It was actually a disclaimer because you and I don't really get along but I did not want you going off like I'm attacking you and prattle on with buzz words. Oh well.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2020-05-23 02:25pm
If you want me to listen to what you have to say, this isn't a great note to start on.
Nobody, of course. Just because I deny loomer's authority to label me does not mean I am claiming that authority for myself.
But this is a non-answer. Its effectively "I know you are but what am I" level argument. Of course, because you already poisoned the well by predicting that I would respond negatively to anything you said, you can now use this as "proof" that you were right, and that I'm just "blowing off" anything you say, rather than rejecting a shitty argument.
LOL, you mean the majority of my post?However, you actually did say something interesting further down, which I would like to address:
Indeed, and he would be right to do so. That, as American's, we are so hyperfocused on a narrow band of left to right centrist does not make someone just left or right of that band extremists. Loomer is an extremist, and not in a bad way (that I'm aware of) just as a definition. If your entire scale is left/center/right, then someone like Loomer is an order of magnitude off the end of that scale and he is extremely off your scale. Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists like Sanders and even Warren are just left of center left. This is not an attack of you, them, or anything else. It's zeroing the scale.Actually, based on his comments above, I'm pretty sure loomer would regard Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (certainly the latter) as Not Real Leftists too.
Perhaps an analogy. If center is 0, and Biden is 5, you're a 10, Sanders is 100 and Loomer is 10,000. Since you're a 10, everyone left of you looks the same but to be fair, the difference of Sander's 100 and Loomer's 10k is huge and to equate them in asinine.
A couple things here. It hasn't even dawned on you that neither candidate will put forth, support, let alone enact policy goals Loomer wants, has it? As far as wanting policies and picking a candidate who will champion and enact, neither candidate will do that, so it's a wash for him. You assume you're vague policies and Loomer's policies have similar foundations. They may not. The thought hasn't even occurred to you. You've just assumed that the things Biden will do will be more palatable to Loomer than what Trump would do. I don't know, I'm not Loomer, but the idea has not occurred to you, and you keep going on as if they are.But that aside, the question here is, do we define who is a "true leftist" by beliefs and goals, or by tactics? My beliefs haven't changed much since February. My goals haven't changed much since February. I simply recognized that I will get more of the left-wing policies I believe in from Biden than from Trump, and that we are at a point where those are the only viable options. Refusing to vote for Biden, and increasing the likelihood of a Trump win (and yes, that is the practical result, whatever academic argument you want to make about the responsibility of non-voters) won't actually accomplish any of the left-wing goals I support- in fact it will render just about every one of them impossible to accomplish.
Second, yes, an absolute categorization of personal beliefs is hard, since no two people will have the exact opinion on each and everyone of thousands of intricate positions. When putting people on a chart of political positions, a lot of gray area is involved. That said, gross characterizations and generalities are made to categorize. A person might be in the hazy gray between two definitions and that's fine. Are you a centrist or a left centrist. Cool. Though, and I think the problem is, it's really hard to act/vote/propose policy that is... say centrist and then demand to be known as a progressive or Democratic Socialist, let alone a hard leftist or Socialist or Communist, etc... Just because you're a 10 doesn't mean you get to claim to be a thousand, but if you stretch to a 15, cool.
Third, yes I agree with you. Long acting politicians change, in multiple ways. Politics is the art of compromise, after all. That being said, as above, if you change from a 100 to a 4, you don't get to call yourself a 100 anymore. If you change, you change. Also, times change, issues that used to be X may or may not be Y anymore. If the problem is solved due to your progressiveness on it 30 years ago, you're not necessarily a progressive on it anymore because it's a non issue anymore. For example, being for Woman's rights, voting or even their bodies, isn't progressive anymore, it's baseline. It's outside the norm and way radical right to go against it. But it sure the hell was radical 100 years ago.
And lastly, no... staying home and not voting is not automatically a vote for Trump. Again, it doesn't even occur to you otherwise. A Republican and/or anyone center right and more to the right, staying home is actually a vote against Trump.
Who gets to draw the line in the sand of where one starts and the other ends?So, who is the true believer: the person who wilfully sabotages left-wing policy goals because they didn't get enough of what they wanted? Or the person who accepts some progress as a preferable outcome to none? Because having consistent principles is good, but refusing to ever work with anyone who isn't just right, even if it means losing everything, is another matter. And
Look, as I said previously, I'm of the sort that will hold my nose and vote Biden because he's better than Trump. By a lot. He is, though, no where close to what I want. So to flip your script, how much am I supposed to sacrifice, how many of my policy wants and needs get flushed down the toilet for Biden? So far I'm willing to make that choice, but don't expect me to like it.
Then you have the people with whom you simple assume have common policies with but don't. You want them to vote Biden when they get, in their view, nothing. Obama Care is not Medicare for All and Medicare for All is not a system like the UK NHS. Lambasting the group who want NHS because with candidate X they get a slight increase in Obama Care and his candidacy is more likely is asinine. Especially to prop yourself up on a soap box as you're the more practical guy about it.
Perhaps another analogy. The right wants to give us Steak, the Center Left wants to give us chicken, and I'm a vegetarian (I'm not, just making an analogy). Telling me I should and need to vote Center Left to get chicken since voting that way will give us all what we want, is not really a viable solution to what we want. Unless you assume chicken is closer to vegan than beef.
You're assuming one large political group with all shared goals. They are not. It's the idiocy of America two party system that does this, I get it, but it's just not true.From where I'm standing, this constant infighting on the Left, turning on each other for being too far Left or not far Left enough, is how we keep losing. And I know that I'm a part of that as well, but its hard to disengage from the fight when others around you are determined to continue it, and to make you a target of it. We need to be able to work with people who's beliefs aren't exactly your own. Even if we said "Fuck Democracy, let's have a civil war", we'd need to be able to do that, because there aren't enough True Leftists in America or most countries to win such a conflict.
I was, of course talking about political alignment and positions, not necessarily corruption of either. Yeah, sure. Corruption will bend people into shitty positions, either for their own good or to make things align with their positions. Also, character growth is a thing too. But again, not really part of political alignment and categorization... to an extent. I already discussed above about 'how times change' and how what was once radical may not be anymore and becomes baseline as to the point that to be against it must be radical again. So I feel like I covered this already.It is also, of course, looking like Biden will be a significantly more Left-leaning President than many of us expected. Not a full-blown socialist, sadly, but circumstances are forcing him well left of what he originally ran on. Which brings me to your second point:
I think that you are somewhat confusing two different things here: people who say one thing while meaning something else, and people who have genuinely changed their positions over time.
There is a difference between a politician who routinely contradicts themselves based on what's convenient at the moment, and one who has honestly had a change of heart, or been forced to change their position because the world has changed and what worked once no longer does. And yet we have a culture which treats a refusal to change as a virtue, and attacks anyone who does change as dishonest, as though narrow-minded inflexibility is a virtue in a leader. Of course, that's not how it ultimately played out. What happened instead was that it became the conventional "wisdom" that all politicians were dishonest and corrupt, so why not vote for the most dishonest of them all? Because Trump may be a liar, but they're all liars, and at least he's OPEN about being a liar. And he may be an asshole, but he's an unapologetic asshole. So now we live in this twisted world where learning from your mistakes and having a sincere change of heart is a sign of dishonesty and lack of character, but being an unapologetic narcissist and liar is a twisted form of credibility, 'cause at least you're being honest about being dishonest.
Sticking with a position when it no longer makes sense is NOT a virtue. Its George W Bush saying we need to "stay the course" in Iraq.
Actually I said progressive. Mostly because I've seen her in interviews describe herself that way and go on to list the things she did 20-30 years ago to demonstrate her assertion she is today a progressive.I'm not sure sure does see herself as Leftist, and her reputation seems to generally be as a Centrist figure within the party.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on this. I think everything I spelled out actually says and supports this. Again, it's not an evil thing, a wrong thing, a hit on a persons character to traverse up and down the political scale.That aside, though, its certainly true that someone could start their career as a Leftist but be left behind by the course of events. This kind of echoes what I said above- that refusing to adapt and change your position isn't always a virtue. Even Bernie Sanders fell prey to this to some extent- while his views were radically Left-wing a few years ago, he lagged behind some other candidates on certain issues relating to race, gender, and social justice, and his silence on UBI until very recently was notable.
Need to shore up various groups in the left and the Democrats aside, Biden was always center right. He talks about his mentors and associates when he first entered Congress/Senate and they were old Blue Dog Southern Democrats. The ones who either turned GOPers over the Civil Rights Act or the ones who stayed Democrat but didn't necessarily like the Civil Rights Act. He is responsible for things that were right wing back then, and would be considered right wing today.Biden is a really interesting example here, actually. Biden started out as someone who was probably fairly Centrist for his day, but who's early views on race, for example, are now frighteningly regressive. He has generally shifted over the course of his career to stay near the center of the party, but even a year ago was running on, essentially, restoring the Obama-ear status quo, at a time when the party as a whole had moved significantly left of that. However, he has in the last couple months made a marked and fairly consistent shift left on a number of issues. Some of that can be put down to political pragmatism, ie needing to win over Sanders supporters, but some of it is also clearly due to the coronavirus crisis and resulting recession, and the realization it has forced that a) the status quo isn't good enough, and b) things are possible now politically that weren't when Obama was President.
That's a meaningless question. Giving bread crumbs to a starving person is technically feeding them but hardly worthy of celebration or an award. I'm glad, that after 40 years of being able to affect policy, that he's in a position where he needs people and groups to the left of him and is willing to entertain the idea of those policies for his own needs. Whoopie.So, should we condemn Biden for being late to the party, instead of being a True Believer from the beginning? Or should we welcome the fact that more people are now starting to see things our way, and welcome whatever support we can get (presuming, of course, that Biden's shift lasts, and he doesn't pivot back to the Center shortly)?