powerful incumbents who seek to limit abundance for their own purposes.”

I don’t think the abundance agenda is for removing regulation across the board. That is a false premise this author is working on. To me it is to have a very efficient federal government that will be cutting out a lot of the red tape that is simply not needed anymore. Ezra always brings up the California railway system as his prime example of what’s wrong with the current form of government.

Also, how do we know it fails to limit the power of incumbents? One can argue that with the abundance agenda it would streamline a lot of important projects and at the same time we can put and create SMART regulations in place to limit the power of people in these positions.

The problem with the US is that power rests in the hands of a few very wealthy and powerful people. Wealthy and powerful people are pulling the strings with the abundance movement. Therefore the abundance movement would look to keep power in the hands of the wealthy and powerful. The negotiated positions between two neoliberal parties is neoliberalism.

Man you just get hyped for bullshit compromise. This type of compromise only looks to the strengthening of the status quo. It's like a nesting doll of neoliberalism. It would be the party of Hakeem Jefferies, Chuck Schumer, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, Kirsten Sinema, John Huntsman, and John Kasich. Those type of people helped set this current landscape. Granted, they are better than what we have now, however, the amount of voters that will look to politicians like that to correct the issues would be small after the damage that is about to be inflicted. Incrementalism and compromise has failed miserably from the left. I'm a pass.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

What about the “abundance agenda” promotes abundance? Was that explained? There’s certainly nothing about a smaller govt by itself that does so. We’re getting that now. And I’m not sure who would argue against a more capable, highly effective govt at any size.

First I will say I am no expert on this. I am learning as much as possible though and like what I see so far. To summarize my understanding it recognizes the advantage of a pro-business climate, but with smart/effective regulation - not the ineffective policies we have today. It believes in a safety net, maybe not to the degree of Bernie though.

Take housing: we have unaffordable housing in blue cities despite democrats running those cities. Why? In large part because it is unprofitable to build additional affordable housing due to regulations, zoning timelines, environmental concerns, community pushback, government intervention, etc.

And yet we know we need affordable housing. The answer according to the abundance agenda is to find a path to streamline the obstacles to doing things efficiently. Obstacles that were all too often put in place by Democrats with all the best intentions, but that backfire when it comes to getting stuff done.