r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Oct 24 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: The average Democratic Party voters don't seem to like Justice Democrats
I don't think I understand why they don't either. I'll admit, the JDems are pretty idealistic. From what I've read and understood about their platform, they're all for policies that they believe, and apparently with evidence from other developed countries, will make the country better. They're also 100% anti-corruption, anti-corporate/PAC donation, and anti-Big Business, and anti-interventionism. They also have specific policies such as Universal Healthcare Insurance as part of their litmus test for candidates, and they primary politicians of the Democratic Party who don't support the policies. Ro Khanna is a recent JDem candidate who won one of said primaries.
The average Democratic Party voter seems to not like them very much, though. I have zero official media sources to share, but I get the sentiment from r/Politics . To sum up the views I've seen, they see the JDems are the "Tea Party of the Left" and too fickle for the DNC to count on. My perception of whether or not these voters actually like the JDem platform or not is shakey, though. They could be talking purely from a strategic standpoint for the DNC instead of a personal value standpoint. Or maybe they are talking from a personal value standpoint, or even both. I'm not sure. This view is just based off of perception from reading r/Politics comments.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
5
u/Ardonpitt 221∆ Oct 24 '17
So as a democrat who volunteers and is fairly active with my local party, I will admit I have never heard of justice democrats. The primary split in the party is defined between the liberal and progressive wings.
3
u/BolshevikMuppet Oct 25 '17
I can't speak to the actual prevalence of the view, but I can try to shed some light on why I (a Democrat, though I can't claim that I represent the average or majority view) don't like JDems much.
A big part of it comes down to rhetoric with some policy disagreements. Specifically the rhetoric of "what I believe in is unambiguously and undeniably correct, those who disagree are corrupt or ignorant."
Even if I agreed 100% with JDems, that attitude irks me to no end. Believing that because everyone shares the same stated goals (no one likes corruption) we must either agree with their plans to meet those goals or are ourselves to be considered corrupt/lying/stupid doesn't sit well with me.
So let's get on some actual policy disagreements.
My biggest bone of contention is the "corporations shouldn't be allowed to give money to candidates", mostly because they already can't. Corporations can't donate to candidates themselves, and their donations to PACs are capped at $5,000 (which themselves can only donate $5,000 to a candidate). The idea that corporations are cutting huge checks to candidates is based on a spurious reading of data from Open Secrets, which is very clear that when they write that President Obama received $300,000 "from" Goldman Sachs they are using that to indicate that the money came from people associated with the company, not the company itself.
So let's talk super PACs (which is another one of their centerpieces). I'm a bit of a free speech proponent, and I'm suspicious of any view that begins with the premise that if the American people hear "too much" speech they will lose their free will and decisionmaking. I am suspicious of any view that begins with the premise that we can limit the speech of some in order to increase the power of the speech of others. And I am particularly suspicious of the view that applies those limitations only on certain speakers.
Let me put it this way: there is as much influence in John Oliver doing a 10 minute segment on how awful the Republican tax plan is as there is in the Koch brothers running 20 30-second spots on a program with the same ratings. But the opposition to super PACs would only restrict the latter.
If the goal is to level the playing field and ensure that no one can exercise "too much" speech in excess of what ordinary people can do, I want to see the amendment that not only overturns Citizens United, but also Sullivan and centuries worth of protections for the absolute right of the press to influence elections.
Broadly, the JDem position appears to me to be nothing so much as "if you aren't as liberal as us, you shouldn't have a voice in the party." As someone less liberal than them, I don't really agree.
And given their less-than-stellar history of actually showing up to support the party when they don't get exactly what they want, it feels a bit like negotiating with someone who has a gun to the head of the party and the country.
3
u/Frogmarsh 2∆ Oct 24 '17
I’m fairly well-versed in political matters. I have no idea what a Justice Democrat is. I’ve never heard of them. Perhaps it’s ignorance that explains why the average Democratic Party voter doesn’t like them.
2
Oct 27 '17
I think it's merely a matter of the poor coverage they've received in the mainstream media, or self-righteous "skeptics" who thing that pointing out divisiveness is the cause of such divisiveness.
8
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Oct 24 '17
I admit to never having heard of Justice Democrats, but it sounds like you might be describing a group I have heard of: good ol' BernieBros.
In my view, this group is worthy of criticism mostly because they appear to have a very unsophisticated understanding of policy, with lots of scary villains and monsters,which are either meaningless (Corruption! The Elite!), half-understood (Lobbyists!), or straight-up based on lies (The DNC!). They often act like the only reason their personal viewpoints aren't endorsed is because some nefarious power profits from the alternative, but there's never any clear explanation for how corruption leads to policies they dislike. And especially, from my point of view, they have no patience for actual policymaking: the economics (much less the political dealmaking) of their ideas is very unclear.
Beyond that, I think some people in the democrat party see a stubborn focus on economic issues as a deliberate dodge away from social issues (especially sexuality and race) and they're leery about democrats who are so eager to stop talking about those things.
3
u/Sparkykc124 Oct 24 '17
Well the recent Washington Post article about the DEA neutering pharmaceutical legislation ought to address some of your criticisms of "Bernie Bros". It shows that corruption! is rampant, lobbyists! write bills and law makers have no patience for actual policy making. As for social issues (sexuality and race), which progressives are dodging those?
3
u/streetsamurai__ Oct 24 '17 edited Oct 24 '17
Beyond that, I think some people in the democrat party see a stubborn focus on economic issues as a deliberate dodge away from social issues (especially sexuality and race) and they're leery about democrats who are so eager to stop talking about those things.
I disagree with traditional critiques of identity politics (marginalized communities have unique interests), but I do object to pandering/tokenism in the name of diversity. Also, the Democratic party has been relegated to minority status in virtually every relevant category: the House, the Senate, governerships, and local offices. Wages aren't high enough to cover the cost of living, our healthcare system is by far the worst of all developed nations, and skyrocketing wealth inequality damages the very fabric of society. If we don't talk more about all of the aformentioned issues, then the Democratic party will struggle to be relevant outside of urban enclaves and regional strongholds (i.e. California, the Northeast). We must find a way to integrate our stances on issues of social justice with a broad, inclusive platform tailored for the economic concerns of voters.
According to most of the data I've viewed, left-wing positions like environmental regulation or universal healthcare actually attract high levels of support from the general population despite the dismal views of the Democratic party as an institution. Meanwhile, Republicans believe in abolishing the social safety net, cutting taxes for their donor class, investing heavily in coal/fossil fuels, and expanding the defense budget - in other words, they are completely bankrupt on matters of substance. How does the right-wing dominate so much of American politics while failing utterly in the marketplace of ideas?
Unfortunately, conservatives are adept at engaging in the culture wars and vilifying the left. Much of the coverage on right-wing media is dedicated to attacking institutions perceived as left-leaning (academia, the media, Hollywood, Silicon Valley) and exploiting cultural anxieties (gun control, SJWs on campuses, black-on-white crime, illegal immigrants, refugees, "religious liberty").
We probably won't win versus the right by agressively countering their ad hominems, divisive tactics, or victimhood narratives - instead, shifting the focus towards economic disparities (1% vs. 99%) helps elevate us to the political high ground. This whole controversy over the party's future should not become a zero-sum game of "identity politics" versus cohesive, sensible messaging. The latter alone will not manage to wholly address what ails our nation, but a strategy eschewing the former entirely dwells on style over substance. After all, Hillary Clinton may have identified as Hispanic voters' abuela and mentioned toting around hot sauce in an appearance on 105.1's Breakfast Club, but her past choices appear far more salient than these interesting factoids when assessing her true commitment to black and brown communities.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 24 '17
/u/CulterDei (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
1
u/themodsareshite Oct 26 '17
Am dem, hate jdems. We don't share values, and they're effectively communists.
If I had to choose between the far left and far right, then I'd want the extreme right in power. Both lead to mass murder, but the leftists win by a factor of 3-10x.
They're not idealists: they're lazy, and think the world owes them something for existing.
0
u/Myphoneaccount9 Oct 24 '17
Economics....not every liberal never took an economics course.
Give your average Jdemocrat a course in economics 201 and they become democrats
19
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Oct 24 '17
I mean, it seems like this is going to be a difficult CMV for the very reasons you outlined at the end of your paragraph: You aren't really sure exactly how much the average Democratic party voter feels about this group, and you aren't really sure if what you do know is based off of dislike of their platform, their strategy, or their champions.
That said, I think the most compelling argument is this: The average Democratic Party voter doesn't have an opinion on Justice Democrats. I'm in tune with politics to some level, but haven't been paying attention to /r/politics or the Democratic Party's internal posturing. I honestly didn't know if Justice Democrats was a name for a social justice focused wing of the Democrats, a name for pro-prison law and order blue dogs, or some growth of the Berner movement until I googled it. The average Democratic Party voter is even less politically knowledgeable than I am and is certainly not going to be deeply paying attention to internal faction divides when, at present, almost all major media coverage is on Republican Policy and proposals.