Those who would like to see the Democratic Party reform itself, abandon “wokeness” and move to the center must come to terms with the fact that it is the legacy of Barack Obama. From his youth, when he was mentored by the unrepentant Stalinist and race communist Frank Marshall Davis, through his association with Derrick Bell (creator of critical race theory) at Harvard, through 20 years of attending Jeremiah Wright’s “church”, and through the launch of his first political campaign at the home of Bill Ayers (leader of the Weather Underground), it is clear where Obama’s ideological formation was grounded. It is also clear, and unquestionable by now, that his big 2004 speech and occasional moderate rhetoric was a conscious smokescreen for his true beliefs and agenda. He was simply telling people what he knew they wanted to hear, in order to gain power. It cannot be an accident that what we now know of as “wokeness” was unheard of, and confined to the fringes of academia before 2008, and had reached a fever pitch by 2016, with repeated outbreaks of racial violence starting in Ferguson, MO. In particular, Obama’s sympathy to, and perpetuation of, anti-police sentiment (which culminated in the ongoing false conviction and imprisonment of Derrick Chauvin), began in his first year with Henry Louis Gates, and grew throughout his time in office. It came from him. It was not a coincidence.
I have to say that the future of liberalism looks pretty bleak. The Republicans are split between populists and conservatives so it is clearly not them. The Democrats are controlled by leftists, so clearly not them either. So what is to be done? Populist fusion is my thing. It is not hard to find elements of MAGA who agree with Democrats on important parts of economic policy. J D Vance is one of them, so bashing him is counter productive, at least from my perspective. I also should remind you that Kamala Harris, as sitting VP and presidential candidate called Trump a fascist which is far more inflammatory than anything Vance said. The left side of populist fusion would have to separate from The Groups which you seem to want for the Democrats anyway. So what is important to the left populists. Support for the working class or identarian politics. Pick one.
But if you don't share my support for populist fusion, you have two other choices. Run a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party as Trump did to the Republicans. This works if the base is dissatisfied with the leadership. From what I can see, this is so but not in the moderate direction that you wish. So unless, I am reading the base wrong, this won't work. The other choice is a new party. I know the challenges of this but I remind you, it took only 6 years for the Republicans to go from zero in 1854 to dominance in 1860. Democrats, if you believe current polling, have that long in the wilderness anyway. To do that, liberals need an animating issue, comparable to slavery. Support for the working class is the one favored here but given where the Republicans are, that starts looking like populist fusion. Whatever the issue winds up being, every minute liberals keep obsessing on the Bad Orange Man, is a minute lost to defining such an issue. A new party will also need a leader that can articulate the vision. John C. Fremont didn't provide that for the Republicans but Lincoln did. This in spite of the fact that Fremont was far more committed to emancipation than Lincoln. Lincoln fired him as CiC West for jumping the gun on emancipation. Lincoln was a better communicator though and a much smarter man. All the brains in the Fremont family were in the head of his wife. She was the daughter of Thomas Hart Benton and absorbed politics from early childhood.
Mainly because I have a degree in economics from which I came to appreciate the value of "mixed market/government" economics, I have big reservations about "populism." Although I support progressive taxes and other programs that place most of the financial burden of government on those who are best able to pay, I am troubled by the underlying notion of "populists" that all of the problems of lower income people are the result of "exploitation" by "the rich." Aside from its lack of understanding of the economic contributions of most "rich" people, it serves as an excuse for denial of personal responsibility by too many lower income people.
But I certainly agree that the best solution would be the emergence of a credible centrist third party. I would hope that this would come from a coalition of moderate Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. But the obstacle that I see is the reluctance of too many moderates to become involved in politics, other than to vote for what they regard as the lesser of evils offered by the increasingly-extremist Democratic and Republican parties.
It brings to mind a story that I heard several decades ago. A poll taker was asking a "man on the street" whether he thought that the main problem with voters was ignorance or apathy. His response was "I don't know and I don't care."
Also have an economics degree and I would argue that populism is the mixed economic you support. I would oppose any centrist party that includes the likes of Mitt Romney . I don't blame all rich people but I definitely blame private equity guys like him. They have looted housing and health care. Trump's idea to let them into 401k plans is a terrible idea. Hopefully, it goes nowhere.
Those who would like to see the Democratic Party reform itself, abandon “wokeness” and move to the center must come to terms with the fact that it is the legacy of Barack Obama. From his youth, when he was mentored by the unrepentant Stalinist and race communist Frank Marshall Davis, through his association with Derrick Bell (creator of critical race theory) at Harvard, through 20 years of attending Jeremiah Wright’s “church”, and through the launch of his first political campaign at the home of Bill Ayers (leader of the Weather Underground), it is clear where Obama’s ideological formation was grounded. It is also clear, and unquestionable by now, that his big 2004 speech and occasional moderate rhetoric was a conscious smokescreen for his true beliefs and agenda. He was simply telling people what he knew they wanted to hear, in order to gain power. It cannot be an accident that what we now know of as “wokeness” was unheard of, and confined to the fringes of academia before 2008, and had reached a fever pitch by 2016, with repeated outbreaks of racial violence starting in Ferguson, MO. In particular, Obama’s sympathy to, and perpetuation of, anti-police sentiment (which culminated in the ongoing false conviction and imprisonment of Derrick Chauvin), began in his first year with Henry Louis Gates, and grew throughout his time in office. It came from him. It was not a coincidence.
I have to say that the future of liberalism looks pretty bleak. The Republicans are split between populists and conservatives so it is clearly not them. The Democrats are controlled by leftists, so clearly not them either. So what is to be done? Populist fusion is my thing. It is not hard to find elements of MAGA who agree with Democrats on important parts of economic policy. J D Vance is one of them, so bashing him is counter productive, at least from my perspective. I also should remind you that Kamala Harris, as sitting VP and presidential candidate called Trump a fascist which is far more inflammatory than anything Vance said. The left side of populist fusion would have to separate from The Groups which you seem to want for the Democrats anyway. So what is important to the left populists. Support for the working class or identarian politics. Pick one.
But if you don't share my support for populist fusion, you have two other choices. Run a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party as Trump did to the Republicans. This works if the base is dissatisfied with the leadership. From what I can see, this is so but not in the moderate direction that you wish. So unless, I am reading the base wrong, this won't work. The other choice is a new party. I know the challenges of this but I remind you, it took only 6 years for the Republicans to go from zero in 1854 to dominance in 1860. Democrats, if you believe current polling, have that long in the wilderness anyway. To do that, liberals need an animating issue, comparable to slavery. Support for the working class is the one favored here but given where the Republicans are, that starts looking like populist fusion. Whatever the issue winds up being, every minute liberals keep obsessing on the Bad Orange Man, is a minute lost to defining such an issue. A new party will also need a leader that can articulate the vision. John C. Fremont didn't provide that for the Republicans but Lincoln did. This in spite of the fact that Fremont was far more committed to emancipation than Lincoln. Lincoln fired him as CiC West for jumping the gun on emancipation. Lincoln was a better communicator though and a much smarter man. All the brains in the Fremont family were in the head of his wife. She was the daughter of Thomas Hart Benton and absorbed politics from early childhood.
Mainly because I have a degree in economics from which I came to appreciate the value of "mixed market/government" economics, I have big reservations about "populism." Although I support progressive taxes and other programs that place most of the financial burden of government on those who are best able to pay, I am troubled by the underlying notion of "populists" that all of the problems of lower income people are the result of "exploitation" by "the rich." Aside from its lack of understanding of the economic contributions of most "rich" people, it serves as an excuse for denial of personal responsibility by too many lower income people.
But I certainly agree that the best solution would be the emergence of a credible centrist third party. I would hope that this would come from a coalition of moderate Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. But the obstacle that I see is the reluctance of too many moderates to become involved in politics, other than to vote for what they regard as the lesser of evils offered by the increasingly-extremist Democratic and Republican parties.
It brings to mind a story that I heard several decades ago. A poll taker was asking a "man on the street" whether he thought that the main problem with voters was ignorance or apathy. His response was "I don't know and I don't care."
Also have an economics degree and I would argue that populism is the mixed economic you support. I would oppose any centrist party that includes the likes of Mitt Romney . I don't blame all rich people but I definitely blame private equity guys like him. They have looted housing and health care. Trump's idea to let them into 401k plans is a terrible idea. Hopefully, it goes nowhere.