2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy should Millennials wait for incrementalism?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Will things improve in their lives during their lifetimes if Hillary is elected?
What is the evidence of that?
Why shouldn't they want NOW what people in other first world countries enjoy?
What is the benefit in voting for someone whose policies are the past?
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)you have only one life and it goes by quickly.......
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)1 step forward, 2 steps back. And vice versa.
I'm 64 years old, and we've been taking the "incremental 2 steps back most of my life.
Fuck that shit!
Feel the Bern!!!!!!
onehandle
(51,122 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)looks like you have had a trying day........
brooklynite
(94,610 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)BOSNYCDC
(66 posts)Dire straights. Global warming. Inequality. Terrorism.
Incrementalism --> Too late
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)reddit and DU.
PatrickforO
(14,578 posts)Jail. MLK, and black people in general, were told for years and years and years that they needed to wait, that people weren't comfortable with rapid change. You know what he said? In part:
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
So there it is. People are tired of hearing 'wait' which actually means 'never.'
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Stand by your principles and values.
Support longshots and fringe candidates.
Then you can look back over the last 40, 50 years and ask yourself, "Why am I still waiting?"
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)their answer is because they should have no hopes and dreams.
Sickening.
kath
(10,565 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)either scared or perhaps comfortable and secure.......
dchill
(38,505 posts)and they really believe that's rain on their shoes.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)causing the rain
frylock
(34,825 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)He won't shuddup about it. Dig your sigline graphic. Are you a punker?
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Yeah I'm a punk, grew up listening to all the greats, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, Circle Jerks, Germs, etc. My mother was very cool and encouraged it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Jello Biafra really helped to shape my politics. Have you seen these? Really like the reimagined Circle Jerk's 'Skank Kid'.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)I was stoked to hear that Jello endorsed Sanders, all of the DK songs are still relevant today.
Yeah, I ordered all the pins about a week ago. I'm thinking of ordering the Circle Jerks/Sanders t-shirt, it will confuse a lot of people.
.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Keep hoping that more of these guys come out and endorse him. I think Rollins has. Haven't seen anything from Ian MacKaye. I was on Keith Morris' Facebook page last week, and he had some pro-Bernie stuff posted, but no endorsement. Peace!
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)In training for the election.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)[font size="4"; color="blue"]Who would ever want to ask our young people to scale back their dreams and goals?[/font]
LAS14
(13,783 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but hope and change is why he won, not incrementalism
LAS14
(13,783 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Which failed.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)even in the face of drastic resistance brought us the ACA.
Incrementalism would have seen us pass through all 8 years of the Obama Presidency with only minor changes in the health care/insurance system.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)saved that is the problem.............
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)To a Hillary supporter, a large portion of which are either making $200,000 or above or are extremely affluent even the .01% supporters (that literally support her lavish lifestyle $$$) and that caused the crash but got the bailout money, this incrementalism has worked out pretty darn well. Of course they like these types of incremental change! During this last bought of change all the new money went to those in this paragraph, in other words, to the top percenters, Hillary's largest base.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Bernanke's unlimited liquidity, the TAF program, US government buying billions of mortgages every month for years, pruposely low interest rates, QE 1, QE 2, QE 3, these are not increments.
Taken together, the only precedent in US history is the response to the Great Depression, and I don't think that even compares.
Unprecedented intervention 'saved us' from another depression. Read up on Bernanke if you think he thought 'increments' would have been sufficient.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Try using the big box sometime. You can write in it too!!
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)artyteacher
(598 posts)With Nader you get dubya.
With Bernie you get Trump or Cruz.
And you'll not only get nothing, you'll lose rights and all FDR'S gains.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Nader Zombie run!!!!
?1383146510
Response to artyteacher (Reply #14)
cyberpj This message was self-deleted by its author.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And Hillary on the ticket will be a bloodbath. She'll lose every single swing state, in particular Florida and Ohio, snd possibly a few blue ones.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)is a false equivalency.
Nader was running as a third party candidate which allowed him to siphon off votes from Gore. Sanders has stated time and time again that he intends to back Hillary if she is the eventual nominee because she's a MUCH better candidate than any Republican. If Sanders isn't running it can be assumed he won't siphon off votes from Clinton.
The fact that Sanders polls better than Clinton against any of the republican candidates (as of today) really undercuts your point when combined with the fact that he won't be running as a third party candidate.
As a bonus, his favorability numbers are vastly superior to other candidates per Huffpo's aggregate model.
Sanders Favorability - +12.5% and climbing
Clinton Favorability - -12.0% and falling
It's hard to win elections with negative favorability ratings. People flat out just don't like Clinton for various reasons (legit reasons or smears).
Now, with this information available I'd posit that Jill Stein (Green Party candidate) would siphon off more votes with Clinton as nominee than if Bernie Sanders were the nominee. In fact, Jill Stein did a relatively good job of grabbing votes in '12 for a green party candidate (Wiki link). It's likely that Sanders as a non-traditional Democratic candidate with history as an independent could reclaim some of those Green Party votes.
That's my...2.... 4... 10 cents. Just let's stop comparing Sanders to Nader, because that's an argument that's easy to dispute.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)tokenlib
(4,186 posts)And support the candidate that has helped the 1% to make it so???
And SETTLE for the crumbs that they may or may not toss your way...
Incrementalism in a rigged system?
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Enough with incrementalism.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Incremental gains!
When do we want them?
Sometime in the future!
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)what Art said!!!!!
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...given our political climate and history, it's almost guaranteed he'll be forced to.
What's the benefit in voting for such a naive neophyte?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A vast swath of voters do not bother to vote because we fail to give them enough of a reason. "We'll screw you over less" is not going to change that.
That "naive neophyte" is giving them a reason.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...you folks think you're reinventing politics.
What's 'revolutionary' to you is old hat for those of us who've been working with our coalition for decades and decades to advance progressive changes.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Better than other years, but still had a lot of voters who didn't bother.
If you've been working on it, then you've been utterly failing for the last 40 years. Even your "achievements" like the ACA are Republican plans (The ACA was Bob Dole's response to Hillary Clinton's attempt at healthcare reform)
With that track record, why should we expect a different outcome in the future?
We have utterly failed our children. It's time to stop pretending we know better. Because we obviously don't.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...with a piddling to show for it. He's been part and parcel of what you call a 'failure.'
Not exactly a stellar hand you have there.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And being among the small group of dissenters does not stop the mass of DLC-style Democrats from destroying everything.
Again, we were the ones who were supposed to fight the destruction of much of the Great Society and New Deal. We failed. Badly. Heck, Democrats did a good chunk of the shredding!
With that failure, why do you feel we have any right to say "how things really work"? If we actually knew what worked, we would not have utterly failed.
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...you and your candidate should have remained independent.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If we knew "how things really worked", why have Republicans controlled the direction of the country for 40 years?
Bill Clinton killing welfare, "era of big government is over", Obama passing Dole's health insurance plan....
If we know how things really work, how'd all that happen?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If we know how politics really works, why have Republicans controlled the direction of the country for the last 40 years?
Clearly, our "understanding" isn't working.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)in PA's April primary.
They're not interested in waiting for change at a pace slower than continental drift. Neither is their mom.
We're voting Bernie. At least he's a fighter.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)The times in America where there was no incrementalism was times when there was gating dem control of congress.
FDR had an avg dem congress in the 70s and 80 percentile, LBJ had it in the 60 and 70 percentile
Those periods of change weren't just people being angry and sayin single word slogans... they had congressional weight behind them.
Otherwise things went slow or not at all...
Sanders whole critique of dems leaves out this little tidbit so he can lead the temper tantrum of the establishment
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)except to say that incrementalism is better than nothing.
Nothing personal, but, fuck that.
I've had a belly full of your incrementalism. Perhaps our "tantrums" will carry us to something better, faster. I hope so.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)Now isn't that something we ALL should be working on TOGETHER, DU friend? Or does Hillary think she'll be able to make change, incremental or otherwise, all on her own?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)How do we know HRC even wants a Dem congress?
She and Bill didn't try to get one in 1996.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)It requires them to pretend to care about Dem issues instead of just "caving" and saying they had to to save us.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)ecstatic
(32,712 posts)And it's not a good idea to lie to them about how our system works.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)how we were founded on revolutionary change.
so i guess somewhere in our national psyche we believe in the possibility.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
.to get a real eye full of what millennials in other countries are "allowed" to have from their government.
The rest of the industrialized world pities us.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Respectfully, where is the evidence that they know how to get anything else?
iandhr
(6,852 posts)... was won not with a sweeping revolution but with a series of smaller victories over a long period of time.
I am not saying it's right. I am saying that is the way it has always to happen.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)There are 75,000,000 of them! ALL they have to do is SHOW UP AT THE POLLS AND VOTE!
Why in earth are there so many of them who do not understand that basic fact of reality?
BlandGrenade
(29 posts)Like Obama, she will only do enough to appease progressives and then blame republican obstructionism for failing to move the needle. I voted twice for Obama and I'm disappointed as hell that we didn't get a single-payer system. We've already seen the extreme lengths to which republicans will go to obstruct any democratic president, so a moderate like hillary won't achieve anything. She lacks the authenticity and charisma needed to galvanize the disenfranchised liberals into a true movement. If bernie isn't the nominee, I'll stay home and let trump have at it. Maybe after four years of his madness and bullshit, we on the left will finally get our shit together and start a truly progressive movement. By then I'm guessing we will pick up a lot of tea party voters who will back true political outsiders and just maybe our grandchildren will have a future to look forward to.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Even if Sanders gets elected, the Republicans will control the House. I'm not saying that will be different if Clinton wins, but if you promise people that you're going to give them the moon and can't even come close to delivering, you are setting them up to become disillusioned. I see a number of Sanders supporters here saying that they were Obama supporters in 2008 but felt he didn't do enough once elected to live up to the illusion they had of him in 2008. I believe Sanders would be worse for that as I think there is very little chance the next president will be anywhere near as consequential as Obama has been.
Then there's the fact that the Sanders plans aren't properly paid for. Any plan that relies on assuming a 5.3% growth over time is absolute bunk and should be treated as such. What happens when they realize the Sanders plans come with a bunch of unpaid bills and consequences?
Gman
(24,780 posts)And it won't change just because some person gets elected. What we have now is a result of decades of incrementalism. And things have to change slowly as a result. If progressive Democrats controlled the WH, congress and the a senate, yeah you wouldn't have to wait. But it ain't like that.
Whoever gets elected prez can't will if all to change. He can jump up and down and scream as president, nothing changes. You have to have patience and never stop working to change things. It's hard work.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)I know you have ambitious dreams for helping the poor and unmployed as we try to climb out of this Depression in which we find ourselves. I'd love to do all those things, too. But it just isn't how things are done in this country.
Yours sincerely,
Herbert
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Also 9/11 and a gender.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)things have been getting incrementally worse economically for the 99% over the past 30+ years. there have been a few wins on social justice and some significant losses. in my view, if even if you are a beneficiary of improved social justice, if you need to spend 50+ hrs a week to at best tread water economically, you don't get much benefit of such gains.
MichaelSoE
(1,576 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)and many more things.
Of course, we would all prefer that these things NOT be done incrementally and that change comes immediately. but in the real world, with real people living real lives who have real differences, the change we want rarely comes dramatically all at once.