You are putting a lot of words in my damn mouth.
-First off, I never said that any candidate should not appeal to people in the center, even white voters in the center. I have said it was, unfortunate, they have to that regarding the Dems doing it with suburban voters, but there is a reason for that. It upsets me, and when I see it as either pointless or delusional, so I take particular issue with that; especially when it is on racial lines. Like do I not go off on Pete and other Dems for their economic anxiety nonsense too? And if the Dems were not making inroads in the suburbs, then I would be even harsher on their strategy.
I don't just castigate Bernie simply because he tries to get the votes of centrist voters with his economic message, that is bull****, plain and simple. That is not why I take issue with him. Bernie always trying to absolve white racism among voters is upsetting to me for many reasons, partially because I feel it is unnecessary. Hell, the arguments you and
@rexanglorum make regarding Bernie's appeal should back up this point. You guys say that Bernie's appeal is his strong economic message, and people are attracted to that because they see it being a positive material change to their lives. Also, you guys argue that this would work on somewhat regressive white people on the margin. So, if that's the case, why in the flying **** does Bernie continuously feel the need to make the point that about white people not being racist, even when they commit a racist act at the ballot. If the economics drive the vote, why is this bull**** rhetoric needed precisely?
But sorry if my black *** has an adverse reaction to white people being coddled with lies. I swear I can have this issue with Pete, or another Dems, but as soon as I call Bernie out for the same flagrant behavior, it is somehow an issue. I understand why some people do it, but I think it is fair to have an adverse reaction to political bs. Just like I don't buy right-leaning centrist conservatives share my all liberal values. I am not buying that regressive white voters are the way they are just because the Dems is not a leftist economic party. It is just different flavors of bull****, serve by different groups.
-I have never argued that people, even problematic white people, are beyond redemption, or their votes should be unwelcome. Hell, I have written lengthy posts pushing back on folk that feels regressive white people should be excluded from economic security based on their past actions. I said people that the thing about the Democratic Party that the tent is so big it includes people that you will have ideological differences with. I have not only done it with white people but with older black folk as well. I have said that I want to give even the people that are hostile to my existence in America things like good healthcare, education, and economic security. I have been called a sellout by black dudes in other threads for voicing these views.
On the Rogan thing (the article Osh was regarding this), I even said that Bernie should have just taken the endorsement in peace, not to signal boost it given the circumstances in the primary. I don't know how that somehow flips into me, saying not to reach out to any problematic people or accept their votes. I know I write a ton in here and on NT, and you can't read everything, but, in this case, I said things that go against this implication you are making about my stance.
And I from now on, I am going ask that before you quote a comment I make to Rex, you consider the argument Rex is making, and consider my reply in that context. Rex is the one that has this mayor issue with Dems outreach to suburban white voters. And I am pointing out the hypocrisy in his stances given the fact he is generally relatively mealy-mouth when Bernie does the same thing with a different set of problematic white voters. Also, he has been making sweeping generalizations and strawman argument about liberals, and people in the "professional-managerial class." Never see you take an issue with his level of ideological rigidity. However, if I push back a little on unfair, his points often are, it is an issue.
-Before I expand on the actions of the Democratic Party, I would like to point out something about the Leftist Movement that mirrors the Dems that people don't consider. The Leftist/Bernie supporting coalition in America is very ideologically diverse. "The Left" runs some of the relatively moderate members of its coalition in elections, mainly soft socialist and social democrats. Bernie is well right of many in the coalition, right of other real socialists. It is not sending out the anarcho-communist in mass out there to try to win seats; the same considerations of pragmatism and moderation are there in the far left too.
Another thing that I would like to point to about leftist political pragmatism is the reparations discussion. Like Coates pointed out, reparations should have been something Bernie should have naturally been behind. The last leftist that ran for the Dem nomination supported it, it supposedly has tons of support within leftist circles, yet it was excusable for Sanders not to support it. Even worst, for him to point to "establishment" Dems not supporting it in his defense of it. Sanders suggests all kinds of **** that goes far beyond the Democratic platform. A lot of of which progressive economist deem unworkable, unreasonable, or unwise, yet they are applauded as part of his bold vision. However, on the reparations issue, pragmatism was invoked, and few seemed to have a problem with it. I would think because people knew it would be punished for it at the polls. And as frustrating as I find that, I understand the political realities that motivate decisions like that. Hell, M4A is the cornerstone program of the Bernie movement, and that is not even the most progressive reform plan out there. Maybe because nationalizing the health insurance industry is an easier sell than have full socialized medicine.
-Furthermore, I never bought this is the idea that Bernie has been this pure and consistent all these years on everything. Somethings yes, not all:
He came into the House with the help of the NRA and cast many bad gun reform votes.
He was against people being able to sue gun manufacturers up until recently.
He voted for the crime bill, and ran on that vote, and ignored the problem in his home state (it is clear to me he is kind of bull****ting about Violence Against Women Act part being the sole motivator).
He voted for one of Clinton's worst bank deregulation bills, an act he never explained.
He voted to dump waste in poor Latino communities.
He said racist dog-whistling **** about black people and gun violence in 2015,
Also thought incarceration rates for black people were higher because black people do deal more drugs...
He derided open borders as a conservative plan funded by the Koch brothers.
As late as 2018, he was pushing back on abolishing ICE.
I remember dude on TV making excuses for the racist *** Tea Party and trying to blame Obama for their rise.
I don't think any of these, by themselves, are disqualifying. Thankfully he has seen the error of his ways in many areas. However, if you want to continuously bring up how consistent he has been over the years, and push that claim, then it is fair game to point out the problematic things he has done. I clearly think that someone can be redeemed and be a good actor on aggregate; otherwise, I would have never voted for Bernie and given him money. The thing is, I think my support for Bernie was motivated out of what I consider a more honest read on his politics and political career. Imperfect person, with sometimes problematic behavior but a good actor with a message that needs to be heard. I am not buying into him as this pure political vessel that has never done some **** that he regretted or might give me pause, or even his supposed consistency. I gave Bernie a chance and a vote because I am not as ideologically rigid as you try to paint me. I gave him a chance because I don't buy into the purity politics Bernie supporters use to dismiss and deride anyone that stands in his way.
Now I will agree that some candidates in an attempt to get voters in purple and red districts to get voters run to the right of the Democratic platform, especially on specific issues. Even a relative progressive like Sherrod Brown does this with trade. But, the Democratic Party has been moving more left since 2012, probably a little before that, depending on how much you weigh Obama's influence in his first term. Like what issue has the party moved to the right on to get conservative voters in recent years? I would sincerely like to know. What have they inserted into their platform to do this? Just the other day
@blackintellect , who right more to the center and many in here, was complaining about them not doing this directly. Sure, individuals do it, but a few individuals don't move the needle on the party as much as Bernie does for his movement.
Liberal and liberal progressive Dems appeal to white suburb voters in much the same Bernie does, through their rhetoric. The appeals to decency, common ground, negative partisanship toward the GOP, name-dropping Reagan, the reaching across the aisle promises, coddling white voters, and other bull****. Bernie has his own bars for regressive white voters. You don't think part of his appeal to regressive white voters is because they view him as unwoke, especially when he first stepped on the scene. Or that he always circles back to the same economic message even when faced with a question about a specific marginalized group. Or the fact Clinton seems to have a much better grasp on social issues than him. Or his whole "Dems don't know how to talk to the white working-class" shtick. Or him repeatedly excusing the racist motivations of voters. Or flippant deriding of identity politics. Or his protectionist rhetoric on trade. I am sorry, but I think all those things make him seem appealing to regressive white voters on the margin, not just his economic message. White identity politics is too powerful of a force for me to believe it doesn't have a part to play in this.
-Bernie Sanders is not going to get much of his platform passed; to get the positive legislative changes, he will need to compromise. Even if he has a Democratic Congress, there will still need to make compromises. So, when President Sanders must accept a public option instead of M4A, I guess you will say that means he is doing so to appeal to centrist voters? I highly doubt that. Obama was well left of the median Dem in Congress, and extreme left of the 60th Senate vote, and what happened? He didn't get near everything he wanted. Bernie's vision seems like such a good in comparison to the Dems' actions/shortcoming because it has never been tested. It has been allowed to exist as just a vision.
Yes, having a bold vision is excellent, I probably have a vision for America that most would consider extreme. However, I understand why I don't get that vision, why the Dems don't run on that vision, and why they have never delivered anything close to that vision. My vision is just that, a concept of the end state of America. Not something I considered how the political system would distort it. Just like a political platform, just like Bernie's bold vision.
I am not here to defend all the Democrats' actions, certainly not the Democratic Party of the 80s and 90s, because I disagree with much of what they did. However, of course, Bernie's vision seems purer, that is because Sanders's vision has never dealt with the political obstacles and realities that cause other positive Democratic agendas to collapse.
-Finally, let me just say my whole point is that Sanders engages in similar behavior that the Democratic Party does. Especially with their appeals to centrist white voters. Now, you can say there are differences between the two, and I would agree, but I think the case you made regarding those specific differences is not that strong imo. I don't think Bernie's appeal to centrist voters is strictly his economic message; if it were, I would have zero issues with him. I have pointed out to you and others other numerous instances of Bernie engaging in the buffoonery that upsets me. So I don't really think it is fair for someone to ignore those facts, and spin it as me just being ideologically rigid, because I am not welcoming all the regressive white people Bernie is attracting with just his economic message. That is not is what is happening here at all.
