Bill Clinton and his DLC not only started the momentum of pushing the party to the right and that momentum hasn’t stopped, but has accelerated at enormous speed
It marks the start of Democrats caring more about winning and getting donations than the American people
Absolute coincidence that this was the rise of neoliberism…
/s
Seriously tho, it’s concerning they don’t mention this is when Dems started trying to compromise with Republicans on fiscal policy which drove republicans further right to differentiate.
Yes, I thought the article was about that and ideas for correcting neoliberalism and how to root it out, effectively. I was sorely disappointed.
As intended by the Dem elites.
It’s not an oopsie. They think we are too dumb to see through their chicanery.
That’s always been their modis operandi, push right-wing legislation. Then when they get busted they claim they were short-sighted.
This article is specifically talking about how Republicans went from Regan -> Trump and you’re over here going WhAT abOuT tHE dEMoCrAtS?
Besides, the interview specifically talks about how Regan buttfucked the left at the end of the cold war and that they had nothing to offer the public in return, and how they utterly failed to provide a meaningful alternative.
Neolibs are scum, but that’s not the point of this article.
Dems started trying to compromise with Republicans on fiscal policy which drove republicans further right to differentiate.
“Waaaaaaaa the evil democrats forced us to be Nazis with their wicked compromise ideology! Don’t you see this is all their fault!”
What he said was exactly right, though. Third-Way Democrats like Clinton started adopting conservative views on austerity and taxes to try and emulate Regan’s success. In order to keep distinguishing themselves from their Democratic rivals, Republicans kept adopting further right economic and social policies. The end result of that rightward lurch is Trump.
“Waaaaaaaa someone gave me some additional historical context that contradicted my worldview!”
If someone told you smoking 50 packs a cigarette a day could lead to lung cancer…
Would you say they’re trying to defend cancer?
Or do you think they’re stating a simple case of cause and effect?
I think a better analogy would be that someone wrote an article about how cigarettes cause cancer but a random commentator complains that they don’t talk about radon.
Does radon cause lung cancer? Yes. Is that what the article is talking about? No.
Was I being an inflammatory asshole in my first comment? Yeah, sorry. I’m argumentative today. I try to not be but sometimes I can’t help it; I’m working on it though.
Like, read the article again (for the first time) and tell me what the article says is the cause.
They don’t.
They just talk about how bad cancer is.
Don’t be sorry. Most of their posts are a bOtH siDeS bit.
Not expecting a real answer, but wanted to try:
In America there’s two parties, but three groups of voters.
Parties:
-
Democratic
-
Republican.
Groups:
- Conservative
- Moderate
- Progressive
For the groups, 1 and 2 always shit on 3.
2 and 3 shit on 1.
But if anyone from 3 says anything that isn’t unadulterated praise of 2…
2 complains about “bOtH sIdES”.
And when 1 shits on 2, 2 apologizes and acts more like 1
Why?
Why are moderates not allowed to be criticized from the left? But when the right does it, they compromise with conservatives?
Do you honestly think group three is only allowed to criticize group one? If so why?
-
Is radon considered the only viable alternative to smoking?
