What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

I will admit my own bias, BTW.

I think being a moderate, principled progressive gives me a substantial advantage in the debate with left wing radical progressives. I think it goes without saying that in a country where there is a significant political divide, and one where most people identify as "moderates" whether that be to the left or right, there is a pretty hard row to hoe for more radicals to argue that the best political strategy is to run further to the left. 

Indeed, I think as the right goes farther and farther right, or even so far that wherever they are isn't even really identifiable as the "right" in many ways as we would have defined it even 20 years ago, the argument that the proper response for the entirety of the left is to itself dive off the deep end of the partisan divide seems obviously a terrible idea.

[Oexmelin]

Is there something that the progressive left should learn from that? Oex feels that the lesson is that we should all stop listening to moderates, and let the radical left take over and define the party much in the same way the radical right took over the GOP, and that would be better for everyone who supports the progressive agenda.

That is not my conclusion. At this point, I think I have nearly exhausted the different ways to express it. I'll try one last time, in the bluntest way possible. 

1) I think the Democratic establishment is clueless about how to handle the current crisis.

2) They suck at messaging. For as long as I can remember, Democrats have sucked at messaging. They continuously defer to Republican agenda, prefering to react to, and deny the mischaracterization of their stance by the right.

3) They have a very poor sense of what they stand for. For a host of historical or political reasons.

4) In addition to that, they have a complete lack of the sense of urgency that is required by the current circumstances.

5) In front of them, the Republicans have a very clear sense of what they stand against, and a very clear sense of the urgency that must motivate them.

6) My main point is this: clarity of message, clarity of purpose, sense of urgency, sense of accountability. How is that going to be achieved?

7) My reading is that militancy is able to *at least* put pressure on the Democratic establishment.

8) My experience is that militants rarely come from people who pride themselves on being pragmatic, who enjoy the nuances of policy-making, etc. etc. etc. Militants either need to be made, trained, or have some form of epiphany through action. Something which civil rights leaders learned painfully, and then mastered.

9) Or, it requires a cause that is so overwhelmingly important that it allows people to compromise with their beliefs for secondary causes. When I was a militant in Quebec, I was able to work with people who completely disagreed with me on some matters, because we were all committed to Quebec independance. And we were committed to it with a sense of urgency.

10) Note that I have said nothing about the content of militancy at this point.

11) Now, it is entirely possible to disagree with my emphasis on militancy, and instead favor an approach that relies on curated communication, money-spending, etc. I should note that Republicans are at least capable of doing both. I also think that militancy ought to be tailored to your community. AOC is able to be elected in New York - though she had to displace a tepid establishment guy. If your district can only elect a DINO, at least make sure that this person is at least committed to taking Republicans to task, and not afraid to speak.

11) Given all that, let me repeat again, Democrats suck. I would be happy (if not perfectly happy) if I had the distinct impression the party was going somewhere, had a clear message, a sense of urgency, etc. Even if it did not fully align with my progressive politics. Alas, I don't think this is the case. At all.

12) I think the people who *at least* try to give a clear message, force a clear stance on current issues, try to dominate the narrative rather than let it be defined by Republicans come from the progressive wing of the Democrat party. Am I in total agreement with all of the Squad? No. Of course not. But they at least try to give an edge to the Democrats.

13) It is entirely possible that I see it, because they are closer to my politics than Nancy Pelosi. But I don't see a lot of successes from the center or the establishment of the party. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

14) And thus, given all that, I see the considerable effort at denouncing "the Squad", distancing the party from progressive policy, mocking the exaggerations of the left, or discussing the latest funky idea because it makes for easy and reassuring caricature as astonishingly wasteful. It would be one thing to discipline the left of the party for going against message. But what message are they going against? There is nothing to displace. And because it's about mocking, rather than building from, or harnessing, or using *in some way* that energy, I feel it really ends up amplifying Republican rhetoric.

15) And on an individual point of view, that sort of deference to what essentially serves Republican point of view I think is mostly about reassuring oneself about one's great level-mindedness. It's great if one needs a boost of self-confidence, but ultimately, it serves no other purpose. To be invested in politics is to agree that you WILL be amongst idiots, morons, utterly wrong clows. And more likely than not, you will be the idiot, moron and utterly wrong clown of others. It's much more comfortable to sit in judgement and imagine oneself to be the epitome of political Solomon. I don't think that sentiment of comfort is very useful right now.

16) And perhaps more worrying still, it often feels like this sentiment is also fueled by the precocious desire to find scapegoats for the defeat to come.

So, in the end, my point isn't that we should stop listening to moderates because they are moderates and I hate moderates. My point is we should stop listening to moderates because the way they engage, and their primary spokespeople are not, *at this critical time*, conducive to bringing clarity of purpose, sense of urgency, clarity of message and accountability. Find me a moderate who is at least passionate, charismatic, eloquent in the defense of the Republic, and I am sold. Instead, we get variations of people who denounce the coming crisis with all the fire that one finds in the voices on NPR.

[Berkut]

So the moderates have accomplished nothing, other then getting Trump out of office?

I think your idea that moderates all care about being seen as "level-minded" is utter bullshit. It is pure ad hom. Moderates (at least THIS moderate) are not moderate because we "need a boost of self-confidence". It's funny that you make snide comments about how much a dick I am, and then are perfectly fine accusing me of being motivated by insecurity and a need to be seen as "level-minded". As if that is really how I am seen - Berkut, so well known for his level mindedness in the desire to be comforted.

I think the moderate clarity of message is fine, and accountability. I think the problem in the progressive movement is that there are a lot of people who care more about being culture warriors and would rather win arguments then elections, and are happy to watch the ship sink instead of compromise. I think that was the problem with the GOP when the radicals took it over, and emulating them would be a fucking terrible idea.

[Valmy]

I think your idea that moderates all care about being seen as "level-minded" is utter bullshit. It is pure ad hom. Moderates (at least THIS moderate) are not moderate because we "need a boost of self-confidence". It's funny that you make snide comments about how much a dick I am, and then are perfectly fine accusing me of being motivated by insecurity and a need to be seen as "level-minded". As if that is really how I am seen - Berkut, so well known for his level mindedness in the desire to be comforted.

Yeah I was about to say. Berkut moderating himself to try to be seen as "level-minded"? Needing to be comforted? Since fucking when?

[Jacob]

Yeah I was about to say. Berkut moderating himself to try to be seen as "level-minded"? Needing to be comforted? Since fucking when?

It is possible that Oex wasn't talking about Berkut personally, but rather how the grouping normally described as "moderate" comports itself in the broader political discourse of America.

[Oexmelin]

Lol. I was relaying critiques once leveled against *me* in my personal life (not here, I don't think).  I thought at they time they were fair.

The thing is: all versions of political committment benefit from examining critically their beliefs. This is also true of moderation - but it's harder to do if you consider moderation as an unadulterated good compared to the necessarily flawed extremes, or as an *outcome*, born solely out of careful consideration rather than a political choice. Moderation is also a political committment. It has its advantages. It has its drawbacks. It can lead to unwarranted pride, much like extremists who enjoy their purity against false believers. It can lead to prudence and wisdom. It can lead to timidity and cowardice.

[Berkut]

Yeah I was about to say. Berkut moderating himself to try to be seen as "level-minded"? Needing to be comforted? Since fucking when?

It is possible that Oex wasn't talking about Berkut personally, but rather how the grouping normally described as "moderate" comports itself in the broader political discourse of America.

So it is a group of people who want to be comforted and are insecure, and that drives their political positions, rather then them just disagreeing with him?

Is that somehow better?

[Admiral Yi]

Democratic messaging works just fine for me.  If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.

[Berkut]

Lol. I was relaying critiques once leveled against *me* in my personal life (not here, I don't think).  I thought at they time they were fair.

The thing is: all versions of political committment benefit from examining critically their beliefs. This is also true of moderation - but it's harder to do if you consider moderation as an unadulterated good compared to the necessarily flawed extremes, or as an *outcome*, born solely out of careful consideration rather than a political choice. Moderation is also a political committment. It has its advantages. It has its drawbacks. It can lead to unwarranted pride, much like extremists who enjoy their purity against false believers. It can lead to prudence and wisdom. It can lead to timidity and cowardice.

Who is it that has stated they "consider moderation as an unadulterated good"?

I think that is a strawman.

I am a "moderate" because I am willing to call out the bullshit and absurdity of the progressive left. *They* claim that makes me a "moderate", since I am not willing to just pretend that things I disagree with cannot be said because someone might confuse my disagreement with an attempt to stifle them or support the right. 

There is nothing at all good about being any particular political position, nor is it even meaningful in any objective sense since my own position on the spectrum is only "moderate" because there are people to either side of me. My views have not changed to align to some "moderate" position, not at all. Indeed, I am a avowed, hard core Democrat because my position has NOT changed, by the political spectrum HAS changed. There was a time when I would vote for either party, based on the particulars of who is running. 

No more - the right has gone so far off into the crazy land over thataway that now I am in fact a hardened Democrat, and won't vote for a Republican ever. Likely never will again, unless something really profound changes.

The irony is not that I am a "moderate", the irony is that even this hardcore Dem is attacked from the Left for not being adequately willing to ignore and stay quiet about the things I disagree with, because I am unwilling to toe the party line with enough fervor to be considered something other then a despised "moderate".

[Oexmelin]

It's clear you take great pride in your own moderation. You wrote it yourself above: you consider it gives you "a great advantage" in conversation, one that allows you to see clearly - which, of course, implies that all the other misguided zealots are deluded somehow.

Ultimately, that's fine. You can denounce progressists all you like on Languish, in your life in general, at the coffee machine. or what have you. That's totally fine. It's a legitimate political stance. The *only* thing I hope is that your hardcore democratedness leads you to get involved either locally, or nationally with the same energy. Amplify the message you like in your daily life. Give some time, some money. Call people. Demonstrate. Including with some of these deluded zealots perhaps. Who knows? Maybe that could do something in the short term.

[DGuller]

Democratic messaging works just fine for me.  If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.

I think the messaging that sucks is taking credit for accomplishments.  I guess the problem is that it doesn't sell in the news.  "Woman murdered in park last night" sells the news, "woman had a fulfilling first date" doesn't.  Similarly, it's hard to fill the airwaves of 24/7 news channels with "quality of governance improving slowly" headline items, even if that ultimately has a much greater impact in someone's life than the next bullshit scandal.

[FunkMonk]

Democratic messaging works just fine for me.  If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.

Great. We just need several million Yi-clones of voting age and the republic will be saved.

[grumbler]

Democratic messaging works just fine for me.  If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.

Democratic messaging sucked in the last VA gubernatorial election.  A quite successful and popular former governor was defeated by a bunch of made-up cultural "crises" because his campaign couldn't figure out how to effectively respond.

You are right about Democratic voter apathy, but I blame that on the wretched state of Democratic leadership.  Anyone who could be inspirational seems to be sidelined as a threat to the Democratic establishment.

[Jacob]

Democratic messaging works just fine for me.  If left leaning voters can't be arsed to go the polls and beat back the Orcs maybe the problem is with them and not the messaging.

You should not get a job in advertising or political messaging 

[FunkMonk]