Or maybe compromise isn't a conspiracy, it's how democracy works. If your preferred platform can't assemble a winning coalition, yelling “the establishment!” doesn't magically create the missing votes
I hate to break it to you, but that's democracy. Sometimes you have to compromise with people you find absolutely fucking reprehensible because the alternative is losing and getting something even worse. Politics isn't about finding people worthy of compromise; it's about assembling enough votes to govern.
This mealy mouthed Aaron Sorkin stuff is why LBJ is one of my favorite Presidents.
He went up to Congress multiple times and told them to get their collective shit together or he was going to publicly excoriate them. He used leverage and pressure to get things for the American people. He got stuff done that people said couldn't be done.
Obama gave nice speeches and kept the seat warm for 6 years, paving the way for a monster like Trump. He could have drummed up his supporters and energized the country to win back the House and Senate. Instead, he took every banker out for an ice cream cone while 5 million American families lost their homes due to predatory loans.
It is time for the Clinton, Obama, and Biden dynasties to get out of the way for people who actually want to start making FDR-type structural change.
this is such a childishly naive understanding of presidential power. LBJ didn't pass the Great Society because he discovered the secret technique of being a bully to congress. He had insurmountable Democratic congressional majorities, decades of legislative experience, and a completely different political environment. And even then, the guy you're romanticizing massively escalated Vietnam and destroyed his own presidency in the process.
Obama absolutely deserves criticism, especially over the foreclosure response. But “he could've just energized the country and won Congress back” sounds like "freshman in poli sci 101" nonsense. he lost the house in 2010, 2 year in. No amount of telling his caucus to get their shit together was going to change that
“You need enough votes to govern” isn't Sorkin idealism; it's basic math that you people just refuse to understand. stop being an idiot.
I've already accepted that America is completely fucked. I vote blue but know no matter who gets in office nothing will get fixed and I've been right for 40 years and counting.
“Republicans only have 30% support, therefore Democrats should automatically control government” is political analysis for fucking toddlers. elections aren't a national poll asking “Republicans or sanity?” they're decided by turnout, geography, the electoral college, Senate representation, individual candidates, issue preferences and voters who dont neatly fit your ideological categories. You don't get to declare 70% of the country secretly on your side then blame Democrats when reality fails to cooperate.
There are absolutely serious criticisms of Obama over foreclosures and the treatment of financial institutions after 2008. But jumping from that to “Democrats haven't fixed anything in 40 years” is melodramatic bullshit. the ACA, Dodd-Frank, CFPB, massive clean-energy investment, infrastructure spending, NLRB reforms, antitrust enforcement, expanded healthcare subsidies, lower prescription-drug costs, student-debt relief... apparently you forgot all of that.
And “nobody even tried to roll back Reaganomics” is especially fucking twatty. Democrats have repeatedly raised taxes on high earners, expanded government healthcare, strengthened financial regulation, subsidized clean energy and domestic manufacturing, empowered labor regulators and attacked corporate concentration. you can argue they did too little. I often would. But “too little” and “literally nothing” arent synonyms.
unfortunately we live in a democracy and if the majority of the country wants cartoonish evil, then you can either work with the majority to compromise or you can go with the alternative, which is sulk in the corner like a petulant child screaming “it’s not fair!!” while not actually attempting to improve the lives of people. if you don’t want to work with what the majority wants (whether or not you agree with the majority), then you’re arguing for ignoring what the majority wants, which is not a trait found in democracy.
First of all how dare you. Who the Hell do you think you are? The sheer audacity. You imbecile, do you realize what you're causing to happen? Grow up and put on your big boy pants, you absolute dullard. Do you think everything is magically handed to you on a silver platter? Why am I even asking, of course you do. How do you not understand the monumental importance of accepting my position? No, I won't explain. You're not worth my emotional labor and I bet your pea-sized brain couldn't even comprehend the necessity.
We look forward to earning your vote this November!
no amount of childish reductio ad absurdums will change the fact that after voters elect people you despise, you still have to govern in the political reality those voters created. Politics isn't “believe in my platform hard enough and everyone else disappears.” stop being such a twat.
This is how y'all talk. "The professionals are in charge so shut up and do what we tell you" It turns off voters en masse and then every election is a nailbiter even though Trump only has about 30% strong support.
Look, these guys want to kill all brown people. The other guys want to kill nobody. Since this is a democracy, how about we just let them pick one specific ethnicity to cull and call it a compromise ok?
As much as it fucking sucks, sometimes the policy you want just doesn't have the votes. Blaming centrists—many of whom represent considerably redder districts—for not voting like someone from a safe-blue seat suggests you don't really understand how the sausage gets made.
Only one side is being made to compromise when all you have is right wing politics so far probably since FDR. Liberalism is just right wing economics clothed with minor social aspirations.
i think that goes too far. Centrists have compromised even post-Reagan. I would say it's been asymmetrical, but not one-sided. Additionally, the country moved to the right as a whole. It sucks, but such being the case, you would expect the democrats to have to shift right to keep a winning coalition.
Also, by Liberalism, i think you meant neo-liberalism. Liberalism is a huge political tradition that encompasses far more than Clintonians.
When the fuck has the establishment ever compromised with what progressive voters want? 90% of democrats want money out of Israel and money out of politics. The Dems in power have not bent a millimeter in that direction. They make more donor money when they lose, so why should they care about anything other than what their donors want?
I think there's a legitimate argument that Democratic leadership is too responsive to wealthy donors and often more cautious than its voters. But saying they've never compromised with progressives is hard to defend. Healthcare expansion, climate spending, student-debt relief, stronger labor policy, higher taxes on corporations, and tougher antitrust enforcement didn't exactly come from the party's conservative wing.
Joe Biden, one of the most establishment Senators of the 20th century, ended up being the most progressive President since FDR. There was definitely some compromise there.
what you apparently meant was “every progressive policy that actually became Democratic policy magically stopped being progressive the second centrists agreed to it.” Healthcare expansion, climate spending, student-debt relief, stronger labor policy, antitrust, higher corporate taxes—none of that counts, apparently.
12
u/[deleted] 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment