Questions for people who call themselves progressives who support HRC

[Ken Burch]

For whatever reasons, you see no contradiction between identifying as progressive and supporting HRC. OK, then, please answer these questions

1) Why should we NOT assume that nominating your candidate will guarantee we stay a bland and centrist and corporate-controlled for the rest of eternity?

2) Why should we think a HRC presidency would not be implacably hostile to activists and activism?

3) Why should we believe that anything progressive or transformative can come of keeping things exactly as they are now in the party?

[LonePirate]

1. It could be worse I suppose. We could be nominating someone like Joe Manchin.

[onecaliberal]

2. There's not a whole lot of daylight between her and manchin

[LonePirate]

4. There's more daylight between HRC/Manchin than between HRC/Bernie.

[onecaliberal]

5. I disagree wholeheartedly! Eom

[LonePirate]

8. Disagree all you want. Still doesn't change that you're wrong. HRC is far to the left of Manchin.

[Chan790]

11. I'd argue that Sanders is equally-far or further from Hillary.

I'm going to be honest, I lived in W. MD for a few years, less than 50 miles from the WV border during the gubernatorial and Senatorial terms of Joe Manchin...I don't really know how or why he's a Democrat. He holds few or no center-left, let alone progressive, positions or values. WVGOP isn't that insane that that he's a "sanity-party" Democrat.

I can recognize that there is a lot of space between the conservative Manchin and the center-right Clinton...but I can't honestly say that there isn't an equal amount of space between the center-right Clinton and the solidly progressive Sanders.

[LonePirate]

19. It's funny that you call her center-right whereas people in the center-right call her a liberal.

Perhaps it's time to refresh perspectives on things. While you could describe her as center-left and receive widespread agreement, she is only center-right to the those on the far left. Of course it's not as motivating to the masses when she is depicted as being left of center rather than right of center.

I'm certainly not advocating people to vote for her in the primary season; but she could eventually be the Dem nominee so there is no need for falsehoods about where she actually stands on the political spectrum.

[Chan790]

20. I called her that because that is what she factually is.

Whether self-identified center-rightists (most of whom are actually solidly conservative) want to recognize it or not. Her positions put her right of center...it only looks more liberal than that because the Overton window has moved so far to the right, something that is in no small part the fault of her and Bill's Third Way friends. The falsehood is the assertion that she's to the left of the traditional center.

If we want to talk about on a more global scale...Sanders is a center-leftist, Hillary is right-wing and most of the GOP is extreme right-wing.

[LonePirate]

32. Her positions only put her right of center when viewed from the myopic far left

She is left of center on just about every social policy debate in this country. She is also left of center on a host of economic ones - taxes, regulations, minimum wage. Foreign policy might be the only one where she might be considered centrist or even right of center, depending on how willing people think she is to negotiate instead of wage war. Yes, Sanders may be the left of her on most (but not all) of those issues; but she is definitely not center-right, not even by the outdated Overton Window, which really does not have a left vs. right that most people would recognize in today's politicians.

[gcomeau]

30. Distorted views of the political spectrum.

Spending too much time just focusing on US politicians without poking your head up to look around the rest of the planet (including the general public in this country which the politicians somehow manage to be less than representative of and yet keep getting elected) can do that to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511383207

Hillary is center right to flat out right. (The GOP has drifted to universally *extreme* right* at least as far as any of the candidates who can make it through their primary are concerned)

Sanders is center-left. (Extreme left would be a full throated communist, which Sanders isn't even CLOSE to)

[LonePirate]

33. Applying political viewpoints outside the US is a fool's errand.

Religion has far too much impact on US politics than it does pretty much every other western, industrialized country. More salient of a point, though, is that the vast majority of Americans know very little about the political leanings of politicians in other countries, so comparing those in the US to those elsewhere is a futile endeavor at best.

I read your linked topic and I couldn't find any evidence to support your graphs at the bottom. You obviously don't like Bernie's placement at the far left by VoteMatch - but that is the space he occupies in American politics, with a little wiggle room they are not accounting for obviously. Only a small percentage of US politicians, especially those at the federal level, are to the left of him. You seem to think that is a negative quality given your adoption of a Tea Party tactic by moving the center massively in one direction in order to make Sanders seem like the centrist.

There is nothing wrong with being a far left people politician. It should be a badge of honor. Instead, many politicians and their allies try to claim the centrist mantle, which is a cowardly maneuver imo.

Within the context of American politics, HRC and Bernie are both left of center with Bernie being left of HRC. To claim HRC is right of center is an preposterous in the context of American politics.

[gcomeau]

34. Read this again. Here I'll bold it for you.

Spending too much time just focusing on US politicians without poking your head up to look around the rest of the planet (including the general public in this country which the politicians somehow manage to be less than representative of and yet keep getting elected)

The American public is left of American politicians. Support for Single Payer polls in the 40 to 50% range... how many politicians in Congress *seriously* advocate it? And imagine what would happen to that support with one of the parties making the goddamn case for it instead of rolling over the first time the health insurance industry glances a disapproving glance in their direction.

Significant majorities of the American public are dissatisfied with the levels of wealth inequality and the low taxes corporations pay in this country.

Tuition free college at public universities? Near majority support. Who's advocating it in Congress?

LARGE majority support for campaign finance reform to get corporate money and the mega rich out of the politician buying business.


etc...


So how do we get all these right leaning bought out corporate apologists for politicians if that's true?

You, and people like you. You're doing it right now. Making excuses for why we should elect them.

To claim HRC is right of center is an preposterous in the context of American politics.

No, it is preposterous in the context of US members of Congress, if you use them and only them to define the full length and breadth of the policital spectrum. Not "American Politics" which encompasses the rest of the country too.

Just as Bernie is not extreme far left in the context of American politics he is only the most extreme far left politicians in Congress. And that should cause anyone who gives even the tiniest of shits about liberal or progressive views a massive level of concern because he's not all that far left AT ALL.

If you accept the ideological composition of Congress as the yardstick that defines what is normal and what should be then you're already given up on progress.

[LonePirate]

35. I'm sorry but you're full of it by accusing me of things I am not guilty of.

How about you walk down any American street and ask them if they think Bernie is to the left or right of leaders like Justin Trudeau or Jeremy Corbyn. They won't have a clue whom you're talking about. You might as well be comparing Bernie to Bugs Bunny. That's why it is pointless to compare American politicians to their foreign counterparts. Yet somehow you think it is a worthwhile endeavor to make those comparisons which are meaningless to everyone outside of an academic context.

American politicians, justly or unjustly, can only be judged in a vacuum against other American politicians. At the federal level, you are going to find at most 2-3 people to the left of Bernie. In no way can consider Bernie to be a centrist in contemporary American politics. You may want him to be a centrist and you may try to apply global or historical political definitions; but those simply do not apply because the vast majority of Americans reject those definitions. You're essentially playing bridge while the American voters are playing hearts. Don't blame me because America has a different value or knowledge set than you do. I guess that's easier to do than taking my advice by proudly endorsing and identifying with the far left label. Who the hell wants to be a centrist in the fantasy world which many DUers describe as centrism? Don't accuse me of embracing the middle when it is unrealistic people like yourself who are running away from the far left instead of embracing it.

[gcomeau]

36. Really? Because you just MADE MY POINT.

Rather than ask people on the street if Bernie is "left", which they will inevitably in large numbers respond to by falling into the exact same trap you do... ("Well... I keep watching political pundits and other presidential candidates always calling him way left so obviously he's way left!&quot ... ask them if they agree with his specific policy proposals.

Which has been done. And they fucking well do. As I just pointed out to you and you completely ignored. So he's not all that extreme left IN REALITY is he? He's just falsely defined as extreme left by the universally right leaning establishment who want you to think that right is center.


And you've swallowed the lie whole like so many others, becoming a compliant little voter that rewards right leaning politicians for their pragmatic and reasonable liberalness. And then wondering why oh why we can't get properly progressive policies in place in this country while things just keep sliding to the right more and more and more.

[LonePirate]

37. Your ignorance of my actions is astounding.

I have not enabled anything or swallowed any lies. I'm simply navigating within reality, which means I don't need to worry about running into you. You certainly know nothing about my voting record which you erroneously feel you are knowledgeable of, but clearly aren't.

The political center is not defined by the personal opinions of Americans. The political center is defined by the views of the people elected by Americans. I'm not sure whether it is arrogance, stupidity or stubbornness or a bong which prevents from understanding that reality. You don't like the current American definition of centrism so you want to change that definition or even reality to suit your whims. That sort of authoritarianism runs afoul of Bernie's spirit and revolution by why should that stop you from spreading your fantasies here on DU?

[gcomeau]

38. Your arguments speak for themselves.

Your view of "reality" has been hijacked by the beltway. And so you make excuses and placating noises towards those outside your bubble telling them it's ok... it's not that bad... look how over to the left side of crazily right guy Clinton is! That's good right?"

The political center is defined by the views of the people elected by Americans.

Like I said... already given up.

It's SUPPOSED to be defined by the policy preferences of the people themselves. Not by the opinions of whoever manages to con their way into office whether they have any intention of actually pursuing those policies or not.

[LonePirate]

39. Your idealism blinds you to how wrong you are.

The political center is not defined by the views of the voters regardless if you think it is supposed to be. You want things to be a certain way and you make up reasons why it should be - reasons like global frameworks or historical precedents and now personal voter opinions. None of that matters in determining the American political spectrum.

The American voter is one of the most irrational humans on the planet. Time and time again they vote for people who promote views they personally oppose. Single issue, low information and emotional voters do this all of the time. If the American people want to shift this country to the left, they need to elect people who share the views which you think they have. More importantly, they need to vote instead of sitting home every election. That being said, Bernie is still a far left candidate in the US system and HRC is still left of center despite whatever fantasies, irrelevancies or definitions you impose that put the candidates where you want them to be on the spectrum, reality be damned!

[gcomeau]

40. Wow, just intent on making my point are we?

The political center is not defined by the views of the voters regardless if you think it is supposed to be

Please, tell me more about my blindly idealistic beliefs that in a free society the views of the voting public should actually be represented by the officials they vote for, Mr. "I haven't been brainwashed by the beltway".

Please, continue. Tell me all about how you haven't been completely taken by the establishment as you make excuses for how they operate contrary to the desires of their constituents and that's just the way it is and we should all accept it.

Go on.

[LonePirate]

41. If your point is to indicate how detached from reality you are, then, yes, I am proving it.

Every post of yours in this discussion is about how you want things to be rather than how things actually exist. Until the American voters start educating themselves, start showing up at the polls and start voting rationally, your opinions regarding Sanders' and Clinton's positions on the US political spectrum will remain outside reality.

[gcomeau]

42. Summary.

"This horribly corrupted unrepresentative group of congresspeople that we have is real. You want to CHANGE IT by electing other people that are different????? You fantasist, wake up and be realistic like me. We have to keep electing people who are the same as the people we have."


You appear to have tragically lost sight of the fact that elections are about making things how you want them, not blindly acquiescing to how they are. Recognizing reality and WANTING TO CHANGE IT is different from being detached from reality.


I pity you. I do. Don't worry, we'll try to improve your lot in life anyway so hopefully in future elections when you're talking about how we just have to accept the way things are then the way things are that you are defending will be more defensible.

[onecaliberal]

14. That is your opinion, sadly the facts prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

[LonePirate]

18. Remove your DU brand of Hillary Hate Blinders and then assess the candidates objectively.

I suspect you have little knowledge of Manchn's actual positions if you think HRC is more similar to him than she is to Bernie. Manchin is probably the most conservative Dem in Congress. There is little difference between him and Lindsey Graham, for instance. Of course, why let the truth inform you when you on this matter?

[gcomeau]

31. Remove your "too focused on the spectrum of the DC beltway" blinders.

The US congress, with the exception of Sanders, is spread across such an absurdly narrow range of the political spectrum that people who use it as their yardstick come to *completely* wrongheaded views about what constitutes centrism and what constitutes large policy differences.

I guarantee you that if YOU objectively looked at their proposed policies you would find Clinton is in fact closer to Manchin than she is to Sanders.

An objective analysis of the candidates which does not pretend that the US congress represents the full spectrum of political thought but which rather plots them on that far wider field, by for example the political compass site that performs that assessment based purely on their policy proposals each election, paints a picture you appear to be denying.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

[Tanuki]

22. If you really think that, do yourself a favor and educate yourself:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Manchin_III.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm

[My Good Babushka]

3. I'd like to know why they are excited about voting for a war with Iran

War with Iran, establishing ourselves as the arms dealer of the world and selling more weapons to more human rights abusers, continued use of cluster bombs that maim children, the environmental devastation and poisoning of never-ending war. Hundreds of thousands more refugees, becoming a country that turns asylum seekers back to certain death. Continued stagnation and decline of wages on the back of new trade deals, more environmental degradation from oil and gas drillers on our soil, continued use of the flawed and barbaric death penalty, continued mass incarceration.... I don't know where to end. There are so many things I don't understand about their enthusiasm for this candidate.

[seekthetruth]

7. Ditto

I can only surmise that people are excited to have the first woman president. But, what they are not willing to admit is that she's the WRONG woman!

Have no idea why......looking solely at her stances on the issues and who contributes to her campaign I don't understand it myself.

Unlike the Hillary group threads that block dissenting opinions, please, any Hillary supporters defend your candidate!

[tk2kewl]

6. Ray McGovern

[betsuni]

9. ...

[Betty Karlson]

10. 4) how many times is she going to backstab the gays while in office?

[Chan790]

12. 5) How many times is she going to backstab women and children while in office?

That's the one that really gets me...if women were voting for the candidate that has the best track-record of fighting for women's issues...that candidate wouldn't be Clinton who has consistently worked against women in favor of Wall Street interests and said less than a month ago that she'd consider compromises on choice issues. Her work both as first lady and as Senator on entitlement reform and social service reform has done so much to hurt the standing of women and children in poverty.

How is Hillary still a viable candidate for the Presidency? She's bad for labor, bad for women, bad for children, bad for LGBTQQI... individuals, bad for minorities. I'm at a loss for a traditional Democratic constituency that she's good for...and yet, she's Teflon. Nothing puts her candidacy down like Old Yeller--no matter how much she deserves to be driven from the race.

[ConsiderThis_2016]

13. Hillary is everything you want her to be, it's called triangulation...

She learned it from her husband, and mastered it. The proof is in the pudding. Depending on what your definition of "is...is"

[Kalidurga]

15. Weird only one Hillary supporter bothered to respond.

[Kalidurga]

23. I didn't know that you were a singular marauder

wonderful work if you can get it.

[angrychair]

16. Simple truth

Americans cannot help themselves. The majority of Americans, no matter their denial, only feel purpose when in conflict. HRC allows them to get that since of purpose through conflict. It will come through constant committee hearing and arguing with Congress (you thought they hated PBO? That will seem like a peace festival in comparison). They will get it through conflict with Iran and the cherry on that sundae, WWIII with her "no fly zone" in Syria.

[cosmicone]

17. Meh ... another purity meme n/t

[riversedge]

26. over and over we see them. Boring

[randome]

24. I support our candidates. I guess that makes me one of the bad guys, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[jcgoldie]

25. I think politics is hard

I plan to vote for Clinton in Illinois this afternoon and I would describe my ideology as progressive. There are some things I like better about Sanders. I will enthusiastically support either one who wins. The alternatives are far too scary for that to even be a question.

I do not expect revolutionary change under either one. I got caught up in enthusiastic idealism in 2008 and am more jaded now. In retrospect I don't think the lack of progress on progressive issues is much the president's fault. Rather I think the system is set up to make change very slow and gradual. I thank our founding fathers and division of powers for that. I think republicans will control the house no matter what based on what happened in 2010. I think Clinton has been through the wars and she's more pragmatic and better suited to the day to day fisticuffs that will be necessary dealing with the Mitch McConnells and Paul Ryans.

In my opinion, calling it a "revolution" is just unicorns and fantasy, the reality will be much messier as we have seen for 8 years. Voting for the most pure progressive may not be the most effective means of getting progressive issues advanced. Despite the hyperbolic mis-characterization of Hillary as some sort of conservative by a lot of Bernie fans here, she is not a poor candidate. She is very experienced and has a long history of advancing liberal issues which matter to me. I also think that a lot of the criticism from both the left and right has its basis in veiled sexism. It's well past time time that's put to bed. There you go now feel free to respond with a bunch of bullshit about no we can't or whatever.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. +1

Good summary/rebuttal but I would argue that the questions presented in the OP stem from false premises.

[lunamagica]

29. +1 Great post!

So well thought reasonea and explained. No snark or hyperbole. Good job