The Dirtbag Left and the Problem of Dominance Politics

[La Lioness Priyanka]

Since all we entertain here is criticism of democrats and the Democratic Party , I want to see more intelligent criticism of what the left is doing to encourage the party to move left, or whether the efforts are really alienating.

Ps: I'm not calling the left dirtbag, that's just the name of the podcast.

'Trump insulted his way to the White House. Now, Chapo Trap House is trying to insult Democrats into moving left—a strategy that's doomed to fail.
BY JEET HEER
July 19, 2017


On a recent episode of the popular podcast Chapo Trap House, co-host Will Menaker used a memorable metaphor in addressing calls for unity on the left. “Republicans in control of politics, that’s the problem,” he began. “However, to the pragmatists out there and the people who don’t like purity in politics, yes, let’s come together. But get this through your fucking head: You must bend the knee to us. Not the other way around. You have been proven as failures, and your entire worldview has been discredited. You bend the knee to us and then let’s fucking work together to defeat these things, not with fucking means testing or market-based solutions but with a powerful social democratic message.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/143926/dirtbag-left-problem-dominance-politics

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. It's going to be hard for me to vote for anyone who this group endorses

Not bending the knee to these alt left bros if my life depended on it.

[Voltaire2]

2. So those of us on the left are supposed

to hold our noses, toe the line, and vote Democratic no matter how far to the right the candidate is, but if the tables are turned and the party moves left it's a different situation.

Interesting.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. Maybe call out the assholes on your side?

And these bros are not to the left of me, ESP not on civil rights

[Ken Burch]

121. All they want to do is to add a strong economic justice component

They don't want the party to ditch civil rights.

It's not as though we can only stand for civil rights if we do what corporations want on economic issues.

We need social justice to achieve economic justice

We need economic justice to achieve social justice.

Each justice struggle has components of the other.

MLK and Malcolm taught us all of that that over fifty years ago.

[JHan]

164. The difference between them and democrats is this:

There is a tactical difference between liberals and the far left, both want the same things.. although I am starting to have my doubts about some on the far left.

Obama's terms are important reference points, because a democratic incumbency was put to the electorate last year. Obama faced about 350 filibusters over increases to the minimum wage, fixing the ACA, and infrastructure spending - and I already know you know that Obama faced obstruction , partly racially motivated, but these challenges Obama and Democrats faced have morphed into a "Democrats don't care" meme which ignores some hard realities...

I am radically liberal, and I often say most progressives can't meet me half way w.r.t the things I want, but I do not think I will get the things I want quickly. That is the core difference between me and many who consider themselves far left. Liberals can forgive compromise in less than ideal situations. Liberals have made peace with systems of power, thus emphasize reform. Far Leftists, however, go on about revolution, when it's no secret that revolutionaries despise reformers because reformers are honest about their intent and work within frameworks to improve lives. Revolutionaries talk about destroying the system and come up blank when asked to provide alternatives or they come up with ideas which have historically failed. Many far leftists want to crucify allies for not taking them where they want to go quickly enough and by targeting Allies, their efforts have the paradoxical effect of strengthening the opposition and undermining their own efforts.

Reformers on the other hand, the notorious pragmatists, understand governance is a mess of partisanship and conflict. Yet, I am supposed to respect or give an ear to those mentioned in the OP and others like them, who have zero experience in governance, when they talk about kicking people out, and demanding the "centrists" kneel and bow to them. Not only do they have zero experience in governance, they're not really interested in governance, and their ignorance is made worse by their delusional belief that someone like them or who THEY like will be the magical unicorn who will come in and usher in a new dawn in politics - where there will be no horse trading and no compromise.. this is the area of imaginings that has no basis in reality, and when they don't get what they want all they resort to insults and smears -

If we all want the same things we have to understand game theory and focusing on causes and outcomes: ........not idealism, not imagined alternatives, but seeing the world as clearly as we can. That means acknowledging that not everyone will agree with you, that legislation will not pass as quickly as you want it to especially if you don't control the levers of power - right now yet another Conyers healthcare bill is locked in committee phase, and it won't get passed that stage because Democrats don't control the house..That is the reality that confronts us.

Any effort that hamstrings democrats or false equivocates Democrats with the opposition, or divides opposition to the GOP, a party that has become so ideological it borders on the fascistic, is an effort that leads to terrible outcomes for all. This is what these "dirtbags" and their sympathizers don't get, which is why they need to be called out constantly.

[betsuni]

170. +100000

[bettyellen]

5. They're not to the left of me unless they're flat out socialists as well as assholes

[DemocraticWing]

57. They are socialists.

[Alice11111]

103. Disagree. Not speaking of socialist, as a party, but an economic

System. See my post below explaining what socialist means. I, like most socialist, favor some capitalism.
There is a huge difference between communist and socialist. Let's don't confuse them.

[Hekate]

144. Thanks to our American education system, many people are confused about this.

It's aggravating to try to cmmunicate with them.

[Alice11111]

149. Yeah...our C- system. Plus, RW school book propaganda

[Alice11111]

101. Hmmm..Give em hell, Betty. I agree.

I am a socialist, like most people in other civilized countries. I favor a mixed economy where government provides basic needs like education and healthcare ( not to enrich the insurance companies) with capitalism, so that businesses and innovation can thrive, with reasonable, necessary regulations to protect our people and planet ( but not an over regulated bureaucracy, which sometimes passes regulations for political reasons without a solid basis...that would certainly include the Repubs). There are currently no pure capitalistic systems, though the RW is trying to push the US toward that...capitalism run amuck.

If someone wants to hang a trendy label on me, fuck em, they should be more concerned with getting rid of the RW, than with trendy labels. Like the French, after the primaries, we all need to consolidate to defeat the RW, whatever it takes.

[bettyellen]

102. Yeah, I don't think many of these people realize they're fighting w people who've been fighting for

The shit they want for decades. And when they find out, they wonder why you haven't "won" yet. People sitting it out in the side lines asking why "we" haven't won. Ugh.

[Alice11111]

104. Yes. Naivete, but at least they are becoming active.

They don't recognize our early leaders like Betty Friedan.
You have to refight some of the same battles when the RW is in power. We have come far, but now they are organizing for some setbacks.

[Hekate]

145. Ignorance and arrogance are a potent mixture. Your description (naivete) is kinder. nt

[Demsrule86]

148. Green riffraff...you can tell by the chart someone posted.

They have Kremlin Jill as a liberal...hahahahah. She is a trumper and a Russian troll.

[mcar]

11. They are not to my left in most areas

And I vote for Democrats.

[emulatorloo]

19. Sorry, Dem candidates in my area are liberals and progressives

Your strawman really doesn't work.

[emulatorloo]

23. So those of us on the left are supposed to kiss the asses of these "dominating" rich boys?

Sorry, if you want a sub look elsewhere.

[Ninsianna]

185. I think "bending at the knee" is rich white males offering another portion of their anatomy.

[brush]

62. What are your fu_king credentials as to whether you're to left of anyone?

Throw 'em down. Prove it. You're not talking to a lot of "johnny-come-lately" to the movement.

[murielm99]

77. They're not to the left of me either.

I would suggest that you and your fellow purity test lefties go to a place called politicalcompass.org. I know where I stand on their compass, and it is very left. And I consider myself a liberal, not a progressive.

While you are there, you on the left might read a few of the articles. You might learn something. Failing that, go to your local community college and enroll in a political science class.

In the meantime, stop lecturing those of us who have been doing the work for years.

[brer cat]

78. +1

[KTM]

113. Are you sure thats the site you meant to send us to ?

It doesn't really reflect what you argue, and has some pretty harsh words for our last candidate.

This is their chart from the past US election:



I was a Bernie primary voter and Clinton voter in the GE, and have voted almost a straight Democratic ticket my entire life, with the exception of a few independents in local elections. I am WAY down in that lower left corner. Now, I know I'm on the socialistic side of things, but I was suprised how far away from all of the candidates I was.

I'm not here arguing anything as far as the Chapo/Podcast/Whatever thing, I've not listened. But I do see Voltaire's point, and was suprised, how many "not to the left of me!" posts there were. I was also suprised, upon visiting that site as you suggested, at both how far down on their chart I was but also by how they spoke of the election.

That last paragraph... ooof. Is politicalcompass.org the site you meant to link to ?

[murielm99]

123. That was the site I meant to link to,

however, it does not look like the same site I visited before Obama's reelection.

I do finish far down in the left corner, as you do. Rereading that site, I would not send anyone there. I can't believe some of the things they said about either Sanders or Hillary. You are right. I was wrong.

[lapucelle]

167. OnTheIssues.org is more reliable.

Here are the On The Issues.org political philosophy graphics for the the two Democratic contenders for the nomination and the dubious Green Party candidate. All three are rated "hard-core liberal". The graphs are presented in no particular order.

[murielm99]

169. Thank you. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

134. Amen.

[Eliot Rosewater]

135. They dont have a clue what "left" is, they care about their pocketbooks, nothing else.

[Hekate]

146. Well said

I am sorry the site changed so much though. We'll need to find another -- because Hillary, like me, always rated very, very liberal on every scale I ever saw.

[Demsrule86]

83. It is called being respectful to other ideas...I can fucking tell you I will bend

my knee to no white guy...no matter if he claims to be progressive or not.

[Eliot Rosewater]

136. You dont get it, do you.

A group of moderate white people (for the most part, not all white but most) signed on with a certain someone's agenda, because it sounded good, because for the most part it was good, and to the EXCLUSION of your life experiences and issues, they will push that agenda even if it means harming the chances of the D party to win elections.

See how simple that is?

Social justice warriors I think they call you, me.

[Demsrule86]

161. I proudly accept that...thanks for the post.

[pirateshipdude]

96. Own the "left" much? Kind of like taking ownership of "progressive" from Democrats.

This does not work.

[leftstreet]

3. Sounds more like 'celebrity politics' to me

Ugh. Gross

[johnp3907]

6. Ha!

Yeah, we're going to "bend the knee" to these nerds?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

31. Insisting that worked out well for this guy

[brer cat]

7. Domination and submission?

It can't be sugar-coated enough for me to get that pill down. But I guess those that pretend the Democratic Party base is white dudes will buy in.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. That's my take too

Like - I'm seeing this guy's words and thinking .. . Oh yeah - "he's into that"!

[emulatorloo]

39. Yeah my take too.

Jackasses.

[m-lekktor]

8. I listen to them all the time, of course the neolibs at the New Republic(an) don't like them.

many of their podcasts are behind a patreon paywell, I will be subscribing to them soon!

[emulatorloo]

22. Whatever floats your boat, you must dig that Trumpy hysterical bullying when it is dished out by

rich white boy "neo-progressives"

[BannonsLiver]

44. Future libertarians every one of them

Ideologically that completes the circle.

[emulatorloo]

70. Yeah, Libertarians or Republicans

[lapucelle]

154. I was thinking more like a circle..., a circle..., a circle...

...something. I can't seem to remember the second word.

[emulatorloo]

162. ...

[Ninsianna]

186. Future? They sound like them now.

[DemocraticWing]

58. The subscription is definitely worth it.

We're gonna have to create a group for the Dirtbag Left on here.

[Demsrule86]

84. No, This is Democratic Underground, we don't give a voice to Green riffraff.

We elect Democrats. And frankly it was clearly shown in 2016, there are not enough of this sort to win. I doubt any candidate they suggest would win a primary in 20 either.

[DemocraticWing]

92. Oh, I thought your side was all about supporting fellow Democrats?

At least you're not hiding behind a veneer of comradely respect anymore. This battle isn't ending any time soon.

[Demsrule86]

125. I don't support Green scum ever. I will never forgive them for the elections they have spoiled.

I don't give a damn what they do or say. I am pretty sure they are asking Jillie for info because she was in on the Russian deal and was actively helping Trump. We shall see.

[Eliot Rosewater]

137. That last sentence of yours, I truly believe that you wont let it end anytime soon

I suspect you and others will vote 3rd party if you dont get your way, as well.

In 2018, that is, I am not allowed to talk about what happened in the past.

[Hekate]

142. "Your side"? That's cute

[Hekate]

147. Charming. Let us all know when we should bend the knee. nt

[ismnotwasm]

9. K&R

[mcar]

10. The criticism is fair to consider

Given the near constant critique of the Democratic party.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Did you know this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Menaker

Interesting - in these times very very interesting.

It's his grand dad.

[ismnotwasm]

14. Holy Shit

[JustAnotherGen]

18. Can't make this shit up!

Some on should Photoshop him into his "gear".

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

128. Wow, a literal red diaper baby

[Ninsianna]

187. Family traditions run strong, huh?

[JHan]

15. disconnected from reality, insulated from real life so they can afford to be juvenile..

and play "revolutionary".. and issue out infantile threats.

These are the simple frightful facts: the Democrats absolutely must take the house in 2018 and take it big or the so called progressive agenda will be lost. There are no Republican centrists worth any weight anymore, conservatism is well on its way to resembling something akin to full blown fascism. The GOP understands this is a war, and these fucking idiots make a living tearing down Liberal allies.

They can fuck right off.

[uriel1972]

16. I was centre-left but the world moved right...

So now I am left/far left... I am a pragmatic person and have no interest in letting "THE SYSTEM" fail as it keeps an astounding number of people like me alive.

I would like to reform the system so that it is much... much... fairer. However I could not live with myself letting people suffer and die so some pie in the sky ideal (which will never actually come to pass) can magically be formed.

Agitate for change, yes. Kill people for a selfish ideal vision, no.

[gtar100]

30. ++1 (n/t)

[Hekate]

150. I'm with you on this

[Me.]

17. Wow, Sounds Kind Of Manic

and fascisti. The bending the knee bit says to me this guy is on a whole different kind of head trip.

[AngryAmish]

109. Have you seen Game of Thrones?

[Me.]

112. No

[Adrahil]

20. "You must bend the knee to us."

Yeah, fuck that asshole.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. indeed

[killbotfactory]

45. If the centrist dems can't win elections, what good are they?

Bill Clinton moved the party to the right, with welfare reform, free trade, wall street deregulation, etc. The left was told to pound sand because they had nowhere to go. The only justification for that was to win elections. If they can't win, why should we on the left continue to tolerate that shit?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. How is mayor Heath Mello these days? How about Russ feingold and zephyr teachout?

How about congressman quist?

[killbotfactory]

66. Doing well having meetings with president Hillary Clinton'.

Who accrued a billion dollars in donations, thereby assuring her victory.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. The Russians targeted quist ? Mello? They lost after winning the most votes ?

[killbotfactory]

69. Who could have known the electoral college was a thing?

Or that we would need a good ground game to get out the votes in the rust belt states, especially with voter suppression efforts?

[Demsrule86]

82. who despite the best efforts of Trump, alt-left, Russian and Comey still won the

popular vote...official now...2.9 million.

[Demsrule86]

126. At least she won the popular vote and didn't take away a woman's right to have an abortion in

her state.

[Adrahil]

71. Tolerate?

Are you gonna demand "centrists" genuflect too?

[killbotfactory]

74. The quote in context was saying that centrists have been demanding the left bend the knee.

If they can't win they need to get out of the fucking way.

[Adrahil]

75. One election and now "we can't win"

Have the social democrats been showing the ability to win? Not that I have seen. You can't even convince most people left of center. No offense, but the stunning arrogance of the man in that article is not going to make me consider his arguments any more than I have. That'S the point of this article. Any far left types that think they are going to get to the fore with bullshit like that can gtfo.

[killbotfactory]

87. "One" election?

That's optimistic. Kerry, Clinton, All those "blue dogs" who got wiped out in 2010 when the tea party assholes started running. How much money was pumped into the Ossoff campaign so he could end up doing worse than Hillary?

I guess it was a coincidence that Obama won after he moved to the left on things like healthcare?

[Demsrule86]

127. The alt-left (green riffraff) has never won any elections...not ever. They have caused more

than a few spectacular losses in the seventies and eighties...as well as 2000,2010 and 2016.

[Demsrule86]

85. No it wan't it was a demand for total surrender...already crossed them off my list to donate or

have anything to do with.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

129. And these charlatans are going to win elections?

Doubtful!

[geek tragedy]

24. Get in line behind Zod, punks nt

[Trial_By_Fire]

25. Yes the Dem Party must move more to the left - the progressive left. Otherwise...

...otherwise, the Dem Party is basically republican lite. And, you know, given a choice between a
real republican and a Democrat that is basically to the right - the Dem loses.

[ananda]

26. I don't mind saying the liberal left!

Being a liberal is a very good thing.

[Trial_By_Fire]

27. Agreed. I usually say progressive liberal together...

Just missed it this time...

[Trial_By_Fire]

32. "...is moving to the left."...

That may be a key observation. The Dem party was solid left and gradually moved center-center left.

My comment was the Dem party in general and not based on what was posted by the OP.

On edit: I am a progressive/liberal Dem....

[emulatorloo]

33. Ok

Thought you were endorsing the trap house tactics. My mistake. Take care.

[Trial_By_Fire]

35. My apologies for not being explicit...

[emulatorloo]

36. Trust me I have produced many an unclear post on DU lol

[JHan]

29. So you co-sign the bullshit

good to know.

And "republican lite" is also absolute bullshit.

I despise authoritarians on the right, I have zero tolerance for it in all its forms on the left.

[Trial_By_Fire]

34. What 'co-sign bullshit' are you referring to?

Also see my post above.

[JHan]

37. the op is about rancid individuals and their pretend ethics..

there's a wide spectrum of views on the left ( not everyone is going to agree with you) I am radically liberal but I believe in incremental change, especially in states that aren't yet sold on the democratic platform. It would be a cool topic to discuss how we do that, also cool to discuss how democrats can undo GOP policy and implement our blueprint of governance ( whether left or center left or center center center center left Ad infinitum ) but that's not really what the op is about..

[tallahasseedem]

38. All politics are local...

What gets elected in Vermont will not work in the Midwest, what part of that won't people understand? The person elected has to represent their constituency NOT what people across the nation want.

The longer we believe that, the longer we will lose. See the Georgia special election. UGH.

[Hekate]

153. Some people have a very very hard time wrapping their heads around that

Bernie could never have carried a state as big and diverse as California. Not in reality.

[Trial_By_Fire]

40. "It would be a cool topic to discuss how we do that..."

Totally agree that DU needs to start talking more about solutions and not about attacking 'people' (any person as it is not productive).

I disagree with you on the 'incremental change' methodology. Repubs just go for it. Dems should do the same.
America and Americans are in desperate need of solutions that address the real problems of 'society' (i.e. all people).

[JHan]

43. I have very little time for slogans..

you'll find that most democrats agree that the "real problems of society" should be addressed - there are lots of real problems aren't there?. You'll also find that policy isn't as easy as snapping your fingers and things magically happening... Good public policy is rigorous and happens incrementally. Unfortunately "incrementalism" has been so demonized, people forget history and have zero idea about the challenges of governance.

[Trial_By_Fire]

47. Please refer back to the history of the FDR presidency...

Your answers to 'incrementalism' is demonstrated there...

FDR 'went for it' and it worked extremely well. Remember thou that all legislation needs tweaking.

[JHan]

48. Yes I'm well aware of FDR's history

and well aware of how it is romanticized.

[JHan]

49. matter of fact, Chait recently wrote a good piece about this..

and he summed it all up nicely , rather than provide you with my summary i'll let him explain:

"The tradition of progressives flaying Democratic presidents for betraying the spirit of the New Deal goes all the way back to the New Deal itself. Even the sainted Franklin Roosevelt vacillated between expansionary fiscal policy and austerity, and between attacking corporate power and encouraging monopoly. The cause of liberalizing international trade, which left-wing critics have treated as a corporate-friendly Clinton innovation, is one Roosevelt not only supported consistently but basically invented. Roosevelt’s 1936 speech denouncing wealthy interests is widely repeated today by nostalgic progressives, but it marked a brief and rare populist turn. Mostly he strove for class balance.

Historian William Leuchtenburg describes the president’s “determination to serve as a balance wheel between management and labor … Despite the radical character of the 1934 elections, Roosevelt was still striving to hold together a coalition of all interests, and, despite rebuffs from businessmen and the conservative press, he was still seeking earnestly to hold business support.” For much of his presidency, “The New Republic raked FDR on a regular basis,” admits a collection published on the magazine’s centennial."

Comparing eras is also easy to do, it's a great way to ignore context.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/how-neoliberalism-became-the-lefts-favorite-insult.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-b

Also read "When Affirmative Action was White" - https://www.amazon.com/When-Affirmative-Action-White-Twentieth-Century/dp/0393328511/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481643865&sr=8-1&keywords=when+affirmative+action+was+white
.... how Southern White Identity was the underpinning for the new deal .

And I'll tie that back to the OP - there's now a trend among some on the left to dismiss identity politics, citing FDR's success- which just shows their ignorance of history but it's a great way to cudgel the present day democratic party I suppose. If only things were as simple as they were in the past right?

[Trial_By_Fire]

50. Refer to FDR's actual accomplishments...

That says it all...

[JHan]

51. Indeed.

[Hekate]

151. Thank you, JHan

[George II]

65. FDR was President in an entirely different time, you can't possibly compare the 1930s....

....to 2017.

The world was different, technology was different, economics were different, and politics were different. If FDR was President today and 'went for it', he wouldn't accomplish a fraction of what he did more than 80 years ago.

[JCanete]

105. that's right, but how did we get here? The democratic party isn't fully blameless in our nation's

sad evolution in this direction, and there was a rift in the party around Clinton about whether or not his approach was a healthy one. 20 years later we can still debate whether his approach has slowed down or sped up the erosion of the 4th estate and the power grab by big money of our government at nearly every level, but there are so many thing we just stopped talking about. There are so many things we let, hell, facilitated happening, that we didn't bring to the attention of the American public at large, our criminal justice policies and the out-of-control growth of our prison industry, private and public, being just one place where we have abdicated our responsibilities.

[ismnotwasm]

72. So when you examine FDR, do you examine just certain aspects?

Or do you take into account historical context as well?

[Trial_By_Fire]

89. Today's issues are very similar to those in FDR's days...

[Hekate]

152. No

[Trial_By_Fire]

166. ...

[Demsrule86]

81. It didn't work well for people of color or single women.

It sure didn't work well for the Japanese Americans who had their property stolen and whom we imprisoned in camps. It worked well for white men. Roosevelt saved the country...but that was then and this is now...clinging to the past will never work. And no man is perfect Roosevelt was blind in the areas of civil rights, women's rights and certainly should not have sent the Japanese to camps.

[Trial_By_Fire]

90. It's not 'clinging to the past' as their problems are very similar to today's problems...

[Gothmog]

46. You do that by working on the grass roots level

I am trying to turn my state blue by first turning my county blue. That means recruiting and running candidates who can win and fighting GOP voter suppression operations. In Harris County we used to have sue every two years over voter registration issues. Now one of the people I trained as a poll watcher is in charge of the Tax Assessor office and voter registration. One of the people who I worked with at Battleground Texas is now working on registering voters.

We have the first Democratic DA in Harris County in 36 years and as a result we have new policies on marijuana decriminalization and progress on bail reform/

This cycle we have recruited a strong lady to run against the tea party asshole who runs the elections office. You change things one step at a time.

[JHan]

52. +++++

[brer cat]

79. *This* nt

[Demsrule86]

80. Humphrey,McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis....even back then when the

the so called alt-left(now green riffraff) combined attacks with the right...so our candidate was attacked left and right, we lost. And it will continue until the alt-left realizes they are the reason we lose...they enable only Republicans.

[BainsBane]

195. Dont you think they do realize it?

They see who wins. I don't know about back in the 60s, but the people who refused to vote for Clinton wanted Trump to win. And it looks like they are committed to keeping him on office for a second term. I can only assume they see him as better representing their interests.
The Chapo crew fares far better under Trump's tax giveaways to the rich. They know exactly what they are doing.

[Demsrule86]

196. You are right. They are not progressives. They are either

the 'burn it down' folks or Republican/Green trolls. We should ignore them and hope we get enough votes to beat them as well as the GOP.

[Demsrule86]

86. Calling a DUer a 'conservative' is worthy of an alert you know.

[Demsrule86]

41. My response to the so called alt -left (Green riffraff scum)...you never win

your advice...too bad you are too blind to see your purity has led to a center left country at best...which is what happens when you elect Republicans. And we have never been in the majority without centrist Democrats ...there are not enough of you to win jack shit...you can only spoil and enable Republicans...so fuck off.

[Gothmog]

42. I go to the JPR site to read what the dirtbag left is pushing

It is really somewhat sickening that people buy the crap on that site. Heck that site is now posting videos from Infowars. To me that is really sad.

[David__77]

53. I support female and male socialists in conducting a principled political struggle.

I don't mean that I necessarily agree with all of them. I support them in conducting principled political struggle. I also have no problem in various political forces advocating that they be in a position of leadership.

I do not agree with using methods that will definitely cause communication breakdowns with the potential allies.

[sharedvalues]

54. Bad headline. Sounds like a smear

Why not "The extreme left and the problem intersecting GOP dominance politics"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. That's what those guys named their own podcast

[Hekate]

155. That's why I always use quote marks, myself. Just to be perfectly clear.

ymmv

[DemocraticWing]

59. Democratic Socialists are gonna organize and steal the DNC ballot line.

And it doesn't matter how many thinkpieces you guys share complaining about jokes. You can either vote for socialists or Republicans: a bunch of liberals will choose the latter so whatever, we'll work on empowering the people.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. Lol. Like Heath Mello and quist?

Look forward to it

[DemocraticWing]

61. More like khalid kamau, Nirva Lafortune, Carlos Rosa, and Khader El Yateem.

The Democratic Socialists of America are starting at the city level in 2017 and coming to a Congressional seat near you in 2018.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. Good. If they center civil rights I'll vote for them

As long as they are the best candidates

Most incumbent Dems will keep their jobs. As they did in 2016.

[BainsBane]

118. Then win an election

Somewhere, anywhere. That's typically a first step before gaining control over one of the two major political party. And if you want to win, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than barking orders and demanding the rest of us bow before you. Not everyone wants to go back to the Middle Ages where commoners had to bow before kings and noblemen.

[Hekate]

156. Seriously

[ismnotwasm]

64. Where are these areas?

East coast? Midwest? How many Democratic Socialists?

[DemocraticWing]

93. Everywhere.

Over 100 chapters, soon to be in every state: http://www.dsausa.org/chapters

[ismnotwasm]

97. How well attended so you think the Seattle one is?

[DemocraticWing]

100. They seem to be doing well just looking at Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/SeattleDSA/

[Adrahil]

73. As long as the policies make sense....

The problem I have with much of the prsent day DS's in this country, is that they sound like relics from the 70's. Some the economic models presented are every bit as delusional as what the right wing nuts propose. We have models for modern political social democratic ideas that don't rely on such outdated ideas. We should use them.

[BainsBane]

115. You say socialist like you think you know what it means

That rich asshole and others like him are not socialists. They are nationalists. Nationalism and socialism are incompatible ideologies. Socialists don't devote themselves to the privilege of a minority at the expense of greater poverty and inequality for the majority. They are committed to equality, not the restoration of the white bourgeoisie atop the world capitalist order.

Socialism would mean people like the guy in the OP would have to give up most of his income to establish true equality. It would mean the end of four bathroom homes and multiple vacation homes. It would mean the white bourgeoisie would have to get used to a far more modest standard of living to establish true global equality, so that you and I would live no differently from the humblest farmer or servant in W Africa.

We see none of that. Instead we see them demand more for themselves. we see demands that the public finance college for the most privileged, with zero concern about the massive inequality in k-12 that cements generations of poverty. We see the upper middle class championed as "working class, " while low to median level workers, and people of color, are denounced as the establishment. We are told abortion rights are too divisive, despite the fact lack of access to them results in rapid increases of poverty for women and children. Yet the priority, we are told needs to be on them, and we need to understand that our rights and our very survival is too divisive to win elections.

It's bad enough to hear people claim efforts to revert to the 50s are progressive, but to claim any of that socialist is the limit.

Have these so-called socialists ever read Marx? Lenin, Trotsky? The early French Socialists?
Just because people appropriate the language of socialism doesn't disguise the fact they are using it to advance their own narrow, class interests and engineer a power play to ensure their own privilege.
Zero concern about poverty, even in the US, let alone globally. In what universe is any of that socialism?

Here's another point you fail to grasp: no accident of birth or level of self-entitlement gives you or the rich asshole quoted in the OP the right to control anyone else's vote. You get one, and one alone. Period. And when we see demands for subservience, particularly when made by people with considerable means, it makes perfectly clear equality is not valued. There is no socialism without equality, and it's obvious that this effort is about power and dominance, the very opposite of equality.

[betsuni]

116. THANK YOU!

[BainsBane]

117. I fixed the sea of typos

but that set me off.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

130. this needs to be it's own OP

also, why are you so smart?

[BainsBane]

138. You're very kind.

But I'm not. My mind is so slow these days. I've just honed a couple of skills over the years.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

139. Can I share what you wrote ?

[BainsBane]

140. Sure

Go ahead.

[emulatorloo]

159. Well said.

[Hekate]

160. Give 'em hell, BB

[SunSeeker]

174. Well said. nt

[Ninsianna]

188. Well said!

[Ninsianna]

182. They don't seem to be very good at organizing. Great at

unleashing the misogyny, attacking and abusing Democrats and liberals, but organizing? Nope.

It doesn't matter how many of these guys demand that we "bend at the knee" and service their fragile, privileged little selves, they're just not ever going to do the work that the people they attack have been doing.

A bunch of liberals will reject this nonsense, and these guys can either voter for the people they sound, act and look like, or they can vote for the ones actually pushing a progressive agenda and liberal policies. Real liberals will choose appropriately, the others will enable the Republicans as they have been doing.

So whatever, the people are angry, they're empowered and they're sick of this faux left crap that is identical to what the Right wingers put out and for the same reasons.

I think these guys don't quite understand what this party they just discovered is all about or who has been the backbone of it and who does all the work. They actually believe the lies they tell themselves about who is actually leading and engaging in the resistance, it's not them.

[DemocraticWing]

183. Socialism is a strong, diverse movement, and the DNC will adapt or die.

Sorry, that's just the way it has to be. The rich, privileged jackasses who run the Democratic establishment will either bend the knee to this movement of workers united for social and economic justice, or we will simply win without them. The people are uniting across the arbitrary divisions of our society to fight for a better world.

We are going to get Medicare for All. We are going to raise wages to $15 an hour. We are going to disband ICE and smash the power of the police. We are going to pass a national LGBTQ civil rights bill. We are going to guarantee free college for everybody. We are going to expand access to reproductive health. We are going to take on energy companies and halt carbon emisssions.

We are going to empower workers to form unions and take over the businesses in this country, removing the power of corporations, banks, and shareholders. And we are going to fix our nightmare political system to make sure the government represents the people again, not money.

Our movement includes everybody from poor, queer Latinx students to elderly black grandmothers with disabilities to middle aged, unemployed white men. We are going to organize everybody. Our movement has already increased in size within the last six month by a substantial margin, and we are only just getting started.

[Ninsianna]

184. Except they don't seem to be able to do anything but call people names on the internet.

This is a Democratic site, inviting the party to die, or fellate subversive forces who are not part of the party, and demanding that women and POC who ARE of the party to "bend at the knee" to angry white assholes who have their own damned party is not how one wins support.

The folks who are demanding that we all bend at the knee are actually rich privileged jackasses themselves, LITERALLY. We're united despite the attacks and the extortionate demands of people who don't give a damn about our society or the members of it.

It's divisive, offensive, misogynistic crap.

Medicare is a program that barely covers all the costs of medical care as it is, introducing hundreds of millions more into the system without having the first clue HOW to do that is a moronic notion . That's all it is, a slogan. There are no actual ideas on how to make a single payer work, and a poor understanding of what that even is, or how to apply to the US system.

Raising wages to a concrete number and not tying it to inflation is a stupid idea.

You can't disband ICE, or the police, also truly moronic ideas.

You can't guarantee "free college" to everybody, nor do you have any notion about reproductive care. How are you going to take on energy companies or halt carbon emissions? Hold your breath til you turn blue?

You are going to take over businesses in this country? How exactly? Will the state run them all? How are you going to do any of the things you claim you going to do, that you don't understand?

Sorry, but like I said, when you have no clue about anything, you can't organize yourself out of a paper bag (general, not specific you).

OMG, instead of 10 people, there are now 20 and they all spend their time on twitter calling progressives misogynistic names? The "movement" doesn't seem to actually understand anything other than slogans.

They have their own party, they don't need to demand that we die or "bend at the knee" to rich white males. That will not be happening.

[DemocraticWing]

189. "Bend the knee" has nothing to do with fellating or whatever you are claiming.

It's a dumb TV reference but mostly about deferring to those who deserve to lead: and yes, the establishment should submit to the grassroots instead of the other way around. The establishment are not "women and people of color" but are rich assholes that perpetuate racism and sexism and then claim to decry it if they think it's politically beneficial.

If powerful people don't want to go along with the grassroots, we don't need them. The grassroots I'm talking about is diverse, organized, large, and mostly Democrats.

The claims--insults really--that you offer towards the left are dishonest to the point we both know you don't actually believe them. But that doesn't matter--to you all, smashing socialism requires a true belief that liberalism is faultless, that socialists are somehow not "Left," and that everyone criticizing liberalism are straight white men. Even when it's proven that many of us--most of us-- don't fit into that category, liberals block us out to continue dishonestly claiming that we are all "Bros."

Anyway, I don't have time for this petty shit, I see it enough from jackass liberals on Twitter (Al Giordano, Neera Tanden, etc) and they are all irrelevant. If they ever want to join the movement for change, then yeah those privileged rich fucks can bend the knee. If not, they can go to hell.

[Ninsianna]

190. White men demanding this of a party whose base is female and of color does indeed

have something to do with domination, entitled rich white males who think they "deserve to lead" and demand that everyone else kneel to them is exactly the dumb thing I said it was.

The party that these arseholes wish to subjugate are very much women and POC, they're also the ones perpetuating racism and misogyny BY THEIR OWN WORDS and the explanation that is given to excuse them sort of cements that point.

The grassroots are not socialists, that's a whole other party one of the many that has been around for years but has no following, no clue, no direction and no ability to organize anything. The grassroots you're demanding bend the knee to rich white males whose misogyny and racism is apparent to anyone with eyes and ears don't wish to have anything to do with these guys, or the Democratic Socialists, that's why we never joined that party, and that's why we're working hard for Dems and why we're incensed by these idiots.

I offered no insult or claim towards the left, I'm defending us from the entitled rich white men who demand that we bend the knee to their "deserving" selves, cause we know there isn't anything deserving about them. It's dishonest to pretend that calling out these entitled assholes is about the left at all. We both know these guys are not the the left and we both know that the dumb reference is misogynistic, racist and entitled as hell.

Defending this crap is proving that one is very much about rich white male hierarchy and epitomizing the definition of that term that emerged and was so well applied to people like these supposed socialists and these Chap guys. Sophomoric frat guys who make such references and such demands of the people who are doing the actual work are what they are, they talk the way they do and they fit that mold pretty well, and deny it exists as they demonstrate otherwise.

Liberals, progressives, the left etc we're ALL tired of this crap being shoved down our throats. Some men just can't seem to take no for an answer, and get all dominating and controlling and violent. Especially the rich fucks like these three guys. Seems like petty shit like threatening us and insulting is something some folks make time for, the jack ass fake liberals who demand that we bend the knee while hurling abuse at liberals like Al Giordano, women of color like Neera Tanden, Joy Reid etc are the ones who are irrelevant, they are the actual privileged rich fucks who are not needed, not necessary and are busy attacking US not the Republicans whose talking points they love, who they share targets with, and who they have the most in common with.

They can go to hell and take their desperate defenders with them, NO means no, and they can just fuck off with the demands to be fellated on bent knee by a party that wants nothing to do with these assholes. They can leave now, weren't they going to exit or something and don't they have their own damned party? Democrats/liberals/progressives are tired of this shit and of the violence they bring with their entitled abuse. Bye to all of them.

[DemocraticWing]

191. Everything you said is a blatant falsehood.

I do not have any plan to further engage with liars. Either you are living in a fantasy world in which you can pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is a white man--or that your side is anything but perpetuators of racism and misogyny in their worst forms--or you are lying to piss people off.

Have fun with whatever is the case. Not my problem anymore.

[Ninsianna]

194. Quite literally your attacks and insults are not based in truth or reality.

I was specifically speaking of the rich white men who made the statements that were so offensive, so I'm not sure where the comprehension issues are here or what fantasy world where the Chapo guys who made the comment being so heartily and dishonestly defended are somehow not white men, but if you wish to not engage with liars, the first step is to learn what the truth is and then not straying from it.

My side is liberals and progressives, I do not defend rich white men who I fantasize are anything other than what they are, nor do I lie about what they said, to justify attacks on Democrats.

Attacking a Democratic woman of color for calling out the sexist, racist and blatantly disgusting comments of rich white men is how one pisses people off. Stating a desire to "kill off the party" if they don't submit to the demands of white men to "bend the knee" to their entitled selves is pure extortion.

Enough of this violent, abusive crap.

[killbotfactory]

88. The Hall-Monitor's Tale: The Center's War on Chapo Trap House

Why the lack of dialogue with reformist notions? Simple. Centrists, as a group, are not concerned with progressive ideas. They believe in the status quo. However, they prefer to see themselves as enlightened liberals. Part of their reason for being centrist is class-bound: they are fine with keeping the world as it is. Some of the disdain is social: most of them have been educated and brought up in an order which rewards middle-class and upper-middle class values.

Some of their justification is based on reasons of pride: they do not want to think of themselves as conservative. And the largest element of centrism is fear: they genuinely believe that the rest of the world is secretly reactionary or openly stupid. They are afraid of their base. Leftism, in any form, disrupts this careful emotional balancing act. To the center, Leftism is awkward: it makes the centrists look conservative (which they despise), it makes them feel privileged (which they deny), it makes them feel electorally vulnerable (which they fear).

Tone is part of their objection, but not the actual substance. Chapo and the rest of the Dirtbag Left could wear suits of roses and laser-carve “RESISTANCE” on the dry face of the moon, and it would never be enough. Leftists disrupt the alt-center’s worldview point-by-point. It is not the Left’s arguments, or their stances, or their organizations, or their podcasts that irritates. The centrists object to their existence.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/07/the-hall-monitors-tale-the-centers-war-on-chapo-tr.html

[stranger81]

107. This article nails it.

Guess that makes me a "dirtbag."

[emulatorloo]

157. You are surrounded by liberals and progressives at DU. Because people object to these privledged

white boys' tactics and rhetoric doesn't make those people "centrists"

[bettyellen]

158. "Alt center" LOL -this is getting ludicrous! It's juvenile shit like this that makes me SMH

[BainsBane]

172. Notice the complete absence

Of a single point of substance, like an issue.

[bettyellen]

176. It reads like fan fiction for self important lost boys, its obsessed with that old romantic notion

That no one can really understand them. But they are so sure what drives people they don't know at all. It sounds like their daydreams.
It makes me want to pat them on the head.

[BainsBane]

171. So if you're rich and demand the poor and people of color.

That makes you a leftist? Whereas if you find that guy's comments obnoxious, you're a centrist?

There literally is not one point, policy, or reform expressed in that excerpt. Nothing about principles to be championed. It's nothing but labels and insults against anyone who criticizes Chapo and their demands that they be treated like royalty, bowed to by commoners.

The problem is that it isn't the critiics who are the upper-middle class but Chapo themselves. The main guy was born into a wealthy publishing family and their podcasts make hundreds of thousands. Where I come from, that is just plain rich. The irony about the folks throwing around terms like establishment is that more than a few of them have a hell of a lot of money, more than the overwhelming majority of so-called establishment centrists could ever imagine. Exit polls show that Democrats are supported in greatest numbers by people whose income is under $30k and they also win a majority under $75k. AA women are the most loyal demographic, and they are also the poorest group in the nation. Yet that's not the demographic of Chapo or their fans, is it?

The status quo is the system that enables men like that to be born into wealth and to profit from their capitalist entertainment program. The status quo is what makes guys like that so self-entitled they think an electorate far less affluent than themselves exist to serve them. The status quo is what enables the coddled white bourgeoisie to celebrate the defeat of Democrats knowing full well that their lives will not be negatively impacted at all by Trump administration policies that target the poor and vulnerable. The status quo is what enables guys like The Chapo crew to profit to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars as families are broken up by immigration raids and one American after another is targeted by hate crimes. They are the product and embodiment of a status quo based on race, class, and gender privilege.

The status quo is the system of inequality they not only benefit from but insist be deepened so that they and they and the rest of the white upper-middle class benefit by demanding those without their wealth and privilege finance education for them and their class, while paying zero attention to the rampant k-12 inequality that cements generations of poverty so that the poor and many people of color can never take advantage of publicly funded higher education. Why do you suppose he so adamantly opposes means testing? Clearly the idea from each according to his ability to each according to his need is an anathema to him.

Concern with the privileged self and contempt or lack of concern for the poor and marginalized is as establishment as it gets, only the establishment they want to restore is the 1950s.

There is a reason none of these attacks like those in your excerpt reference any policy or changes. They are not based on ideology or positions on issues. It's based on us vs. them, tribalism, and accidents of birth. The posture is not based on a desire to change the capitalist social order but to right it back to when the white bourgeoisie sat atop it.

If the goal was to change the social order, we would see a discussion of issues and how to go about building support for and enacting certain reforms. But we see virtually no mention of issues at all. And when they do arise and someone like me says I agree on those points, they turn around on a dime and start name calling, revealing the us vs. them divide matters far more than advancing any issue.

The excerpt you post is a perfect example of that. It's no more than a condemnation of people the author perceives as different from himself. There is nothing anti-establishment about that. It's been fundamental to everything class project in the history of capitalism and before. it reveals a deep-seeded belief that all citizens are not equal, hence the demands for kneeling down.

We see a lot of talk about leftism, but no leftist ideas, values, or proposals for reform. Moreover, the key commonality among leftist ideologies is a belief in equality, when it's clear what the author of the article in the OP refers to as "dirtbag" is premised on a hierarchy of human worth, on a fundamental commitment to inequality, in which the few are seen as superior to the many.

What I see is a deeply conservative class/race/and gender project being dressed up in the language of leftism. As a result, the opposition begins and ends with insulting labels, with nothing beyond them.

[Blue_Tires]

91. LOL they mad

Link to tweet

[JHan]

94. That's a good point... Since Cernovich supports single payer...

.... that makes him one of the people we need to reach out to lol

[DefenseLawyer]

95. Ah yes, let's be condescending pricks

That's sure to create a groundswell of excitement and support. "Vote for us Dirtbags! Stop being such fucking losers! We're your friends and we really care about you, you idiots. We feel your pain, despite the fact that you are pathetic assholes. Vote Democrat!"

[JHan]

98. This slant won't work ....since the op is reacting to their slant towards those

Who disagree with them who are also on the left. you're projecting their flaws onto the op...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

99. I'm not sure what your point is. As I've said repeatedly

I didn't call them dirtbags. That's what they named their own podcast

[stranger81]

106. You have said that repeatedly, and have been wrong every time.

The podcast is called "Chapo Trap House."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. Fair point, but this is what they call themselves

I did not invent it. Neither did jeet heer.

If you sleep on a mattress on the floor and fuck in a sleeping bag, then you just might be the dirtbag left!” Menaker told Paste. “If you’re the only dude at a function not wearing a pocket square in a linen blazer and adulting like a boss, then you’re in the dirtbag left!” Pe

[AngryAmish]

110. Dirtbag, corporate whatever. If you do not want Rep. Maxine Waters for Prez then you are a racist

We have entered a new age of reality.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

111. Says who?

[emulatorloo]

163. You have entered a new stage of hyperbole.

Well done, that's the fuel DU runs on.

[BainsBane]

114. Oh, that rich asshole

Born to a wealthy family and raking in over $100k a year trashing Dems. a rich hypocrite who wants those who lack his wealth and privilege to lick his boots.

Mitt Romney tried that, only he wasn't as big of an asshole.

I seriously doubt that guy, or most like him, have. Ever voting Democrat. Their singilar concern is themselves. The GOP and Trump in particular is the perfect president to represent them. They can bond over their common narcissism and sociopathy.

For all the talk about moving let, They sure spent a lot of time trying to emulate Republicans.
What exactly is leftist about them?

How nice rich boy is enjoying watching the poor suffer under Trump. Funny how many of these people manage to profit from the misery of others.

[Ken Burch]

119. You'd have an argument if people of color EVER benefited from this party being centrist

History proves they never do.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

133. Wtf are you talking about? It's like you are lobbying random insults

Without even reading the articles or its point

I really like your new found defense of POC though, interesting how it's so new.

[BainsBane]

120. I love the outrage against means testing

Why should resources go to the needy when affluent assholes like him are so superior?

[Ken Burch]

177. Means testing doesn't get more resources to the needy.

If you make benefits universal, people who don't need them still don't use them-it's just that they don't resent them, they don't see those benefits as being something they pay for that only helps somebody else.

This is why Scandinavia always made benefits universal/

The reason conservatives insist on means testing is that means testing works in their political interest...it lets the right play the resentment card-the only reason the right is able to make the "free stuff" slur work is because benefits are means tested.

[BainsBane]

178. Give me the name of conservatives who support means testing

to fund higher education? They do not want publicly funded education, period. They believe that education should be accessed only by those who can afford it. That you would even try to make such a claim is galling. So either I am missing an entire movement of conservatives who have suddenly embraced Marx--"from each his ability to each according to his need"--or you made it up. So please, enlighten me.

No European country provides education to everyone who wants it. A much smaller percentage of the population attends public universities, and they earn those spots through rigorous testing. Having to rely on ability and qualifications is not something, I imagine, the Chapo crew would look favorably upon. The argument we are hearing is based on birthright, not merit. Hence the European model does not apply.

The result of "free college" (an irresponsible and false term) without addressing the rampant inequality in K-12 will do nothing to address social or income inequality, nor is it meant to. K-12 is funded by local property taxes, which means affluent communities have good schools and poor communities have horrendous schools, and that disparity cements generations of poverty. It also means the vast majority of children who grow up attending those bad schools will never be prepared to take advantage of what you falsely call a universal benefit. It results in the upper-middle class and wealthy being able to free up for a fourth vacation home money that they would otherwise spend on their children's education. It is a proposal intended to appeal to middle and upper-middle class (largely white) voters, with absolutely no attention to addressing the systemic inequality that gives those target voters incomes multiple times that of the working poor.

We are increasingly witnessing an effort to promote the class, race, and gender interests of the white male bourgeoisie OVER the interests of those with far less. The Democratic party is at fault, in their eyes, because it fails to center them over the majority of the population. On one hand, they pretend their interests are universal, while on the others they set about trying to convince Democrats to abandon civil rights and equal rights for women, concerns of the majority of the population for themselves.

Now, people are certainly with in their rights to advocate for their own self interests. Many groups do that. What is different here is that we see language of leftism and social movements appropriated to couch what is at essence an effort by a subset of one demographic to elevate their own wealth and demands for power and even greater privilege over the majority, who already have far less than they do. We are witnessing a class project, not an effort to address systemic inequality.

While we hear about Wall Street and "corporatists," they have managed to make the focus of their anger those who do believe the Democratic Party should champion equal rights. Being told repeatedly that abandoning civil rights and reproductive rights results in greater poverty doesn't influence their views in the slightest, demonstrating quite clearly that the concern is not economic equality but demands of more for themselves.

They denounce anyone who doesn't share their narrow self interest as the "establishment." I even saw someone refer to African Americans as an entire race as "establishment." It's pretty obvious that has nothing to do with positions on issues but is about resentment that black people have any political representation or economic access at all, which is precisely the attitude on the right.

I have not seen one proposal that promotes economic equality. Nothing about poverty, nothing about structural inequality, but I have seen plenty of proposals that accrue to the advantage of the white male bourgeoisie. The closest is the $15 min wage, but that only gives the working poor a higher income. It does nothing about inequality. Nor, as far as I've heard (please correct me if I'm wrong), is that number accompanied by calls to index the wage, unlike Clinton's proposal. That means that in short period of time the incomes of minimum wage workers will again drop, and they will be left waiting for congress to authorize another increase.

Despite all the denunciations of "practicality," none of the demands address systemic inequality. Nor do they even seem to think that a concern. Instead we are left hearing wealthy guys like the one discussed in the article in the OP feel entitled to have their education and comfort provided for them. And it falls to the working poor who can never dream of their level of wealth to provide the labor that allows the bourgeoisie and the wealthy to live in comfort.

As for "free stuff," when politicians go around promising "free college," it feeds into that narrative of "free stuff." That is one reason why that language is so irresponsible, in addition to being inaccurate. Yet the reason such language is invoked is to garner the political support of college-age voters who like the idea of not having to pay for their education. Using language about pooled resources and publicly funding would not have the same draw, or so I presume based on the continued use of the term "free."

There is a reason so many of the poor, people of color and women are not persuaded by claims of "universal benefits" and what we are told is 'for everyone." We can see quite plainly they are not universal but rather specific to one demographic. When we hear people insist, as in a recent OP, that "most people" don't care about civil rights, we can see that their conception of "most people" is themselves and those just like them, who are not in fact most people. And when we see continued refusal to consider or incorporate any concerns by others into arguments about what is supposedly "for everybody" it's obvious that their concerns begun and end with themselves.

So in sum, what I see is a narrow class project (class that also corresponds to race and to some extent gender) being camouflaged in the language of leftism, yet at essence it is anything but. The demands amount to restoring their own uncontested privileged that they see as a birthright, to revert back to a a time, like the 1950s, when men like them had is a lot easier. Inequality was worse, but then their conception of equality is about their own demographic, not society as a whole. It doesn't help when politicians feed them numbers about white men claiming they are about the population as a whole. In such discourse, "the people" are limited to a minority of the population, with the majority defined as outside the body politic, or the " establishment" that prevents those who already earn well above the national median from having more and more. The Chap guy is a perfect example. His income is very high--rich by standards of anyone but a self entitled economic elite who believes they are owed more and more, and that the poor and people of color owe it to them. That such an identity lay is passed off as leftist speaks to a moral and intellectual bankruptcy in our political culture, the kind of thing that is only possible in a culture of entitlement and abject contempt for the lives of others. It is an ideology that promotes, rather than opposes, class exploitation and accumulation of capital, the very thing that revolutions rise up against.

Telling people that their basic rights and their economic survival are too "divisive" for the Democratic Party is interpreted as an effort to further marginalize the non-white male majority. People don't tend to be persuaded by arguments that, on one hand, demonize them as "establishment" and "neoliberal" for the crime of failing to prioritize the economic interests of a self-entitled minority above themselves. Nor do they want to sign on to an agenda they can clearly see will make their lives worse. The problem is those making the arguments don't see the rest of the citizenry as valuable enough to incorporate or even consider what they have to say. That further reinforces the perception that their agenda is limited to their own class interests.

The remedy of that would be to listen to other voters and try to create a platform based on equality rather than privilege for one demographic. But then that would require wanting equality, which I see no signs of.

[Ken Burch]

179. I agree that the pre-college educational issues you mention need to be addressed.

But it's meaningless to address those if college education is still a privilege for the few who can afford it.

And nobody was ever actually SAYING that we shouldn't address the k-12 issues(although just getting a decent high school education will still leave most people unable to get any real job). It isn't either/or.

We just need to work for some achievable systemic changes(at least somewhat higher taxes on the rich and a small reduction in the war budget).

BTW, if you want a progressive country, that wish by itself is why you should want university education to be either free or at nominal cost at best(say 20$ a credit).

If university education has to be paid for individually out of pocket, you'll always have a large number of college educated voters becoming Republican(a large enough number to make a difference between victory and defeat). The size of the loan debt most people leave college with leaves most college students with no alternative but to forever abandon their consciences and their principles and live solely for short-term individual self-interest, making money for the sake of making money.

Forcing people to leave college with massive student loan debt means forcing those people to go straight to working high-paying jobs.
In that kind of job-there is no such thing anywhere in the country as any significant number of high-paying jobs driven by progressive, egalitarian, life-affirming values-it is essentially impossible to be politically active or even to publicly express progressive views other than on two or three "safe' sets of issues-reproductive choice, LGBTQ rights(note: these are important causes and I wholeheartedly support them because they are on the right side of history and the only positions a decent human being can take) and maybe the palest-green forms of environmentalism and the most innocuous forms of antiracist activism.

It's not possible, in such a job, to stand with the working or not-allowed-to-work poor, or to be active in protesting military intervention, to publicly support increased funding for k-12 education or any meaningful antipoverty measures, let alone to actively challenge corporate control of politics or life, the perpetual increase in economic inequality, or any meaningful measures to address climate.

Easy college affordability for all would change that.

Free or near-free college would allow everyone to live their lives for the greater good, never silence their own voices, never temper their convictions.

No one would ever feel obligated to check their souls at the door again.

And the majority of people who would benefit from it would be women, people of color, LGBTQ people and THE POOR-the poor of all races, genders and identities. It's always been a despicable lie that making it easy for anyone to afford a university education would somehow only benefit white men. Yes, people in that group would be among the beneficiaries, but if the result was that such people were not forced to become apolitical or even conservative as a personal economic survival mechanism, wouldn't it be worth it?
If it helped create a long-term progressive majority(a majority, under the present conditions, is basically unachievable)and the result of that majority was long-term support for the k-12 changes you and I both support, wouldn't it be worth it?

(btw...I didn't realize, responding the first time, that you were only addressing means testing for post-secondary education.)

[BainsBane]

193. "No one said we shouldn't address k-12 inequality"

No, they just don't pay any attention to them because it doesn't affect them and those they care about.

But we have to first ensure the affluent aren't saddled with having to pay for their own kids education when they have vacation homes to buy and off-shore trusts to fund. No, we don't have to do that first-- or ever.

Clinton addressed the problem of leaving college with debt. You and the rest of the self-proclaimed progressives denounced it.

I don't see why universities should be prioritized over k-12, not if the goal is to address inequality. Of course that isn't the goal at all. The whole thing was an effort to pander toward a group of voters. And now they try to pretend that there is something principled about demanding that they--not the most needy--be the priority for federal spending. The only reason to assume it should come first is if presumes that section of the population matters more than the rest. I do not share that view.

I have looked many, many tines for details on the proposal to see how it would work. I have found none. Would, for example, the system remain the same only with the federal government funding tuition through financial aid? Or would all public university funding be taken over by the government. Would they likewise fund--as outright budgetary commitments rather than competitive grants--research as well? Or would research universities be converted into teaching schools with research abandoned? And if so, what is to become of the future of science and medical innovation, not to mention the liberal arts and social sciences? And what about community outreach? Would they fund that too?

And how would the government decide who qualified for education? Would "progressives" agree to testing so that admission would be decided based on merit? If not, how could the US fund what no nation in history has ever done. There is no Scandinavian parallel for that. And given that you say that K-12 shouldn't be the priority, what will be the impact with fewer students attending university and K-12 remaining substandard?

The answers are simple only when the singular focus is on the middle to upper-middle class self. Considering the implications for society at large takes far more thought and preparation, none of which has been attempted by those demanding for or promising "free college."

The means testing bullshit by the Republicans is an obvious effort to defund social security. The criticism Chapo makes is toward Democrats, not Republicans. Therefore I assumed he was referring to education. Conservatives don't support government assistance based on need. For them, it's a move that positions them toward the eventual abolition of the program all together. Mean-testing is an excuse, not a goal or a value.

[Ken Burch]

197. And again, I agree with you about addressing K-12 issues.

It's just that I don't personally accept that it has to be a choice between K-12 and college, or that college is something that's only important for white guys. I support free or nearly-free college because I want everyone to be able to develop the potential of their minds in whatever way they wish to do, and to be able to keep doing so throughout their lives by taking night-time and weekend classes if they wish to.

Don't assume that I am in a hivemind with this Chapo asshole. Before this OP, I'd never HEARD of the guy and I think that's the case for most of the left.

And while Chapo is clearly an arrogant, divisive jerk who deserves to be called out personally, it's a mistake to imply that what he stands for represents what most people on the part of the Left you keep attacking support.

We could tie free or nearly-free college to a community service requirement-that is, to doing whatever you got your degree in an area where there is poverty or where the need for your area of expertise is not being met. This would help re-create the Peace Corps/Vista sensibility that opened a lot of young white Americans(among others)to the injustices in life and the need to fight those injustices.

I get it that means testing is used by conservatives for insidious purposes. That's why I don't think anybody should use means testing for benefits. If services are universal, people who don't need them pretty much won't use them...but they also won't resent those services because they won't see them as something that they pay for are excluded from. That's why universality is important, and that's why it's a mistake for the left or center-left to fall into the trap of means testing. Once you means test, you always drive the discussion to the right.

[Ken Burch]

180. A few other things

1) There IS no broad demand by any large faction on the Left that the Democratic Party stop supporting reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights. All that happened was that, in two races-one of which, the Omaha mayor's race, was for an office which has no meaningful say in whether choice exists within its jurisdiction-one man endorsed candidates who had been anti-choice in the past. In the Omaha case, that candidate who was anti-choice in the past was the only challenger to a right-wing mayor-no candidate with an unblemished pro-choice position had even filed for the job.

Those were about the views of one man, not the entire Left.

2) As to the Chapo guys who are the subject of the OP-they are pond scum. If I ran into them in person, I'm not sure I could be held responsible for what I said or did to them. They are also, in my experience, deeply unrepresentative of any large part of the Left. How many people do you hold responsible for them.

3) Most of the Left outside of the Internet are solidly pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ anti-racist, anti-police violence. There's no widespread disagreement on the centrality of those issues. It's just that that Left thinks that challenging corporatem. domination of politics and life, reviving the labor movement-the only means working people will ever have of defending their rights-and making healthcare and education rights rather than privileges are also essential parts of any progressive progra.

[BainsBane]

192. When will i see you denounce the continual barrage

Last edited Tue Jul 25, 2017, 04:46 AM - Edit history (2)

of OP demanding the party abandon civil rights?

You yourself yourself worked to normalize efforts to proclaim anti-choice as "progressive," by pretending that sponsoring and voting for laws that restrict women's reproductive rights is the same as a personal, private opposition to abortion. We had members here insisting license plates were worse than stripping women of equal rights. We saw you and others ignore posts pointing out your claims were false, which showed me the subterfuge was deliberate. We also saw responses--and lack of responses--to information demonstrating that abandoning reproductive rights greatly increased poverty. We actually saw people respond to those posts claiming abortion rights got in the way of "economic equality," and quite clearly asserting that when they meant "economic equality," they meant only among a small group of Americans.

Of course none of that is leftist. That was the entire point of my thread. We see the language of leftism and social movements appropriated to promote a capitalist, even feudal (in the case of Chapo) goal of bringing the majority to submission to a more affluent, self-entitled minority.

This ruse you engage in of denying what is said multiple times of day has long worn thin. People have repeatedly provided you with links, and even in the this thread I suggested you read through the defenses of Chapo. You choose instead instead to focus your energies on defending the Chapo guy's opposition to means testing and insisting my failure to understand that funding education based on need was supported by "conservatives," something for which you provide exactly zero evidence because of course none exists. In our bizarro political world "progressive" has come to be defined by that which helps the white male middle and upper-middle class and "conservative" policies are those that seek to help the poor and marginalized.

If you opposed the efforts I discussed, I would expect to see you confront the people making those arguments rather than devoting yourself to telling people like me that what we see right in front of us doesn't exist. Instead, you construct an argument that begins and ends with labels, which has become a ubiquitous practice among "progressives." As Schumer discovered today, there is little that inspires more contempt from that crowd than agreeing with them on issues. I experienced something similar the other day when I told someone proclaiming his progressive superiority that I agreed with him on issues. He became incensed and insulted me, because the idea of disagreeing with someone who is clearly viewed as an inferior species cannot be tolerated. I had to be put in my place. Perhaps Schumer will now learn what matters is who someone is, not what they say. The labels--the hierarchy--are too important to be undermined by policy agreement.

[betsuni]

181. Oh! Another great post I can take notes from and bookmark.

[Ken Burch]

122. OK, you found two jerks doing a podcast.

Assuming those two are even on the left in real life, are you really going to hold the rest of the left responsible for them?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

124. lol. Did you read the article? It's not just two jerks

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. The article is nearly all about Chapo Trap House.

Yes, it does name-check "The Baffler, Current Affairs, and podcasts like The War Nerd and Street Fight Radio", but it doesn't give any examples of their styles.

Roy Edroso, whose opinion I normally trust on matters of politics and humour, suggests Heer should just remember that it's a comedy podcast, not meant to be taken seriously.

I’ve only listened to a little Chapo Traphouse — podcasts still strike me as just a slower way of reading, and I don’t have the time. But I like Chapo Traphouse; they’re like Firesign Theater meets Negativland meets Alan Berg; I think it’s hilarious that, given their arcane references and not-terrible politics, they’re so popular. So it’s actually mystifying to me that the very smart Jeet Heer, among others, is giving them a hard time about being mean. I know his argument is technically more sweeping than “they’re mean” but isn’t that what it comes down to? Heer accuses them of “dominance politics” because of the bend-the-knee stuff, but how can he miss that the experience they provide is mainly aesthetic? Saying “Chapo is fighting a two-front war, one against the Republicans and another against moderate Democrats” is like saying “The Marx Brothers are fighting a two-front war, one against Sig Ruman as a stuffy opera impresario and another against Margaret Dumont.”

Jonathan Chait, of all people, is so close to getting this — “a podcast does not have to abide the logic of political coalition-building” — but then he starts talking about cross-checking your content for bias blah blah blah. Guys, this shit is funny, and humor (real humor that you can actually laugh at, not crude apparatchiks emulating the form) is not an insidious delivery system for propaganda, it’s a timeless source of human pleasure. He who feels it knows it. I hate to be dramatic (though I do have a BFA) but this is a step in the direction of treating everything as politics. Which, as this website daily shows, makes you ridiculous, and not in a laughing-with-you way.

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2017/07/friday-round-horn_21.html

[La Lioness Priyanka]

132. Right and even chapo is 3 bros not 2

Hence my believe that ken hadnt read the article before jumping to the defense of the bros

[BainsBane]

173. Read through the responses in this thread

And look at the defenses of Chapo.

[Hekate]

143. "Get this through your fcking head: You must bend the knee to us". Omarosa Manigault, 'zat you?

Sometimes you can see an extremist a mile off by the language they use. "Bend the knee" sure qualifies.

[peggysue2]

165. Sorry

As soon as someone says anything remotely like--'You must bend the knee to us'--every liberal Democrat should run in the opposite direction.

I find it curious that these groups find authoritarianism/dominance so attractive, and then have the nerve to call themselves progressive. This is the language of far-right ideologues. And if we know anything, we know that words really do matter.

Seems the ideological extremes always meet up with one another. Who else could we expect to say something like this? Stephan Miller, to name one who infamously stated we were about to see the full, mighty power of the Presidency on display with Donald Trump. Be prepared! Or Steve Bannon who openly admitted his goal was to completely dismantle government.

These are 'Burn the House Down' actors and wannabes. If dominance is what they want, they should just join the Breitbart crew and be done with it.

You know what helped destroy the 2016 election bid? This bullshit. And how's that working out for everyone???

[JustAnotherGen]

168. Kick and rec

Check your pm

[SunSeeker]

175. K & R