I don't know. Common Stake Democrats is properly descriptive, but might seem abstract to the average person on the street. Democratic Socialist has a proud tradition; maybe all that's needed is to redefine it for this country and this time. Or, if a new label is really needed, how about Common Sense Democrats--if we can borrow from Thomas Paine.
That one had occurred to me. I like it. It's appropriate, and it has emotional and conceptual resonance. Truman, the plain talking "Fair Deal" president, accomplished a lot during his 7(?) years. He was a working class guy, and the last U. S. President who didn't have a college degree.
I wonder how the MAGA folks would malign that. -The Next Steal Democrats? Common Stake Democrats, of course, would be labeled the Communist Mistake Democrats.
I honestly don't think Democratic Socialists is redeemable, even though it should be. Agree that Common Stake is clunky. It was trying to get at economic equality, as in, tax the oligarchs to the high heavens and use the revenue to create actual equality, make health care universal, invest heavily in education, housing, food security, etc. So we all have a proper, common stake in the nation. And, of course, also suggest a community approach rather than the highly individualistic way we've been doing things. Thomas Paine meets Martin Luther King Jr. Or as Obama says, "You are America." Suggestions really welcome.
I guess in the age that we live in you are right. And, of course when voters are polled most on both sides tend to agree on many of these issues. Truman tried to follow up on the New Deal, with the Fair Deal, promising to work for national health insurance ect. But, his second term got derailed by the anti communist hysteria that began to grip the country, fueled and weaponized by people like McCarthy. After that fever broke, Eisenhower went back to more moderate government, public works in the form of the Interstate Highway system, appointing a moderate, Earl Warren as Chief Justice, ect. The old basis of the New Deal held pretty well until Reagan, who started the slide that continues to this day. But, all political movements are subject to the laws of physics, the pendeulum swings just so far, and, then it will swing back again. We may be at that point in time now. The rise of dissent among younger voters may start this movement, along with some of us much older. As for your label, maybe I can suggest another. How about a New New Deal, instead of running away from the old one, we embrace it, remind people with no sense of history what the country was like before the great Labor and financial reforms of the original New Deal. We need a new platform that addresses the failings of both parties. We do not need overly grand policy proposals, leave that to the wonks in the think tanks, just some simple language that we all can agree on. Is the label Democraic Socialist toxic? Maybe it could be better, James Carville proposes a schism in the Democratic Party, that would be a disaster, we have to remain the broad coalition that can win a national election. As Lyndon Johnson said to an aide who asked about why he kept critics in his govenment, " I would rather have them inside the tent pissing out, than, outside pissing in".
Having considered your 'position', I can find MOST of it agreeable. I believe, however, that your attempt to disparage Trump as supporting racial division is misguided and perhaps influenced more by your own prejudice than fact. MY take on it is that the racial division is propagated by the elite class donors and media oligarchs, who tend to be democrats, at least in name. Why you shift the blame to the 'white nationalist movement' and Trump is nonsensical, unless preconceived prejudice is operative in your interpretation of events.
I appreciate the engagement. The white nationalist characterization isn't mine alone — it's the characterization of a growing number of Republican strategists, historians of American nativism, and the movement's own spokespeople.
There is a problem with what 'white' means. Seems that various pundits and other sources vary the exact definition in a manner befitting their endpoint, much in the same way that Bloomberg related publications, et al, vary the definition of 'mass shooting' when attempting to stoke public sentiment in a particular direction.
I have defaulted to assessing outcome of policy rather than rhetoric about it as it's far too easy to spin everything, if not by use of selective data and cleverly abstracted statistics, then by redefining terminology. In an environment where we now must speak about unaliving, birthing persons, women with penises, etc., it's challenging to sort through what's substantially accurate from what has been tainted.
I don't know. Common Stake Democrats is properly descriptive, but might seem abstract to the average person on the street. Democratic Socialist has a proud tradition; maybe all that's needed is to redefine it for this country and this time. Or, if a new label is really needed, how about Common Sense Democrats--if we can borrow from Thomas Paine.
How about Fair Deal Democrats?
That one had occurred to me. I like it. It's appropriate, and it has emotional and conceptual resonance. Truman, the plain talking "Fair Deal" president, accomplished a lot during his 7(?) years. He was a working class guy, and the last U. S. President who didn't have a college degree.
I wonder how the MAGA folks would malign that. -The Next Steal Democrats? Common Stake Democrats, of course, would be labeled the Communist Mistake Democrats.
A big part of my premise is the need to knock down the walls between the credentialed elites and the working class folks.
Give 'Em Hell Harry would approve!
I honestly don't think Democratic Socialists is redeemable, even though it should be. Agree that Common Stake is clunky. It was trying to get at economic equality, as in, tax the oligarchs to the high heavens and use the revenue to create actual equality, make health care universal, invest heavily in education, housing, food security, etc. So we all have a proper, common stake in the nation. And, of course, also suggest a community approach rather than the highly individualistic way we've been doing things. Thomas Paine meets Martin Luther King Jr. Or as Obama says, "You are America." Suggestions really welcome.
I guess in the age that we live in you are right. And, of course when voters are polled most on both sides tend to agree on many of these issues. Truman tried to follow up on the New Deal, with the Fair Deal, promising to work for national health insurance ect. But, his second term got derailed by the anti communist hysteria that began to grip the country, fueled and weaponized by people like McCarthy. After that fever broke, Eisenhower went back to more moderate government, public works in the form of the Interstate Highway system, appointing a moderate, Earl Warren as Chief Justice, ect. The old basis of the New Deal held pretty well until Reagan, who started the slide that continues to this day. But, all political movements are subject to the laws of physics, the pendeulum swings just so far, and, then it will swing back again. We may be at that point in time now. The rise of dissent among younger voters may start this movement, along with some of us much older. As for your label, maybe I can suggest another. How about a New New Deal, instead of running away from the old one, we embrace it, remind people with no sense of history what the country was like before the great Labor and financial reforms of the original New Deal. We need a new platform that addresses the failings of both parties. We do not need overly grand policy proposals, leave that to the wonks in the think tanks, just some simple language that we all can agree on. Is the label Democraic Socialist toxic? Maybe it could be better, James Carville proposes a schism in the Democratic Party, that would be a disaster, we have to remain the broad coalition that can win a national election. As Lyndon Johnson said to an aide who asked about why he kept critics in his govenment, " I would rather have them inside the tent pissing out, than, outside pissing in".
Having considered your 'position', I can find MOST of it agreeable. I believe, however, that your attempt to disparage Trump as supporting racial division is misguided and perhaps influenced more by your own prejudice than fact. MY take on it is that the racial division is propagated by the elite class donors and media oligarchs, who tend to be democrats, at least in name. Why you shift the blame to the 'white nationalist movement' and Trump is nonsensical, unless preconceived prejudice is operative in your interpretation of events.
I appreciate the engagement. The white nationalist characterization isn't mine alone — it's the characterization of a growing number of Republican strategists, historians of American nativism, and the movement's own spokespeople.
There is a problem with what 'white' means. Seems that various pundits and other sources vary the exact definition in a manner befitting their endpoint, much in the same way that Bloomberg related publications, et al, vary the definition of 'mass shooting' when attempting to stoke public sentiment in a particular direction.
I have defaulted to assessing outcome of policy rather than rhetoric about it as it's far too easy to spin everything, if not by use of selective data and cleverly abstracted statistics, then by redefining terminology. In an environment where we now must speak about unaliving, birthing persons, women with penises, etc., it's challenging to sort through what's substantially accurate from what has been tainted.