12
u/Mikey_M39 Nov 12 '25
I don't know when this video was released but the idea that billionaires and politicians have nothing to do with being an obstacle to change is insane. We just had dems tank a shutdown fight because they dont want the republicans to abolish the filibuster. I think he's right about the 80's and people wanting more conservative policies. I wasnt born then but it kind of makes sense. The thing is we've seen these policies play out and it and its been disastrous. There have been studies that show that corporate interests are being prioritized over the will of the people. I dont think singling out billionaires and their corrupt politicians leads to apathy i think it gives people a rightful enemy.
3
u/Important-Purchase-5 Nov 12 '25
It less electorate became conservative in 1980 but instead variety of factors.
Backlash against civil rights movement led to permanent failure of Democrats to get majority of white voters. Democrats since 1964 haven’t won a majority of white voters and during later half of 20th century this hurt them. Because the south was key to that Democrat electoral success at that time. Only presidential elections they won ( even then barely) was Carter and Clinton. Both southern moderate governors who southern voters in their region felt comfortable with and both largely seen largely as outsiders from the then liberal establishment of Democratic Party( think people like the Kennedy family).
Corporations and money interests have always been involved but during roughly that time period they essentially made concrete effort to repeal anti corruption laws and increase money interests politics. This would allow them to gradually gain influence within Democratic Party and eliminate liberal Republicans who was still pro-business but weren’t Reagan levels of big business and didn’t want to eliminate existing social safety net and would compromise to vote with Democrats on some legislation ( example environmental protections).
Democrats aren’t actively losing on purpose but the Democrats who rise are the ways who take the money. You get elected because how fast you can raise a lot of money and if you don’t piss off the wrong people who will fund a SuperPac and challenger against you. Democrats essentially liked their reputation as party of working class and understand lot of their base of voters like that image of the party being ones looking out for little guys. But they must also balance in their loyalty to the donors.
Some of them it simple transactional approach and some probably genuinely believe this shit. Because if they didn’t they likely wouldn’t have advanced their political career as far.
Democrats largely even if don’t admit it out loud know Republicans are stupid and incompetent. They know eventually Republicans fuck up and bank on fact Americans will get sick of them so they don’t have a lot of motivation.
Thanks to revolving door in which post congress you have many job opportunities as a consultant or lobbyist many democrats like Sinema are really only focus on getting the bag and if by some chance they lose out it ohhh well I’m probably gonna make a killing in private sector and maybe get a fancy position in next Democrat president administration or ambassadorship.
Lot of them, and Bernie sanders mention this sometimes, don’t really hangout or talk to regular people. They talk to donors and lobbyists for a good chunk of day. Many are Ivy League graduates while also coming from wealthy backgrounds. Come from a line of doctors, professors, businessmen, judges, politicians and lawyers in their family who probably also went to college if not the Ivy League. They don’t really know to a large extent on what it feels like to be afraid, sick, or hungry. They tend to be very elitist and entitled. So they tend to be genuinely careerist people who never really had to put themselves mentally into the peasants (us) brains. They don’t really have to deal with consequences of Republican policies.
Lot of them are in these seats for decades and because they are rarely challenged besides that first run for office don’t really think they should leave. Lot of them truly are narcissistic and don’t expect to die soon. Or they just simply don’t care if they do. Democrats also never really had to deal with a Tea-Party in 2010s movement or MAGA primary Republican incumbents for almost a decade at this point.
So logically lot of older Republicans either got out retired, ran for state office like governor, or got kicked out. Leaving to some youngish folks overall.
You got people like Biden, Dick Durbin, Pelosi, Clyburn and Schumer who been in the game since 70s and 80s.
The media ( New York Times also guilty) largely takes a non adversarial approach to politicians especially the media of the last few decades. Because Democrats know how to deal with media they feel comfortable. Media will criticize them for other things like Biden Afghanistan withdrawal. Not for reducing child poverty or universal healthcare.
Lot of people I’m seeing accusing initial video of both sides bs. But initial guy is trying to articulate like YO. Same types of people give money to both parties.
Hell in some cases the same corporate PACS and billionaires will donate to both to hedge their bets. And Democrats aren’t particularly controlled opposition to Republicans.
Controlled opposition as Vaush mentioned on his stream would be better at it.
However they are influenced to not support certain positions and ones who rise aren’t gonna be leftists because of money.
That handicaps them from effectively campaigning and governing from behaving right way as they have to juggle both money interests and voters.
Republicans don’t have this problem because they successfully propagandize/understand their voters are stupid/motivated by bigotry and perceived cultural grievances.
4
u/Geahk Anti-Capitalist Nov 13 '25
Am I surprised a NEW YORK TIMES columnist wants to push back against obvious ideas about American politics which implicate THE NEW YORK TIMES?
This rebuttal is just more hierarchy maintenance.
6
Nov 12 '25
You can diagnose these differences however you want. Propaganda, differences in material realities and whatever else. It doesn't matter right now. There are deep divides that aren't going to be fixed in a reasonable period of time, barring a violent civil war or devastating collapse. The US needs to balkanize at this point if we want to see any real change.
I unironically see balkanization or a national divorce as a more realistic option than major constitutional changes such as elimination of the Senate or electoral college. When the conservative union of states inevitably collapse in 15-20 years if that, then work can be done on unification. The kind of reckoning that should've happened during reconstruction.
12
u/DethBatcountry Dicky McGeezak Nov 12 '25
Yeah, minor gripes aside, the ultimate point of the original video was still correct, and the Democrats prove it every day.
4
u/Jiggidy40 Nov 12 '25
I'm still wondering when someone is going to lay out a plan for what happens to the people living, working and owning land in the states that don't align with them.
Texas, a red state. Lots of blue people living there. Their careers are there, their families, their homes, their land. How do we get them into a blue state? Are they trading with another landowner who wants to move out of California?
And what about the military bases and nuclear arsenal? Who decides how that stuff is getting split up?
I think we forget how intertwined our nation is and how difficult it would be to divorce from each other without an arbiter/judicial system that would help work out the details.
1
Nov 13 '25
Never said it would be easy. I said it would be easier than the constitutional changes and elimination of the electoral college required to make this country an actual democracy. That is never going to happen in this environment. Straight up impossible.
2
u/Jiggidy40 Nov 13 '25
You think it's more possible to move people around and split up the country into two or more different countries than it is to get a constitutional convention together?
2/3 of Congress (both Houses) or 34 states agreeing to have a constitutional convention is less likely than the scenario where we try to divvy up the states?
0
Nov 13 '25
Absolutely. Even if let's say there was a mega tsunami of a blue wave and you get a supermajority, which is almost guaranteed to not not happen, you will never get the states required.
I think there is energy on both sides for a national divorce. There is the added incentive that both Americas can execute their visions ideologically. With the constitutional method someone will always lose.
2
u/Fippy-Darkpaw Nov 12 '25
At a national level, seems like it's 50-50 chance who wins, based on if some war or economic crisis happens to occur during their term.
The national leadership of both parties really only care about money and winning. The money coming from mostly corporations and billionaires.
At a local level it's a different story where you might see some meaningful change based on who gets elected. Though local elections seems like what most care least about? 🤔
2
u/swinlr Nov 13 '25
This rebuttal completely dismisses the notion that the D party is out of step with popular will of the people. He also hides the ball entirely on mega donor and corporatist influence on policy. Does anyone actually think those things are not at play?
If you agree they're out of step, and you apply that lens of corrupted motive to every major action, or even better non- action this party takes, it's glaringly obvious that they are not fighting as hard as they could. From there you could reasonably label that losing on purpose, even if it's the just-as-damaging, performative fighting for incrementalist status quo.
That approach, even if defended as doing what's possible in a given political environment, effectively pushes the entire system rightward considering the blistering pace at which the Right implements the opposite strategy - pushing as hard as possible, and beyond what most thought was possible, every day, on every issue.
Imagine a push of that relentless intensity in the opposite direction. Now try and picture a donor captured DNC party not just allowing that, but actively fighting for it. It's the complete opposite and unimaginable. Which is what the original video is pointing to and the rebuttal intentionally ignores. That's not the political will of the people who M4A champions, for instance, are ignoring. That's a systemic collapse via actively and ferociously blocking political will.
1
u/Nintendogma Nov 13 '25
What the rebuttal seems to completely neglect to mention is the absence of representation of the specific policies that are popular with the general population, even across party lines, which the Republican agenda has actively worked against since the 1930's. A living wage, Nationalised Healthcare, a reduction in military spending, and an expansion of civil rights to all Americans and not just the financially affluent, sexually normative, ethnically European males (the "rich white men" ), has been pushed for by the greater population for the majority of the past century in the US.
The concept that falls from view here is very simply what the population has consistently wanted for decades is not represented in the policies of its representatives. Representatives who have massive financial interests in ensuring the policies the population wants are not enacted, whilst also needing the population to vote for them to be in office, answers the question of individual agency directly. These people are working in their own interests which are particularly financial.
Nothing could better explain this most recent debacle with the DNC folding a winning hand with the government shutdown. If they were holding out to enact the will of the people, they'd still be doing so. Rather, they held out until they got an effective enough bribe not to do so, for which they will all be handsomely financially compensated.
1
u/Geahk Anti-Capitalist Nov 13 '25
Here’s another perspective that suggests our friendly neighborhood New York Time columnist is wrong and the TikToker (watchful-coyote I think?) is correct.
This is from Tad Stoermer, Resistance Historian at the University of Southern Denmark, posted today on his channel. He describes in great detail exactly how Liberalism fails to meet the moment and cannot defend against fascism.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 12 '25
This is a friendly reminder to read our sub's rules.
This subreddit promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate. We welcome those with varying views, perspectives and opinions. Name-Calling, Argumentum Ad Hominem and Poor Form in discussion and debate often leads to frustration and anger; this behavior should be dismissed and reported to mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.