Reaching across the aisle - eviltoast

Democratic political strategy

  • USNWoodwork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    This fails to recognize that for a very long time things trended left. I remember talking to someone in the 90s and we went down a list of major issues and the left had essentially won on all of them. Roe vs Wade EPA Gay Marriage Welfare Reform and Child Tax Credits

    My hope for the Democratic party is that they go to a single issue for the next National election, and that issue should be Anti-trust/Breaking up monopolies

    • brianary@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That’s an important issue, but if Democrats ever see power again, it’ll be important to focus on re-enfranchisement (RCV, instant runoff, or anything fairer than FPTP; NPVIC; national mail voting; mandatory voting), on judicial reform to undo the corruption and incompetence that has been packed there. Without those, keeping any gains will be impossible.

      Then, triaging existential threats is critical, which will mean fighting climate change, investing in public transport (trains), and breaking up trusts will have to be pursued simultaneously. Stopping any support for genocide needs to happen as soon as possible.

      There will be plenty more structural changes to fix beyond that: Protecting whistleblowers and protesters, improving FOIA, replacing norms with laws (Emoluments Clause enforcement, financial records disclosure, no insider trading for Congressmembers, &c), and all manner of civil rights protections and police reform.

      After all that, it’ll be time for the stuff I’ve been hoping for: nationalizing healthcare and Internet access, and copyright reform.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        NPVIC ain’t going to happen. Not for at least another 40 years or so.

        It was a great idea, but this (so-called) Supreme Court would absolutely shut it down in no time flat. The balance of this court isn’t likely to shift for a very, very long time.

        The only solution to get rid of EC before then will be a massive movement that results in a constitutional amendment.

        Tl/Dr: start pre-lubing your assholes now, they ain’t gonna help you there.

        ETA: the funny thing about having to codify “norms” into law was that the expectation would be that government would be transparent enough, and press would be free enough, that lawmakers wouldn’t even think about shit like insider trading, because the risk of getting found out and the hit your reputation and career would take wouldnt be worth it.

        Instead, ass hats celebrated it.

        • brianary@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Adding seats to the court needs to happen, as well as reapportioning representatives, and giving electoral votes to DC and the territories. We need to find politicians that aren’t afraid to do it.

          • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Yeah it’s very depressing to realize that the country will continue to head towards the shitter, or at least won’t move away from it, until I’m dead or close to it. Probably longer. No matter what else happens, we still have a stacked SCOTUS and a highly gameable (and also stacked) district court system. Mitch didn’t just hold up a SCOTUS seat nomination…he held up a ton of lower court seats, too.

            Sorry kids. Buttery males.

    • Turret3857@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Things should be progressing no? that’s the whole point of being the “progressive party”

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      You’d need to explain how this helps the average person.

      Bearing in mind that these employers have hundreds of thousands of people working for them, you would need to somehow ensure that people aren’t voting for a spike in unemployment.

      FWIW I don’t disagree at all, but how would this be implemented in practice, and how would it be framed as a good thing for those employed by those companies?