But they kind of have less by virtue of having a conscience.
Realistically, Joe Manchin is not beholden to either his conscience or his constituents. He does not respond to guilt. In that way he is identical to the Republicans. If you attempt to play "how dare you sir" chicken with him, you will lose, because there is nothing he will not dare.
Calling bullshit. It's nothing to do with the personalities, it's that Manchin absolutely can torpedo his political career because he'll be financially supported and rewarded for it so he won't care. Sanders would lose the meager political power he's scraped together on good will over a lifetime. It's the material conditions that determine this, one outcome has capital backing it and the other does not.
It reminds me of the Cori Bush amendment to the Pelosi voter reform bill, where she tried to end felon disenfranchisement. Around 90 Dems voted for it. 120 Dems voted against it. All Republicans voted against it, just like they planned to vote against the Pelosi bill. This legislation will still probably just get strangled to death in the Senate.
At a certain point, are Cori Bush and the progressive caucus complicit in the function of the federal government? Sure. Should they be stonewalling everything until they get their way on landmark issues? Absolutely.
But do they have a real popular mandate necessary to win these reforms? No.
We did that referendum during the '20 Dem Primary, and the consensus was "We'd rather Joe Biden win and do nothing than send the white PMCs to Trump's camp with Bernie on the top of the ballot." MSNBC continues to rule the Dems' world in the same way FOX rules the GOP. Dems have a majority only because Capital has chosen to back a marginal number of conserva-Dems over Tea Party Republicans. This is how the agents of Capital discipline the House and Senate. This is not how progressives can affect change in public policy.
Dems are only complicit in so far as they provide electoralist leftists with hope for the future. They don't have any real power to set public policy. No more than Nader did in 2000. Or Humphrey did in 1968.
They are complicit tbh. I’ve been arguing this point on r political humor because a sadist, but they have the same power Manchin does
They kind of have more tbh...
But they kind of have less by virtue of having a conscience.
Realistically, Joe Manchin is not beholden to either his conscience or his constituents. He does not respond to guilt. In that way he is identical to the Republicans. If you attempt to play "how dare you sir" chicken with him, you will lose, because there is nothing he will not dare.
Bernie does not have this callousness.
Calling bullshit. It's nothing to do with the personalities, it's that Manchin absolutely can torpedo his political career because he'll be financially supported and rewarded for it so he won't care. Sanders would lose the meager political power he's scraped together on good will over a lifetime. It's the material conditions that determine this, one outcome has capital backing it and the other does not.
This is the only answer. No way to win without John Brown.
deleted by creator
It reminds me of the Cori Bush amendment to the Pelosi voter reform bill, where she tried to end felon disenfranchisement. Around 90 Dems voted for it. 120 Dems voted against it. All Republicans voted against it, just like they planned to vote against the Pelosi bill. This legislation will still probably just get strangled to death in the Senate.
At a certain point, are Cori Bush and the progressive caucus complicit in the function of the federal government? Sure. Should they be stonewalling everything until they get their way on landmark issues? Absolutely.
But do they have a real popular mandate necessary to win these reforms? No.
We did that referendum during the '20 Dem Primary, and the consensus was "We'd rather Joe Biden win and do nothing than send the white PMCs to Trump's camp with Bernie on the top of the ballot." MSNBC continues to rule the Dems' world in the same way FOX rules the GOP. Dems have a majority only because Capital has chosen to back a marginal number of conserva-Dems over Tea Party Republicans. This is how the agents of Capital discipline the House and Senate. This is not how progressives can affect change in public policy.
Dems are only complicit in so far as they provide electoralist leftists with hope for the future. They don't have any real power to set public policy. No more than Nader did in 2000. Or Humphrey did in 1968.