Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Your comment is a fine example of the twisted "reasoning" I'm addressing here.  

In your view, asking the faction of the left being discussed here to stop attacking your allies becomes asking you to sing hosannas.  

Pointing out that the WWC voting against their interests is due to racism becomes an insult to your intelligence as to the voting patterns of the WWC instead of taking the main point addressing the motivation.  

Asking for people who presumably share our goals for solidarity is twisted into a false choice of do it our way or hope for demographics to save you, pitting yourself AGAINST the votes of the democratic base.

Then, as the cherry on top, in a discussion about how a portion of "the left" helped Republicans win the election by joining them in attacking Democrats, you proceed to attack Democrats then rationalize the behavior.

You're all saying you won't be silenced and assigning blame like it's a holy sacrament, but then admonish me to not blame the Bernie would've won crowd because blame does no good.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 2nd, 2017 at 10:57:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Several points: The leaders of the Democratic Party are not my allies. Just in the last period of their relative power they completely broke one country, scaled up and institutionalized the mass murder program around the world, launched a frontal assault on democracy with their "trade deals", kept building a domestic repression apparatus that would make the Stasi blush with envy and had that same system bulldoze the only grass root anti capitalist movement the US had seen in a lifetime. Any alliance can only be tactical.

More importantly: If I read your complaint right then it is that parts of the left, especially those that supported Sanders kept criticizing the Dems even after the primary was over. Frankly that is not how it works. You can expect party apparatchiks to get behind the candidate once the primary is over but the actual voters you have to win over. And the Clinton campaign did exactly nothing. Single payer will never pass, a 15$ minimum wage is unrealistic, they couldn't even put a fracking ban in the largely symbolic party platform. But really they could have stopped the hippy punching after the southern primaries. After they were fought with the DNC putting its thump on the scale by keeping debates to a minimum any upset was very unlikely. But especially once Trump, their preferred opponent by the way, grabbed the nomination the word from above was "for every dead end Bernie bro we lose we pick up two moderate Republicans." And still I've seen no evidence that the activist left deserted them in large numbers. Jill Stein did get enough votes to elect a few dog catchers but hardly enough to swing the election.
I mean "the people have failed her" is not something any party can get away with.
But I see there is some confusion about where I point my blame. I blame the Democratic party and the professional campaign machinery. Both for pushing terrible policies that are hard to defend and for losing most elections for the last 6 years. I don't blame the individual Hillary supporters for thinking Hillary was the more electable or whatever. And I certainly wouldn't demand that people who now demonstrate against Trump's Muslim ban explain their silence when the no fly lists were drawn up.

And what kind of solidarity are you asking for here exactly?

by generic on Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 at 12:59:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm asking for the kind of solidarity that admits black votes matter and doesn't ignore the voices and votes of people of color because they chose someone who you don't agree with.

If you think all these problems are caused because the Democratic party doesn't want to fix them, then you clearly don't understand the problem.  You're denying how our system works and ignoring the evidence of the public record. You're refusing to stand against the party who is actually at war with poor and working people and causing all the problems you're railing against. You are working against building support and unity.

If neither party is your ally, then you're not engaged in political activism, you're just having a temper tantrum and you're part of the problem.  If you can't see the person who wants to support the minimum wage laws and raise it to $12 as an ally because you wanted $15 against handing control to the party who wants to eliminate the minimum wage law altogether, then there's something seriously flawed with your thought processes.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 at 02:08:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm asking for the kind of solidarity that admits black votes matter and doesn't ignore the voices and votes of people of color because they chose someone who you don't agree with.

What does that even mean?

And while you're talking about the public record: Do you deny that "saving social security" for example is an entirely bipartisan obsession? And this lionization of the small (D) behind a name is something I really can't comprehend. You are telling me that people who are mostly millionaires in their own right, spend most of their working time hitting rich people up for campaign money and are as a rule deeply concerned with preserving the civility in their working relationship with the Rs you consider to be the root of all evil, are somehow my natural allies? Unless we are using that word very differently I don't see how that makes any sense.

by generic on Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 at 08:43:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you can't see the person who wants to support the minimum wage laws and raise it to $12 as an ally because you wanted $15 against handing control to the party who wants to eliminate the minimum wage law altogether,
That is a gross mischaracterization of the criticism being raised.

Failing to get behind the Fight for 15 campaign, and actual, successful union mass mobilization which is something of a rarity in the US, was an entirely unforced error on Candidate Clinton's part. Something was fundamentally wrong about team Clinton's picture of the world if they thought that was good policy or good optics.

Now, during the campaign it is impolitic to point this out, because the alternative was a talking tire fire.

But as part of the post-mortem unforced errors like that have to be owned up to. That is the only way to improve.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 at 08:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
NOT supporting that campaign until the very end is also a fact that allows drawing conclusions about the agenda being pursued and how much the interests of actual working people figured in the Clinton campaign strategy. The conclusion: not much.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2017 at 07:25:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is surely enough hyperbole on both sides of this issue.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 at 06:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then, as the cherry on top, in a discussion about how a portion of "the left" helped Republicans win the election by joining them in attacking Democrats, you proceed to attack Democrats then rationalize the behavior.

Point of order: People doing the "Bernie would have won" skit after the election cannot be the cause of losing the election. Cause has to predate effect.

I personally don't think it's a particularly productive activity, given that neither Sanders nor Clinton will run again (Sanders is too old, and Clinton has lost for the second time in a row). But as defeat post-mortems go it's not out of bounds. Not very persuasive unless it comes with some actual data behind it, but not a priori out of bounds either.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 3rd, 2017 at 08:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Occasional Series