and this is a narrowly tailored kind of accelerationism
I don't think you can really do accelerationism with any sort of control.
Even in a best-case scenario, where and AOC/Lee Carter ticket wins the white house, the court is going to fuck any left-wing agenda hard
Not necessarily; FDR was able to do a lot of stuff similar to what the AOC wing of the party is suggesting now, and the power of the federal government has almost universally increased since then.
They did not get to that point in a political career to be nothing but bench warmers
I doubt they're actually concerned about this -- as a politician there's nothing better for your continued electoral hopes than not being able to do anything and having someone else to blame it on. If you do something, it might not work and you might take the heat.
Not necessarily; FDR was able to do a lot of stuff similar to what the AOC wing of the party is suggesting now, and the power of the federal government has almost universally increased since then.
Right, but the reason FDR was able to do this is because he was prepared to tell the court to go fuck themselves and the court decided it was better to concede to his agenda then establish the precedent of being cuckolded by the White House. Will the modern Democratic Party be willing to disregard the judicial branch? Will the media abide it? Will the liberals? I don't think so. The Democratic Party under FDR was an entirely different animal than the one we have today.
the reason FDR was able to do this is because he was prepared to tell the court to go fuck themselves
But because he did that we now have ~90 years of judicial precedent saying the federal government can do all sorts of things. That precedent didn't exist in the 1930s, so the Court was effectively deciding whether to greatly expand the scope of federal powers. Those same questions won't come up this time; they were decided most of a century ago.
Plus, a lot of left-ish policy proposals are extensions of existing programs (e.g., M4A) or well-established policies cut-and-pasted onto progressive goals (e.g., much of the Green New Deal). It be shocking if something like M4A even got before the Supreme Court, because what legal challenge can you throw at it that hasn't been shot down about Medicare over the last 50 years? There's no need to threaten the judicial branch over most of this stuff.
I don't think you can really do accelerationism with any sort of control.
Not necessarily; FDR was able to do a lot of stuff similar to what the AOC wing of the party is suggesting now, and the power of the federal government has almost universally increased since then.
I doubt they're actually concerned about this -- as a politician there's nothing better for your continued electoral hopes than not being able to do anything and having someone else to blame it on. If you do something, it might not work and you might take the heat.
Right, but the reason FDR was able to do this is because he was prepared to tell the court to go fuck themselves and the court decided it was better to concede to his agenda then establish the precedent of being cuckolded by the White House. Will the modern Democratic Party be willing to disregard the judicial branch? Will the media abide it? Will the liberals? I don't think so. The Democratic Party under FDR was an entirely different animal than the one we have today.
But because he did that we now have ~90 years of judicial precedent saying the federal government can do all sorts of things. That precedent didn't exist in the 1930s, so the Court was effectively deciding whether to greatly expand the scope of federal powers. Those same questions won't come up this time; they were decided most of a century ago.
Plus, a lot of left-ish policy proposals are extensions of existing programs (e.g., M4A) or well-established policies cut-and-pasted onto progressive goals (e.g., much of the Green New Deal). It be shocking if something like M4A even got before the Supreme Court, because what legal challenge can you throw at it that hasn't been shot down about Medicare over the last 50 years? There's no need to threaten the judicial branch over most of this stuff.