You don’t get to spend all day conflating liberals and neoliberals and then just de-conflate them whenever you want.
I’m personally very careful about not conflating liberalism with neoliberalism, but it’s an easy mistake to make so I just went back to check if I did that anywhere here, and there is not one instance in this whole conversation where I made it. If there was any confusion whatsoever, it was in your own head.
You damn Leftists have spent 10 years pretending that liberal = neoliberal.
Classic bad faith argument. Now I’m supposed to answer for all “damn Leftists” (thanks for finally taking the mask off BTW) over 10 years? Let’s see how you do answering for every bit of idiocy that came out of just Biden’s mouth in the last 10 years, nevermind the entire neoliberal establishment.
Neoliberals are fucking Republicans. Bush, Cheney, Romney. If you’re talking about neoliberal policy, then this whole conversation has little to do with Democrats.
Obama’s greatest achievement was the implementation of a healthcare plan designed by the same Heritage Foundation that brought us Project 2025. For the cost of fixing some truly barbaric inadequacies of the previous system, it also massively accelerated the flow of wealth in this country to big corporations. The whole point of the system was that the establishment saw populist demands for healthcare reforms as a threat, and they needed to make the smallest concessions they could while cementing the hold of capital over the healthcare system. It worked just as intended, but the discontent didn’t go away. Then there were the bank bailouts and the complete lack of consequences for bankers and CEOs that gambled with the entire economy, but that one is so easy that it almost seems unfair to mention it. If you google “first neoliberal president”, there doesn’t seem to be much disagreement about the title belonging to Carter. Clinton was arguably the most neoliberal President. Reagan presided over the biggest neoliberal shift, but Clinton took it marginally further. “The era of big government is over.” came from Bill Clinton before he drove the biggest reduction in the history of the federal safety net until (maybe) the current presidency.
So let’s get this shit straight right now: are we talking about Democrat policies and politicians, or Republican policies and politicians?
If you line up the economic philosophies of Obama and Mitt Romney, the differences are vanishingly small. Up until that point, “both sides” arguments legitimately had a whole lot of juice. The only real departure was the reliance of Republican rhetoric on selling hate. Even that was pretty recent, since the Defense of Marriage act passed in 1996 with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Biden was almost entirely on the side of Republicans for most of his time in congress. As I said above, I certainly acknowledge that he made some significant improvements in his tenure as president.
Plural “you”. I treat Leftists as interchangeable, since you all parrot the same talking points. Like how suddenly everyone forgot about Gaza.
And hang on, are you really suggesting Obamacare increased economic inequality?
Yes, Democrats are pro-business. Many of them moreso than I (or most Democrats) would like. But there is a significant wing of the Democrats that constantly push for more regulation and trust busting, higher taxes on the rich, more benefits for the poor. Everything you want, short of full worker ownership of the means of production (and some are in favor of that too). This wing is not in control of the Democratic party because of two reasons: 1. until the MAGA takeover, compromise was necessary with Republicans to get legislation passed and people elected; and 2. Leftists refuse to vote, so the progressive wing of the Democratic party has a dramatically smaller base than it should.
But that’s a bit of a tangent. It is entirely possible to have both a liberal economic philosophy AND a strong government to check businesses. Europe has been doing it for generations. Liberal economic philosophy is not the problem. The problem is Republicans - both the business interests capturing the government, and the reactionaries tearing the government down. And now, recently, the outright fascists trying to remake the government into a tool of oppression. None of these are inherent facets of liberal economics. They’re something that can be and need to be kept in check, and we are failing to do so. If anything, they’re inherent facets of any economic paradigm, and whatever you want to replace liberalism with will have to deal with them too.
I treat Leftists as interchangeable, since you all parrot the same talking points.
Wow. Of all the criticisms to make of the left, this has got to be the most ignorant. Leftists are legendary for infighting and there are more different perspectives among leftists than you can probably find in the entire rest of the political spectrum combined. But sure, we’re all alike.
Like how suddenly everyone forgot about Gaza.
NOBODY has forgotten about Gaza.
are you really suggesting Obamacare increased economic inequality?
I didn’t suggest anything, I said it. To be more fair though, I believe it did address inequality in a positive way for those at the bottom rungs who got significant subsidies. It might have even helped the middle class for a moment or two, but that time is passed. Obamacare offered the insurance companies a business model where they were practically guaranteed to be able to increase year over year profits by 10-15% annually for the foreseeable future, and they have definitely taken advantage of it. (Obamacare requires them to submit an explanation if premiums go up more than 15% a year.) The one other cost control that passed was a requirement that they had to spend at least 80% of premiums on actual healthcare. That created an incentive to increase their spending on care by the same 10-15% growth target, which has been a massive boon for big pharma, hospitals, and other providers - giving them that same 10-15% growth rate - and they don’t even have the same 80% requirement. Before Obamacare, most hospitals were non-profit. Now, most hospitals are owned by Wall Street and are merging into giant conglomerates that are draining the pockets of the working class and the federal government. Meanwhile, doctors are leaving the profession because working for these companies is so bad. We have a massive doctor shortage in this country that keeps getting worse, and Obamacare was a big driver for that.
Yes, Democrats are pro-business.
Oh great. More thought terminating cliches. Guess what, I’m pro-business too. Bernie is almost certainly the furthest left elected Democrat in congress, and even he is pro-business. Mainstream leftists who are pushing for “full worker ownership of the means of production” are at the absolute fringes of the American left. You can find some on lemmy, but there are no popular streamers I know of, and no prominent activist leaders.
But there is a significant wing of the Democrats that constantly push for more regulation and trust busting, higher taxes on the rich, more benefits for the poor.
I guess that depends on what you mean by significant, and how much more regulation etc. This is really pretty much meaningless without specifics. It could mean almost anything. Not that I am asking for specifics because that would take the conversation in a tedious direction that is really not necessary. What I’ve been talking about is the party as a whole, specifically the party establishment / leadership. I entirely agree that there are good ideas championed by various people in the party, but those ideas will never go anywhere when they are opposed by party leadership. If party leadership opposes a primary candidate, they are almost entirely capable of killing that candidacy. The only reason they give us primaries at all is that they were forced to when massive protests were turned into riots by a Democratic fascist Chicago mayor. They much preferred the smoke filled rooms, but running a reality TV contest was an acceptable fallback. With their ability to manipulate an election process spread over months, they can pretty much get their pick every time.
Leftists refuse to vote, so the progressive wing of the Democratic party has a dramatically smaller base than it should.
This is very wrong. According to Pew, Progressives are the most reliable voting bloc, beating out even “faith and flag” conservatives. Too much MS-NBC rots your brain. This myth just comes from the Democratic establishment making excuses for their failures. Progressives are telling the establishment how to win with normie voters. It’s not progressives staying home, it’s average Americans who find Democrats insufficiently inspiring. Without a Republican driven narrative, establishment Democrats have no narrative at all.
It is entirely possible to have both a liberal economic philosophy AND a strong government to check businesses. Europe has been doing it for generations.
Europe is definitely doing it better than the US, but even they have a long ways to go. They have been moving in the same direction as the US, just slower.
The problem is Republicans - both the business interests capturing the government, and the reactionaries tearing the government down.
Republicans are absolutely responsible for the reactionaries, but they are barely ahead of the Democrats in corporate capture. The problem is both Republicans, and Democrats who are so weak that they can’t garner enough support to beat Republicans.
I’m personally very careful about not conflating liberalism with neoliberalism, but it’s an easy mistake to make so I just went back to check if I did that anywhere here, and there is not one instance in this whole conversation where I made it. If there was any confusion whatsoever, it was in your own head.
Classic bad faith argument. Now I’m supposed to answer for all “damn Leftists” (thanks for finally taking the mask off BTW) over 10 years? Let’s see how you do answering for every bit of idiocy that came out of just Biden’s mouth in the last 10 years, nevermind the entire neoliberal establishment.
Obama’s greatest achievement was the implementation of a healthcare plan designed by the same Heritage Foundation that brought us Project 2025. For the cost of fixing some truly barbaric inadequacies of the previous system, it also massively accelerated the flow of wealth in this country to big corporations. The whole point of the system was that the establishment saw populist demands for healthcare reforms as a threat, and they needed to make the smallest concessions they could while cementing the hold of capital over the healthcare system. It worked just as intended, but the discontent didn’t go away. Then there were the bank bailouts and the complete lack of consequences for bankers and CEOs that gambled with the entire economy, but that one is so easy that it almost seems unfair to mention it. If you google “first neoliberal president”, there doesn’t seem to be much disagreement about the title belonging to Carter. Clinton was arguably the most neoliberal President. Reagan presided over the biggest neoliberal shift, but Clinton took it marginally further. “The era of big government is over.” came from Bill Clinton before he drove the biggest reduction in the history of the federal safety net until (maybe) the current presidency.
If you line up the economic philosophies of Obama and Mitt Romney, the differences are vanishingly small. Up until that point, “both sides” arguments legitimately had a whole lot of juice. The only real departure was the reliance of Republican rhetoric on selling hate. Even that was pretty recent, since the Defense of Marriage act passed in 1996 with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Biden was almost entirely on the side of Republicans for most of his time in congress. As I said above, I certainly acknowledge that he made some significant improvements in his tenure as president.
Plural “you”. I treat Leftists as interchangeable, since you all parrot the same talking points. Like how suddenly everyone forgot about Gaza.
And hang on, are you really suggesting Obamacare increased economic inequality?
Yes, Democrats are pro-business. Many of them moreso than I (or most Democrats) would like. But there is a significant wing of the Democrats that constantly push for more regulation and trust busting, higher taxes on the rich, more benefits for the poor. Everything you want, short of full worker ownership of the means of production (and some are in favor of that too). This wing is not in control of the Democratic party because of two reasons: 1. until the MAGA takeover, compromise was necessary with Republicans to get legislation passed and people elected; and 2. Leftists refuse to vote, so the progressive wing of the Democratic party has a dramatically smaller base than it should.
But that’s a bit of a tangent. It is entirely possible to have both a liberal economic philosophy AND a strong government to check businesses. Europe has been doing it for generations. Liberal economic philosophy is not the problem. The problem is Republicans - both the business interests capturing the government, and the reactionaries tearing the government down. And now, recently, the outright fascists trying to remake the government into a tool of oppression. None of these are inherent facets of liberal economics. They’re something that can be and need to be kept in check, and we are failing to do so. If anything, they’re inherent facets of any economic paradigm, and whatever you want to replace liberalism with will have to deal with them too.
Wow. Of all the criticisms to make of the left, this has got to be the most ignorant. Leftists are legendary for infighting and there are more different perspectives among leftists than you can probably find in the entire rest of the political spectrum combined. But sure, we’re all alike.
NOBODY has forgotten about Gaza.
I didn’t suggest anything, I said it. To be more fair though, I believe it did address inequality in a positive way for those at the bottom rungs who got significant subsidies. It might have even helped the middle class for a moment or two, but that time is passed. Obamacare offered the insurance companies a business model where they were practically guaranteed to be able to increase year over year profits by 10-15% annually for the foreseeable future, and they have definitely taken advantage of it. (Obamacare requires them to submit an explanation if premiums go up more than 15% a year.) The one other cost control that passed was a requirement that they had to spend at least 80% of premiums on actual healthcare. That created an incentive to increase their spending on care by the same 10-15% growth target, which has been a massive boon for big pharma, hospitals, and other providers - giving them that same 10-15% growth rate - and they don’t even have the same 80% requirement. Before Obamacare, most hospitals were non-profit. Now, most hospitals are owned by Wall Street and are merging into giant conglomerates that are draining the pockets of the working class and the federal government. Meanwhile, doctors are leaving the profession because working for these companies is so bad. We have a massive doctor shortage in this country that keeps getting worse, and Obamacare was a big driver for that.
Oh great. More thought terminating cliches. Guess what, I’m pro-business too. Bernie is almost certainly the furthest left elected Democrat in congress, and even he is pro-business. Mainstream leftists who are pushing for “full worker ownership of the means of production” are at the absolute fringes of the American left. You can find some on lemmy, but there are no popular streamers I know of, and no prominent activist leaders.
I guess that depends on what you mean by significant, and how much more regulation etc. This is really pretty much meaningless without specifics. It could mean almost anything. Not that I am asking for specifics because that would take the conversation in a tedious direction that is really not necessary. What I’ve been talking about is the party as a whole, specifically the party establishment / leadership. I entirely agree that there are good ideas championed by various people in the party, but those ideas will never go anywhere when they are opposed by party leadership. If party leadership opposes a primary candidate, they are almost entirely capable of killing that candidacy. The only reason they give us primaries at all is that they were forced to when massive protests were turned into riots by a Democratic fascist Chicago mayor. They much preferred the smoke filled rooms, but running a reality TV contest was an acceptable fallback. With their ability to manipulate an election process spread over months, they can pretty much get their pick every time.
This is very wrong. According to Pew, Progressives are the most reliable voting bloc, beating out even “faith and flag” conservatives. Too much MS-NBC rots your brain. This myth just comes from the Democratic establishment making excuses for their failures. Progressives are telling the establishment how to win with normie voters. It’s not progressives staying home, it’s average Americans who find Democrats insufficiently inspiring. Without a Republican driven narrative, establishment Democrats have no narrative at all.
Europe is definitely doing it better than the US, but even they have a long ways to go. They have been moving in the same direction as the US, just slower.
Republicans are absolutely responsible for the reactionaries, but they are barely ahead of the Democrats in corporate capture. The problem is both Republicans, and Democrats who are so weak that they can’t garner enough support to beat Republicans.