• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where is the Democratic Party Really At?

Chomsky said:
Ah - now you're on to something here, with the bolded.

I often lament the Dem party of the 60's, coming out of the JFK era. They indeed were the "big tent" party. And they got there by promoting universal values. They ran on jobs, fair wages, equal opportunity, healthcare, decent working conditions, etc. The were the champions of the working & middle class. There are universal values and desires all Americans have; and back then the Dems seemed pretty good at championing them.

Also, back then we believed in compromising to the middle in order to move the country forward. It was considered the American thing to do; the right thing to do. JFK Dems & Rockefeller Republicans ruled the day.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of it is still there but these days the social issues have changed that crowd. Many working class voters are also avid hunters, outdoorsmen and are often located in the Bible belt or Catholic havens (think PA, WI etc). So when the newer dems come out and suggest gun bans and seem to go against the grain on all sorts of social issues, they are taken back. For them, time moves slowly. I mean if we think about it, its only been in the last 10-15 years that many mainstream dems came to accept gay marriage. Progressives on the contrary, often jump ahead far more quickly on all sorts of ideas. So its been happening that the working class isnt in step with many in the D party. They love Biden but can be wary of progressives. There was some who suggested the working class can "go to Trump" and dems can take the urban college educated voters instead. So its a bit convoluted by some and what we are seeing currently.
 
TrueScotsman said:
I think the challenge is that there is a for profit healthcare system that exists and is signficant to the economy. America you have to remember is much more Capitalist than European nations, we have only nationalized the postal service and airport security.


See, that's how I view the ACA which is supposed to be perhaps a little slower of a transition to universal single payer healthcare. Understanding the legacy system in place and seeking to little by little expand care and make state market places more robust.


This is a huge problem, and it is largely ignored by the progressives because they embrace Modern Monetary Theory which is totally not what we have right now.

"But the philosophy that Kelton and others are pushing — dubbed “modern monetary theory” — views it differently. Governments, it says, create money, so they don’t even need to borrow any — they can spend as much as they like. The only limitation should be the threat of inflation, not insufficient revenue."
Source: Ocasio-Cortez boosts progressive theory that deficits aren’t so scary - POLITICO

The progressives think it is fine to run a permanent huge deficit and that we should print money from the Fed in order to pay for programs, instead of borrowing in some cases. Right now the national debt is at $22 trillion, imagine what would happen if this idea was implemented.

Part of the reason why I think the Progressives should lose is because I think it would be really harmful for Democrats trying to win in the future. There will be zero Republican support, and it will be huge policies which will really challenge our institutions. I don't think its a gamble we can afford, and what I know of debt crises makes me think MMT is living in fantasy land. Money isn't just made up, it communicates real information and messing with that calculus too much can break the economy via hyper inflation.


Obama sought to have it be a compromise, especially in the initial stages. It wasn't what the Left wanted, and it wasn't what the Right wanted, it was somewhere in between if perhaps leaning to the Left because it is our vision to one day expand coverage and payment for everyone.


The ACA is a wealth distribution scheme at its root, it taxed the wealthy and healthy more and funneled that money into savings for the young and old to expand and improve coverage for them. It was never supposed to be cheaper for everyone, and I don't think Medicare for All was feasible to even be passed by the Democrats back then, plus it would have disrupted the healthcare market and started a single payer system that pays far less than insurance companies. You can't just drop the healthcare market off of a cliff, it has to be a long transition sadly and I think the ACA is the proper vehicle to do that taking into account the legacy system of a Capitalist Healthcare market.
Click to expand...
I wasn't around all week, but now back I felt your long & thoughtful post deserved a similar reply

I thought the ACA was a terrible solution, but I accepted it as hopefully a start on the way to single-payer. I'm inherently skeptical of politicians and government, and still am not sure if Obama and Pelosi had to accept the GOP & Heritage Foundation plan, or if they sold us down the river to the insurance industry. But it was a half-way measure, and like many half-way measures it was doomed to failure.

Many Americans, myself included, hated having to buy an expensive & ineffective corporate product. I very much suspect if a Medicaid or Medicare publicly funded product was provided, after enjoying the benefits many Americans would have accept having to pony-up taxes for a product that costs them very little out of pocket. I know several individuals on Medicaid that had extensive and expensive medical work done, with virtually no out of pocket expenses to speak of. And in this group I count a cancer survivor, and a heart attack survivor. Neither paid anything substantive out-of-pocket; I find that pretty amazing.
 
pilot16 said:
I think a lot of it is still there but these days the social issues have changed that crowd. Many working class voters are also avid hunters, outdoorsmen and are often located in the Bible belt or Catholic havens (think PA, WI etc). So when the newer dems come out and suggest gun bans and seem to go against the grain on all sorts of social issues, they are taken back. For them, time moves slowly. I mean if we think about it, its only been in the last 10-15 years that many mainstream dems came to accept gay marriage. Progressives on the contrary, often jump ahead far more quickly on all sorts of ideas. So its been happening that the working class isnt in step with many in the D party. They love Biden but can be wary of progressives. There was some who suggested the working class can "go to Trump" and dems can take the urban college educated voters instead. So its a bit convoluted by some and what we are seeing currently.
Click to expand...
Late reply here, but yeah I agree.

That's why I'd like to see Biden at the top of the ticket, with a progressive like Harris at the bottom, with Uncle Joe swearing to one term only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom