Democrats are trying to work out what went wrong. On the left a consensus is forming
Democrats are trying to work out what went wrong. On the left a consensus is forming
Democrats must abandon ‘neoliberalism’, Connecticut senator warns, as party leaders face strongest backlash in years
Summary
Following Kamala Harris’s unexpected defeat, Democratic leaders are scrutinizing their party’s failures, particularly with working-class voters.
Figures like Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, and Ro Khanna argue the party lacks a strong economic message, especially for those frustrated with stagnant mobility and neoliberal policies.
Sanders emphasized Democrats’ disconnect from working-class concerns, while Murphy criticized the party’s unwillingness to challenge wealthy interests.
DNC Chair Jaime Harrison announced he won’t seek re-election, leaving the party’s leadership in flux as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries prepare to assume top roles amid a Republican resurgence.
You're viewing a single thread.
They didn't show the entire tweet chain. Murphy starts off saying we should abandon neoliberalism which is good. But then finished by uncritically supporting men's rights, abandoning social issues, and abandoning action on climate change.
He's calling for Democrats to move to the right. The big tent he's pitching is fascism. A true populist movement that champions socialism and progressive causes can bring people together while also championing these issues.
Do you think men shouldn't have rights?
You mean this?
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1855616243039916152.html
That doesn't fit your description.
Murphy starts off saying we should abandon neoliberalism which is good.
The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of fifty years of neoliberalism, which has left legions of Americans adrift as local places are hollowed out, rapacious profit seeking cannibalizes the common good, and unchecked new technology separates and isolates us.
But then finished by uncritically supporting men’s rights, abandoning social issues, and abandoning action on climate change.
But here's the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren't 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.
Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don't decide for them.
It fits the description to a T. We don't have time for 50% or 0% action on climate change. The window to avert key tipping points that will have catastrophic consequences for the Earth's climate is now.
As a trans person, I am not interested in 50% or 0% of my rights. I would like my right to exist, 100% of the time.
We should push back on some of the more fringe men's rights groups. No one is entitled to a state mandated girlfriend. But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.
On climate:
But here's the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren't 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.
He doesn't say anything else on climate, and this is not "abandoning action on climate change." The people already in the tent don't agree on everything, and they have not "abandoned action" because of it.
On men's rights:
Meanwhile, men tumble into a different kind of identity crisis, as the patriarchy, society's primary organizing paradigm for centuries, rightly crashes. The right pushes an alluring dial back. The left says "get over it". Again, a refusal to listen/offer responsible solutions.
This is not "uncritically supporting men's rights."
But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.
Sure, if that's how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won't be.
He doesn’t say anything else on climate, and this is not “abandoning action on climate change.” The people already in the tent don’t agree on everything, and they have not “abandoned action” because of it.
The people who don't agree with climate change don't believe it exists.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/06/trump-victory-sweeping-climate-consequences
This is not “uncritically supporting men’s rights.”
Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.
Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don’t decide for them.
We are listening to them. This is what they are saying.
This time around, one of the attack lines is “your body, my choice.”
https://www.vox.com/politics/384792/your-body-my-choice-maga-gender-election
Sure, if that’s how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won’t be.
That's how we're framing it. If that's not appealing to some people, there's a mainstream fascist political party they can join. We don't need two mainstream fascist parties.
By the way, the worldview is that all people are equal. And that inequality harms us all, but some people are harmed more than others. People on the left have no interest in a worldview where women are second class citizens.
The people who don't agree with climate change don't believe it exists.
Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?
Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.
And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.
That's how we're framing it.
Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.
Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?
We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don't believe in climate change. It would be a waste of time since they want to kill us and want to pollute as much as possible.
And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.
My argument didn't tell the MAGA movement to be fascists. A progressive and socialist populist movement could rally most people without needing for anyone to hate minority groups or disregard scientific consensus.
Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.
Good, so you agree then? We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution. edit: typo
We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don't believe in climate change.
Not believing in climate change does not make someone a fascist. Murphy was talking about accepting people who don't want to be aligned with MAGA. That is plainly a strategic imperative.
I agree that we need to watch out for cryptofascists, but your meter is too sensitive.
Similarly, men's concerns about loneliness etc. are worth hearing out. I wouldn't say that has much at all to do with "rights," though.
Good, so you agree then?
As far as I can tell, yes. I suspect I would be more hands-off about correcting some harms, but I strongly agree with no second class of citizens.
We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution.
I don't object. I'm an ex-Republican long since committed to riding the Democratic wagon wherever it goes. I would take FDR 2.0 if that's what can defeat MAGA, but I don't have confidence that it's a good approach. I do think the wealth/income gap is a threat to liberty and stability.
Not believing in climate change does not make someone a fascist
Weirdly, no where in my argument do I claim this. But if a person isn't a fascist or isn't at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.
Murphy was talking about accepting people who don’t want to be aligned with MAGA. That is plainly a strategic imperative.
No he said:
But here’s the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren’t 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.
He didn't mention the MAGA movement or how aligned with MAGA a person wants to be in that.
your meter is too sensitive.
The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth's climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There's no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument's meter not picking this up?
I suspect I would be more hands-off about correcting some harms
Sorry, what harms are those? =/
I would take FDR 2.0 if that’s what can defeat MAGA, but I don’t have confidence that it’s a good approach. I do think the wealth/income gap is a threat to liberty and stability.
Billionaires have formed an oligarchy around Trump who is threatening to deport millions of people, round up homeless people into camps, and be a dictator on day one. This state of affairs is directly derived from late-stage capitalism and the 40 years of neo-liberalism that enabled the rich to extract wealth from everyone else.
People want a populist narrative. We can easily give them that since it's the truth. That's what the Democrats were lacking in their campaign that Trump used to win, a populist narrative. Democrats spent the months between the DNC and election day appealing to moderate Republicans. Their reward was around 10 million fewer votes. Murphy is another Democrat who refuses to listen and is part of the Democrats predictable shift to the right in response to this loss.
There can be more than one lesson to learn from an election. People do need to learn to leverage power and vote for Democrats in elections, but the Democrats need to learn from their mistakes as well. Or at least be co-opted by people who learned the lessons for them.
But if a person isn't a fascist or isn't at least brainwashed by their propaganda, why would someone believe climate change is not real? There is a large body of research that demonstrates climate change is real and is caused by humans. Not to mention Exxon knew this as early as 1977.
Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person's opinions makes them functionally a fascist? I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism. Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism. This descent into madness has been really hard to watch. If any of them were to renounce Trump, I'd welcome them eagerly.
The time to advert key tipping points in the Earth's climate is the next five years. Either we advert these tipping points or catastrophic damage will be done to the environment. There's no time to delay. Let alone time to be actively making things worse by increasing fossil fuel emissions as much as possible. Why is your argument's meter not picking this up?
I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you're so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent. And if someone opposes Trump I am not terribly concerned about their thoughts on the climate.
Sorry, what harms are those? =/
I don't know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?
Are you supposing that any scrap of unscientific propaganda in a person’s opinions makes them functionally a fascist?
No, that's why I separated the two in my argument.
I posit that someone can doubt the science and believe in liberalism.
How in good faith does a neoliberal doubt the science? They definitely incorrectly doubt the magnitude of change to our society that is required to fix climate change, sure. But the science itself?
Hell, I think some of the people who voted for Trump still believe in liberalism (not that they would call it that) even as they enable fascism.
Neoliberalism is part of how those people got to fascism. It's much easier for a fascist to convince people to adopt fascists positions when they already have neoliberal ideas in their head. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems. It's a smaller jump to convince neoliberals to change the people in society than it is to convince them to change institutions they believe are infallible.
This descent into madness has been really hard to watch.
Yes, but in hindsight it is clear how we got here. Neoliberalism and the right-wing information sphere are two of the major culprits.
If any of them were to renounce Trump, I’d welcome them eagerly.
We don't get this for free though or by comprising all of our positions. Democrats have been trying to reach across the aisle for a while. They failed in this election in large part because of that continued attempt to reach moderate Republicans. What Democrats need is a populist narrative. This will rally people around our side of the issues.
I think you risk not being able to solve anything because you’re so picky about allies. I think improving climate policy remains possible with a minority of climate deniers in the tent.
Not if we have to comprise our positions to get them in the tent. We need full speed ahead on climate change action. If we have to go the speed we are now, slower, or backwards like we will be in a few months, then that isn't a useful alliance.
I don’t know, do you really want to compare comprehensive political positions?
I think you're referring to harm to other living, breathing people. You want to be a part of the big tent? Time to spill the beans on your positions. Whether they're considered political or otherwise. A bulleted list is fine. edit: typos
Exactly. Trans rights, radical climate solutions, but also yeah we need to work with young men to help them feel less isolated and vulnerable to the far right. We need to be talking with rural people as people not just over them