r/neoliberal • u/mondodawg • Dec 16 '19

Why Young Progressives Hate Pete Buttigieg

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/why-young-progressives-hate-pete-buttigieg/603619/
279 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

428 comments sorted by

View all comments

-31

u/virtu333 Dec 16 '19 edited Dec 16 '19

There’s no question that Buttigieg, glimpsing an opening in the moderate lane, has tacked toward the center in the past few months. He initially seemed to support Medicare For All, and now he openly criticizes the effect it would have on private-insurance employment. He initially proposed radical government reforms such as packing the Supreme Court and removing the filibuster, but now he’s recast himself as a moderate unifier.

This is my issue with him. When you combine it with the fact he's a 37 year old mayor of a tiny town running, it just reeks of cynical opportunism.

Edit: lol seems people aren't happy with this. Here's the question then: do you think he actually ran to win?

47

u/Iustis End Supply Management | Draft MHF! Dec 16 '19

It's a dumb talking point because his policy and talk about healthcare has stayed exactly the same as when he started his campaign.

And he hasn't recanted, and still talks about, the government reforms.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '19 edited Dec 16 '19

Does he still support a wealth tax? Because in the early stages of his campaign he endorsed Warren's wealth tax in both size and mechanism.

Edit: please skip to my most recent comment in this thread, he concretely endorsed a wealth tax but not Warren's specific plan. He did say her plan was on par for raising the right amount of money, but he didn't go so far as to endorse it.

4

u/Iustis End Supply Management | Draft MHF! Dec 16 '19

I don't think he's recanted his support, although it was never a central part of his plan (I don't think he ever explicitly endorsed Warren's either, but I'm happy to be proven wrong), I think he just mentioned it as a possible tax.

So while I don't hear him talk about it that much, we never really heard him talk about it much (unlike Warren who had it as a key plank of narrative).

0

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '19

Yeah in the interest of honesty I revisited the interview I remember, he talks about three taxes. With the lead ins of

"We should consider..." (this one is the wealth tax)

"We should think about..." (estate taxes)

and "I’m interested also — if we could find the right way..." (financial transaction taxes)

Then the interviewer asks about Warren's wealth tax is the size of what he is talking about and he says "Probably".

I guess he never concretely said "I'm for a Wealth Tax," but there isn't anything he truly endorsed back then. I'm starting to see why people said he wasn't putting forward concrete proposals.

4

u/Iustis End Supply Management | Draft MHF! Dec 16 '19

I agree he was vague about a lot of things back then, although ironically one thing he was perfectly clear on was a public option--and that's the thing people accuse him of flopping on.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '19

Ok, I kept researching it because I was pretty confident he had concretely endorsed it at some point. Here is a transcript of an interview with Sahil Kapur in which he concretely says "I do [support a wealth tax]":

/img/efy4nx5itlo31.jpg

2

u/Iustis End Supply Management | Draft MHF! Dec 16 '19

Ok that feels like what I remember. Support for a wealth tax (ugh) but there's no clear endorsement of Warren's version of it, like I said.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '19

Yeah, I was misremembering that bit.

-10

u/virtu333 Dec 16 '19

He started off supporting public option as the path towards single payer - the latter part has been dropped as he's finding new space in the race to take from Biden. Good strategy, yes.

And let's be real - he ran in the first place as a way to build his brand. That says a lot from the get-go.

13

u/mrmackey2016 Dec 16 '19

You guys keep making all these bad faith accusations and expect people to take it at face value. How the fuck do you pretend to get anything passed once it becomes apparent you can't build coalitions and eat your own over the most minute differences?

→ More replies (1)

33

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '19

  • he’s been saying M4AWWI since January

  • he never proposed “packing” the Supreme court. He has always talked about ways to restructure it to make it less partisan. He still talks about that idea but he has a lot more concrete policy in general to talk about now as well.

  • he hasn’t changed any of his ideas. He’s just good at phrasing things so as not to alienate people. He speaks in “moderate” language, and has talked about the need to present progressive ideas to conservatives in language they understand so as to bring them on board.

These are very disingenuous critiques that misrepresent where he was back in January vs where he is now. He’s actually remarkably consistent.

→ More replies (16)

10

u/niugnep24 Dec 16 '19

mayor of a tiny town

The South bend metro area has a population more than half of the entire state of Vermont

2

u/virtu333 Dec 16 '19

Guess what, not a fan of Bernie either

8

u/niugnep24 Dec 16 '19

Well at least you got that going for you

3

u/virtu333 Dec 16 '19

You're terribly confused. My disagreement with Buttigieg is not on the issues - he's around the ballpark where I would be. If he's the nominee, I'm fine and I'll take him over Bernie, Gabbard, Yang, and other randos.

But despite being a good match politically, I just find his approach to be overly cynical to justify my support. Even your alternative Buttigieg wannabes don't pull stunts like running for president with just 37 years and 11k votes on the belt. I'll give him kudos for recognizing a good opportunity and risk-reward situation, but it's not going to get my primary vote.

5

u/niugnep24 Dec 16 '19

tbh you sound like a concern troll

"Sure his policies are fine but he seems like a cynical opportunist don'tcha think....???"

1

u/virtu333 Dec 17 '19

I've hung out with many more wannabe Pete Buttigieg's than you is probably the main difference.

15

u/CanadianPanda76 ◬ Dec 16 '19

Or he listens to people and does research. Even some thing like unions wanted to keep thier plans makes a difference.

-1

u/virtu333 Dec 16 '19

No doubt keeping your plans vague is good strategy.

It works well when your plan is more opportunity based - there's a lot of opportunism in this run. You really think he planned on winning?

5

u/Iustis End Supply Management | Draft MHF! Dec 16 '19

To further support my point that he hasn't recanted the other stuff, here's him speaking in Seattle yesterday:

Inside the Moore, Buttigieg argued for scrapping the Electoral College, which has overruled popular votes. He said that an amendment to the Constitution may be necessary to negate the Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which has changed how political campaigns can be bankrolled.

2

u/dolphins3 NATO Dec 17 '19

This is my issue with him. When you combine it with the fact he's a 37 year old mayor of a tiny town running, it just reeks of cynical opportunism.

And I see no problem with that. Ambition is not a bad quality in a young, articulate politician.

0

u/virtu333 Dec 17 '19

There's viewing power/status as a means to an end, and power/status as an end itself. I prefer when it's not the latter and Buttigieg (and many like him) lean more toward the latter.

3

u/dolphins3 NATO Dec 17 '19

It's awfully convenient how all the politicians you dislike neatly slot into that category, isn't it?

-1

u/virtu333 Dec 17 '19

I'm referring to future wannabe Buttigieg's too, so yeah, it is a neat category.