Edit: Interesting, didn’t expect this post to be controversial. Here’s some of my reasoning:
Democrats became gradually more progressive in their border policy between 2000-2016. In the mid-2000s, many prominent Democrats in Congress supported significant spending on security fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border and were critical of “sanctuary cities.” By contrast, during the Trump administration, Democrats were largely united against most of Trump’s immigration and border security initiatives, including opposing funding for a proposed border wall. The evolution in Democratic views on immigration is clear when comparing the party’s 2012 platform, which promoted a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants but with certain conditions, to the 2016 platform, which removed all caveats on the path to citizenship source.
I feel the early Trump era provided vindication that allowed some real expression of what equity looks like in border policy. (That said, I do readily admit my “chad” symbolism is a bit strong; rather I think it’s just that the DNC allowed more space for these voices at the time.)
However, all this progress has recently been lost since the election of the current incumbent, as Democrats have leaned back into border security, implicitly admitting that the conservative framing of the issue is a valid concern.
The DNC needs to implode. They are so incompetent and out of touch that we are forced to deal with the rise of fascism again.
Similar thing happened in my country, Hungary. We have a de facto one party system, where outsiders are allowed to have an opinion, nothing much else. Sometimes they have suspiciously too many ties to Fidesz, like Munkáspárt 2006 and Mi Hazánk Mozgalom. Corporations not being subservient to Fidesz are being harassed by law enforcement, the tax agency, and the media agency, only a few left as a way to show not everyone is with Fidesz, but often at the cost of them not getting any subsidies, etc. Meanwhile, Fidesz has clever ways to subvert even its own laws. They limit campaign spendings, but have at least 2 GONGOs pumping out ads for them.
Good luck, maybe the RNC won’t forbid anyone left of Mussolini from owning guns, or maybe you can just wait until the US implodes and Canada will run to your help instead of Russia and/or China.
What are you talking about the DNC is literally perfect in every way
/s
Because if progressives hold their noses and vote for a moderate, the moderate gets to appoint the DNC chair and other leadership/voting positions.
Pretty much the only way they lose those positions, is if a more progressive Dem wins the presidency.
If a Republican wins the general, the DNC votes for its own leadership, including all those people the moderate president last appointed. So they usually retain power of the party.
Obama was a little progressive, but he hated the DNC so much he basically abandoned it instead of trying to save it. So it’s been ratcheting to the right for 30 years now.
There was the very very brief window after DWS had to resign where a progressive got to see behind the curtain, and it was a total shit show.
It still is, but it used to be too.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
Those same “moderates” keep telling us we can’t worry about this because of trump, because they know the Dem.party doesn’t want them. They’re just willing to risk trump rather than lose control of the party
This is insightful. Can you connect the dots for me on how it relates to the border stuff?
(mean this genuinely; i’m not crazy educated on these internals of the parties and i didn’t catch your implication)
Really interested in the positions of those downvoting. Willing to be corrected on this one a little because obviously this post is painting with a very broad brush :)
Nothing has foundationally changed with the DNC position over this time period. There was no “Chad” period where they actually fought back and have always rolled over for immigration fearmongering.
It’s also just not a good meme, which is why I personally downvoted.
paragraph 1 — interesting, thanks for the insight, this is new to me possibly because it doesn’t align with many of my lived experiences
paragraph 2 — aw :( thanks for your honesty i guess
Sorry :( but if you can interchange the right side panels and nothing changes with the messaging it kind of doesn’t land well.
noted i guess i need to figure out how to express this better. because there’s definitely some kind of capitulation to conservatives going on, and i agree with you that it’s not foundational but more aesthetic—yet obviously meaningful enough that it is affecting certain instances of policy
I think a lot of the capitulation you’re seeing is just the cascading aftereffects of the ramping up of migrant shipping policies from the southern border states(or just Texas I guess). The scale of that kind of forced some form of reaction outside the norm.
i don’t disagree. but it’s insane that it’s happening because it’s such a losing move.
i saw someone put it like this: imagine if in 2016 Bernie was still in the running and for some reason Trump began capitulating against his voter base and decided that medicare for all was a good idea.
for the swing voters that care about healthcare, is that sudden and strange reversal going to encourage them to vote for the brand new candidate with that platform? the answer is obviously like, no way, they are going to stick with Bernie who has always had that position.
in the same way, Biden now more than ever doing moves that are pretty unpopular with progressive constituents isn’t going to make him look good in the eyes of would-be Trump voters. they are just going to see a guy who happens to now agree on one point, and feel a bit vindicated on their merry way to vote for the fascist that always had that position.