https://twitter.com/the_vello/status/1321435262023536641
Feels like (the good parts of) old chapo again, drop an AOC post and go grab some lunch... come back and there are over 60 replies :)
https://twitter.com/the_vello/status/1321435262023536641
Feels like (the good parts of) old chapo again, drop an AOC post and go grab some lunch... come back and there are over 60 replies :)
Was that before or after the South switched parties?
Well it was 1964, so on the eve of the Nixon/Johnson election. But Carter was governor of Georgia and Clinton was governor of Arkansas, so...
Are you suggesting there wasn't a massive shift from Democratic representation to Republican representation in the South?
I can't argue with the fact that southern settlers largely vote R and once voted D. But in his time Malcolm could see further left forces being sheepdogged into a blue imperialist tent that they wouldn't control. LBJ was being presented to the black community as someone who could make a deal with the reactionaries.
AOC does not determine policy. But she does drive younger people to vote for those who do.
I see her driving way more people to the left of the Democratic Party than to its establishment wing. We need that.
Yes. More votes for Biden, a senate majority for Schumer, a house majority for Pelosi. That is what we need.
What's the difference between a left D ballot and a centrist one?
deleted by creator
How do you read "she's driving way more people to the left of the Democratic Party than to its establishment wing" and come up with this?
Ask yourself which is more likely to produce Medicare for All: a Congress full of Pelosis or a Congress full of AOCs?
deleted by creator
I don't know what you mean here. Are we assuming we have that Congress or are we taking about how to get it?
As for what would be next, at minimum we'd be looking at M4A, a greatly increased minimum wage, serious criminal justice reform, and a sea change in how we pay for higher education. None of that is farther left than Bernie's platform, and any one of those policies would mean an enormous improvement for hundreds of millions of people. We'd also likely see significant pro-union legislation, which would make further left progress easier.
It's unbelievable to me that anyone can compare "your healthcare and college are now free" to "nothing will fundamentally change" and ask if there's a real difference.
deleted by creator
The Bernie campaign didn't require anything this unprecedented. And just because it got kneecapped by the establishment doesn't mean they'll be able to pull that off every time against every candidate.
We don't know what that type of government's foreign policy would be, and the risk of being no better than we currently are in that area is not a reason to write off all the other benefits that government would produce.
We'd be a lot closer to it than we are today. A union-friendly government would be a huge help, and many of those other policies (e.g., getting healthcare independent of your employer) would also increase worker power.
I mean uhhhhhh it was Macolm X, sooooo
It was half a century ago, and both parties have changed significantly.
When will chapo dot chat learn that leftist leaders do not hand down infallible, eternal prophesies. They have incisive takes that stand the test of time better than most, but things do change.
deleted by creator
You're confusing a half-measure for nothing at all. Yes, taking big steps towards legal equality and dismantling the most obviously racist practices was a significant change from open segregation. Denying that real progress has been made -- however far we still have to go -- is out of touch.
It was enormous change, and there were other enormous changes in the party, too. Compare the Eisenhower-era Republican Party, which had a strong isolationist wing and which was on board with significant infrastructure projects, to today's Republican Party, which is willing to crusade at the drop of a hat and which is far more opposed to the government doing almost anything else.