Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Razgovory]

One of the strange things about American politics is that Democratic constituents are more radical than Democratic politicians.  Republican constituents are less radical than Republican politicians.

[Sheilbh]

So this is a slight aside - but I've always objected to "moderate" as a positive adjective. I always hate it when opposed to faith when people talk about "moderate Muslims" because it's meaningless in the context of belief - is Pope Leo a more "moderate" Catholic than Benedict XVI? Obviously not - it's insane.

It can be a virtue in politics in certain contexts but I think it's a bit confused. It seems to me that Macron, for example, is not a moderate - he has very clear, strong views and quite well defined belief. It reminds me of Blair who used to talk of the "radical centre".

I'm not sure it's fully right with the problems of the Democrats (I think Buttigieg is very good, for example). I think it's temper, style, way of communicating rather than political position that is the problem. And I think that structures how they deal with Trump, with Republicans and with the public - and I think it is more of an "establishment" issue than "moderate" or not.

Edit: Although I would add one warning from across the pond - it does feel like there are at least some centrist Democrats who mainly care about beating the left/keeping hold of the party and the apparatus and the consultancy gigs. It's not a good path.

[viper37]

Jasmine Crocket seems moderate.  The other dude in Texas seems like a Republican in disguise.

AOC, she has weird ideas sometimes, but I can respect her intelligence.

Sanders was always a big no for his love of Chavez and Maduro, even though he finally recanted.  Giving love and support to dictators is a always a sign of radicalization.

At the last election, the Dems shifted their discourse to social issues, despite having solid economic policies.  People don't read, they watch tv.  That hurt them.

[grumbler]

Sanders was always a big no for his love of Chavez and Maduro, even though he finally recanted.  Giving love and support to dictators is a always a sign of radicalization.

When did you Republicans announce this retconn that Sanders supported Chavez and Maduro?

[viper37]

Sanders was always a big no for his love of Chavez and Maduro, even though he finally recanted.  Giving love and support to dictators is a always a sign of radicalization.

When did you Republicans announce this retconn that Sanders supported Chavez and Maduro?

In August 2011, Sanders's official Senate webpage re-printed in full an editorial from the West Lebanon, New Hampshire Valley News stating: "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"^[257]
Link

^{Chavez on Sunday read out a Jan 9 letter of support sent by 19 U.S. Congress members recognizing him as the legitimately elected president of Venezuela.}

^{"If Abraham Lincoln or George Washington were alive and here today, they would be on our side," he said.}

^{In their letter, the 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives - 18 Democrats and one independent - told Chavez they strongly opposed attempts to remove him from office and condemned Bush administration officials who appeared to support the short-lived coup against him in April.}

^{The authors of the letter included Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.}

^{As for Maduro, he had always refused to call him a dictator until 2019.}

[Valmy]

Kind of stretching it there Viper. That doesn't strike me as all that significant of support.

The first one in particular seems like using Venezuela, and others, to shame what our society has become. The second is just that we shouldn't be overthrowing Chavez. And he came around on Maduro seven years ago.

[HVC]

Well viper did say he recanted on maduro.

[grumbler]

In August 2011, Sanders's official Senate webpage re-printed in full an editorial from the West Lebanon, New Hampshire Valley News stating: "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"^[257]
Link

So, no endorsement of Chavez or Maduro. Just as I expected.

^{Chavez on Sunday read out a Jan 9 letter of support sent by 19 U.S. Congress members recognizing him as the legitimately elected president of Venezuela.}

^{"If Abraham Lincoln or George Washington were alive and here today, they would be on our side," he said.}

^{In their letter, the 19 members of the U.S. House of Representatives - 18 Democrats and one independent - told Chavez they strongly opposed attempts to remove him from office and condemned Bush administration officials who appeared to support the short-lived coup against him in April.}

^{The authors of the letter included Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and independent Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.}

So, no endorsement of Chavez or Maduro. Just as I expected.

^{As for Maduro, he had always refused to call him a dictator until 2019.}

False. He referred to Chavez as a "dead communist dictator" in 2016 and has never endorsed Maduro (noting his election was questionable). He has accused Maduro from the start of running an abusive and oppressive regime.  He has, however, opposed violent US action to overthrow Maduro.

This right-wing* attempt to retconn Sanders into a supporter of Chavez and Maduro, like most right-wing retconn attempts, collapses when confronted with the facts.

*and desperate Hillary Clinton

[grumbler]

Well viper did say he recanted on maduro.

True, but the claim that he "finally recanted" a position he never held is just more gaslighting.

[HVC]

Well viper did say he recanted on maduro.

True, but the claim that he "finally recanted" a position he never held is just more gaslighting.

True enough, I was just going by the two comments, I had no knowledge one way or the other about his stance.

[grumbler]

Well viper did say he recanted on maduro.

True, but the claim that he "finally recanted" a position he never held is just more gaslighting.

True enough, I was just going by the two comments, I had no knowledge one way or the other about his stance.

Fair enough.

[viper37]

The first one in particular seems like using Venezuela, and others, to shame what our society has become. The second is just that we shouldn't be overthrowing Chavez. And he came around on Maduro seven years ago.

Don't use Venezuela as an example of what any society should become in the 2000s.

As for Maduro, it demonstrates a lack of judgement when he was slow to label him as a tyran or dictator.  And the praise for Venezuelan society.

As for Chavez, his comment occurred after his death.  Pretty easy to do.  He did help broker a deal for heating oil.  If Trump helped broker a similar deal with Russia in his 1st term, what should we say?

Anyway.  It's past now.  


It's just worrying to so many people are swayed by the "strong" man type, left or right.  Then, when the heat cranks up, they disavow their admiration for the regime.

[DGuller]

The first one in particular seems like using Venezuela, and others, to shame what our society has become. The second is just that we shouldn't be overthrowing Chavez. And he came around on Maduro seven years ago.

Don't use Venezuela as an example of what any society should become in the 2000s.

As for Maduro, it demonstrates a lack of judgement when he was slow to label him as a tyran or dictator.  And the praise for Venezuelan society.

As for Chavez, his comment occurred after his death.  Pretty easy to do.  He did help broker a deal for heating oil.  If Trump helped broker a similar deal with Russia in his 1st term, what should we say?

Anyway.  It's past now. 


It's just worrying to so many people are swayed by the "strong" man type, left or right.  Then, when the heat cranks up, they disavow their admiration for the regime.

I think with the left the problem is much more willful blindness and confirmation bias than being swayed by the strongman type.  Many on the far left in the West didn't think highly of Stalin's USSR because they admired the strength of Stalin.  It was more that they saw what they wanted to see, and didn't make an effort to see what they didn't want to see.