The Republicans party is very much elderly people, uneducated people, and religious people.
The old people are dying, religion is on a steady decline.
The thing is that Republicans show up to vote because their bubble is largely fear driven politics.
They also have gerrymandering on their side, they limit polling places, they unconstitutionally use poll taxes that disproportionately affect minorities, they make voting harder by eliminating vote by mail… In short, they cheat like fuckin crazy and rile up their base to get out and vote.
I would not agree that they’re gonna disappear by 2028, but they are waning.
Globally, far right politicians are getting more votes.
It’s not coming back, it never left. We’re seeing them get more aggressive because they know that the newer generation isn’t buying into the ideology as much as previous generations and so their ideals are going to die with them unless they use systemic tools to enforce it.
Everything you’ve said is true. But it was all true in 70s as well. Todays young people aren’t going to remain as progressive - every generation becomes more conservative over time. Hell, baby boomers were hippies. That Karen who votes for Trump and calls the HOA when you forget to take your bins in on time - there’s a good chance she was burning her bra for equal pay when she was in college.
That depends on material conditions. An economic boom doesn’t seem to be on the horizon, and boomers could have turned out very differently without the 80s. Plus, the boomers didn’t have to contend with climate change being obviously real. There are limits to our ecosystem, limits boomers didn’t have to work around, but we do. I don’t think younger people are better than boomers were, but I also don’t think that belief is the only possible source of hope.
They won the overall popular vote for the House by 2.8% in a midterm election with a somewhat unpopular President from the opposite party plus economic turmoil. The standard assumption would be that they’d blow it out. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats won the popular vote for the House by almost 10% under somewhat similar circumstances.
It’s harder to see where the other side is coming from when you’re standing so far apart.
“Normal people,” or people anywhere in the middle of the two poles, who can see both sides still are generally pretty quiet now because they get attacked by one side for “sympathizing” with the other. I talk to both extremes daily in my line of work, and it’s exhausting to be respectful of either far-directional sentiment all day, every day
The far-left purity test alienates many mostly-left people.
You can be pro-choice, pro-women, all for supporting the poor, gay rights and trans rights - but if you dare suggest that maybe trans women shouldn’t be competing against born women in top-level sports, then the vocal left brand you as a transphobic TERF whose opinion isn’t even worth listening to. They would rather fight you over the 2% of things you disagree on, than embrace you for the 98% of values you have in common.
The vocal left want diversity in color, gender and sexuality - but they will not tolerate any diversity in thought or opinion.
Indeed, this is the major problem on the left. It’s why there’s so much interest online in centrist “anti-woke” discussions and podcasts. But it’s also fertile recruiting ground for the far right - if you’re excommunicated for the 2% difference and actually, effectively canceled (I mean like a twitter mob actually gets you fired or the like), you’re more inclined to go where people support you, and all too often, that’s now the far right.
Identitarinasm doesn’t lead anywhere good IMO on either side, and we would do well to re-think that on the “loud” part of the left.
No… They want people to be able to be themselves without being hounded by bigots. Somehow not a big going to ask imo. And yes, if you are talking about trans woman and AMAB people in that way and preventing women from joining sports (which has included all levels of sports), yes, you’re being transphobic.
Are you not self-aware enough to see how brilliantly you are making their point? This is the tyranny of small differences in action; either you’re with me 100 percent, or you are cast out as an unclean bigot. This is why the Democrats are losing the working class that would otherwise be their natural allies. People have been yelling this at you for years, but for some reason you are unable to hear it.
Who are you even talking to? This 100% with us or against us shit is bullshit. You can be a Democrat/Progressive and still be a bigot, racist, asshole, etc. If you don’t like that label than it’s on you to work on or be at peace with. If you go around spouting it on the internet or yelling it at people, prepare for the consequences. That’s how life works.
On the other hand, If that label or single issue makes you say “This means I have to vote for a Republican instead” then you’re a shitty person who doesn’t deserve respect. It’s even more appropriate now that MAGA really showed everyone who the GOP was.
This is just like that “if you’re not nice to people, it will make them vote for Trump” bullshit that was peddled all over reddit. Usually pushed by right-wing, bad faith dipshits trying to muddy the waters.
The US doesn’t have a left wing party. We have a extreme right wing party, and a center right wing party. This both sides shit is stupid as fuck. “We want to ban gays” is extreme. “We want gay people to have rights” is not
Lol did you just do a “BoTh siDes” which leftist extremist have actual political power in the US. Defending people’s freedom to make and consume legal porn is not an extremist take LOL. I’m also European by the way
The sad part is that's the best there is for people on the left out of over 500 Congress people. Yet I still regularly have to listen to morons screech about socialism, communism, "cultural Marxism" etc.
Yes, so far at least the Democrats seem to be far less tolerant of extremists in politics. Maybe that’s untrue - but they tend to not be violent or wanting to overthrow the system. Part of it is how you define extremists - I’m more tolerant of people who want to campaign and try to make most any change via the democratic process via voting no matter their position. I’m less interested in those who feel we should invade the capital to try and overrule the outcomes of elections or violently intimidate opponents.
how you define extremists - I’m more tolerant of people who want to campaign and try to make most any change via the democratic process via voting no matter their position. I’m less interested in those who feel we should invade the capital to try and overrule the outcomes of elections or violently intimidate opponents.
Hmm, I actually disagree that extremists should only be those who want to go outside the system and use violence. I would also find trying to effectively and knowingly go against the 1st amendment extreme too. I think that extremists also need to be kind of at the… extremes of a political spectrum also. In fact, I do find it useful (maybe we need a different term) for a way to talk about if someone is in a very edge AND niche position of their group.
The name “do nothing democrats” is sadly very accurate. They are just letting the right wing extremists walk all over us. I’d like to imagine how much better our political system would be if we simply had an age cap on political positions. Of course the people in power will never vote themselves out though.
Oh, no, you’re spot on. Democrats have actively kept leftists from getting traction in the party. There’s a huge age gap between Bernie and AOC with no real progressives in between them. And they’re not even that far left.
You don’t need to be violent if the electoral apparatus is rigged to favor you (the right in American politics—I’m not making this up), but they are anyway. But if the electoral apparatus is rigged against you, if your party can get the most votes consistently and still lose, while your opponents make policy that literally kills people, if you’d still argue that extraelectoral measures are extremist, you’re not advocating democracy, you’re advocating acquiescence. The people of Germany would have been right to rise up against the Nazis (who only got 38% of the vote, btw), yeah? So where’s the line? Which standing up for yourself makes you righteous, and which an extremist?
I guess if you’re mostly happy with how something is then you’ve no reason to bring it up.
Nobody is writing long articles, posting tweets or appearing on TV shows to talk about it being quite nice that they can currently go and buy a beer from a shop. But someone could easily decide that they want to rile people up about the easiness of buying beer. And it all goes from there.
Alcohol consumption was like 800% higher before prohibition happened. It seems silly today, but alcohol abuse was a super rampant issue in the early 1900s.
Oh yes. Extreme Left Wing ideas like: Trans people deserve human rights, We should feed our children, We should forgive college loans to borrowers that are being burdened so heavily with debt they can’t start a family or buy homes (and the impact of it on the US Economy), Everyone has the right to vote. Wow…
I’m usually happy to hear an international perspective of us politics because it can be grounding. But you can’t “both sides” your way out of fascism. There is no far left institutional power in the us. Kindly keep your boot licking to yourself
Lots of them, but normal doesn’t sell advertisements or make headlines. I see by the downvotes (or whatever Lemmy calls them) that you’ve been visited by the Reddit groupthink. It feels weird when it happens. Some of us just want everyone to get along…which feels radical in its own way.
The US Democrats aren't great, especially from our European perspective, but this is such a stupid enlightened centrist type of shit take. The Democrats after all aren't the one who are banning media and take peoples right away.
Add comment