The Democrats portrayed Obama as a progressive in 2008 and they were successful. The Democratic establishment could abide this because they knew he wasn't one. (Side note: the Trudeau Liberal gov't in Canada also won with this formula of using progressive language without progressive policy). Bernie was riding a groundswell of support in 2016 until the Democrats and the media clipped his wings. They couldn't abide Sanders because he would actually push for a reorientation of the federal gov't and economy. They also bypassed Biden and pushed a deeply repugnant candidate who won the popular vote but doomed the country to four or more years of brazen corruption and anti-governance. They had a second chance in 2020 but again played it "safe" repeating the narrative that the spectre of socialism was too frightening for the voters. They again won the GE but lost ground in the Congress and could still not take the Senate. Progressives like AOC and Omar have just cruised to reelection despite immense pressure and fundraising by opponents and a lack of support from establishment Democrats. The future of the party is not running lifelong hawkish conservatives like Clinton and Biden, in my opinion, and hopefully the end of the Boomer era will bore that out.
I have found it amusing how the boomers get so much blame for how fucked up America is. Perhaps if we had a cool, All American nickname like “the Greatest Generation” the younger generations would cut us some slack. It’s not like we were exactly handed a sustainable culture by that Greatest Generation. Or one that was even realistic. Yeah, we’ve fucked things up mightily, but I’d argue no more so than every previous generation. Gens X, Y, Z and beyond did not grow up cowering under school desks or in school basements, practicing for the day when the Big One was going to drop. They weren’t steeped in the hysteria that the Communists would storm our shores, kill our fathers and rape and enslave our mothers. Those generations can laugh, but that’s the kind of crap we were raised on. We saw the Berlin Wall go up, along with the resultant tensions. We had Russian nuclear missiles just off the American coast, with nuclear war just a stupid mistake away. If that makes us “hawks” (an exaggeration if there ever was one), then so be it. Yet if we did not exactly invent the anti war culture, we took it to a whole different level. What anyone sees on the streets today is compliments of the Boomers, good, bad or indifferent. And the following generations already have a good start on fucking things up even worse (Antifa anyone?). Welcome to 21st Century America. This boomer would personally have a president that leans towards the “don’t fuck with us” (and the rest of the free world) side of things rather than a president who appeases dictators and deals from a position of weakness. That said, I personally don’t have any problems with progressives issues. I’m just smart enough (and jaded enough) to know that the progressive agenda isn’t going to go anywhere fast and Boomers have nothing to do with it. Not every member of every younger generation is a progressive. not everyone (unfortunately) believes in any or all of the progressive agenda, no matter how “correct” it might be. If this last election has proven anything beyond a doubt, it’s that America is a very fractured and divisive country, with no one willing to compromise on their agendas whatsoever. Everybody’s right and everybody’s wrong. And we no longer have any clue as to what it was that actually made America “great” somewhere back in the murky past. But to blame Boomers any more than any other generation for the slowdown of the progressive agenda is flat out false.......it’s down to good, old fashioned American arrogance....and stupidity.
Nicely said. She also doesn't purport to represent working class people, she is working class people. (Talking specifically about Ted Cruz who proclaims his party to be blue collar while his wife is the managing director of Goldman Sachs ffs).
Our generation had planted some seeds for civil rights and equality then disco happened and sex, drugs and consumption of entertainment had no competition....just want to mention that it's been refreshing to read OT these days where intelligent conversations are again being cultivated....respect!
If anything is responsible for the decline (and eventual death) of American Democracy, it is social media. It is absolutely the worst thing that could have happened to a so called “civilized” society. And I believe that history will prove me right (not that I’ll be around to see it).
The Democratic Party leaders are very old. Pelosi is 80, Schumer is 70, Biden is 78, Clinton is 73, Feinstein is 122, half of the Senate is over 65, the average House Democrat is nearly two decades older than Republican. How can you progress when the leadership will never retire? Obama tried to get RBG to retire in 2009 or so but she decided desperately trying not to die for the last decade was preferable. Now she's been replaced with a worst case scenario who will terrorize Americans for the next thirty years. Age is a problem for the Democrats. I don't mean any insult by it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...ercent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all?amp 7/10 voters support Medicare for All. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...ing-taxes-on-those-making-at-least-400000?amp Most Americans including half of Republicans support raising taxes on the rich. https://news.gallup.com/poll/315962/americans-say-policing-needs-major-changes.aspx Most Americans support police reform. Progressivism is not as unpopular as it is portrayed to be by both parties.
The media and people need an enemy. And she (and the other 3) were chosen because they represent things that scare people.
I think there are two things here (from the Democratic side) with AOC: 1. Does she threaten the Democratic establishment? Yes, absolutely. She's an avatar for a drastic (for America) reprioritization in terms of what we focus on and spend federal money on. Every establishment, not just the Democratic one, has people who benefit from the status quo and the leaders of that establishment are always primary among that. Any drastic change to the party is going to change who the "winners and losers" are and that's threatening to the people who are currently in charge. 2. Is the fact that she (and Bernie Sanders and others who are Democratic Socialists or lean that direction) threatens the Democratic establishment the reason they aren't winning over majorities of the national Democratic population? No, I don't think so. As an example, large majorities of black Americans supported Clinton over Sanders. Large majorities of black Americans supported Biden over Sanders. The reason is not that they're economically conservative (they can be more socially conservative, but that's a separate issue) or the wrong group of people for the message of economic populism that Democratic Socialists are selling. The reason is that black community (especially, but to some extent also Hispanics) as a whole prefer smaller, incremental gains over purported revolutions, because large-scale upheavals often redound to the detriment of minority populations. They're not looking for risky, they're looking for slowly growing the gains in racial equality and economic safety nets. To be sure, there are plenty of black Americans looking for big revolutions but (from what I've read and heard) they're not the majority of the community. White Democrats are more likely to find appeal in economic populism but there are also a lot of (often older) more conservative white Democrats who view it as "socialism" and they come from a time when socialism absolutely was a bad word. So you end up with something of a split among white Democrats and a minority of non-white Democrats which isn't the path to power in the Democratic party. I think the ideas of Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders and all are going to win in the long-term, but not when they are considered "revolutionary." Those ideas will win when they start to become mainstream, which is in the process of happening. As @speeds noted, some of their ideas are already more popular than not and society in general moves to the left over time (in fits and starts, not as a smoothly linear thing)--in 20 years, it's quite possible that where AOC is today will be considered orthodoxy and maybe even the "conservative" viewpoint within the Democratic party. It's fine to criticize the Democratic establishment if they're out of step with how you feel, but I think people overstate their power in determining who wins, either in terms of actual nominations or in terms of the war of ideas.
Say what you will about the boomers, but at least we vote. If younger people voted in similar numbers, they wouldn't have to wait till we die off to take control. It is entirely legal, ethical, and possible to vote boomers out of office - but it does require actually voting. barfo
Yup, sooner or later, I believe some of their ideas will no longer be viewed as "revolutionary"...but instead, gradually be seen as"evolutionary".
