It's fine in my opinion if Never Trumpers don't want to join the Democratic Party. If they want to support the party because they prioritize democracy above all other issues, that is certainly their right and I'm sure we would welcome the support... However, I also think that means you're not entitled to the same level of privilege as pe…
It's fine in my opinion if Never Trumpers don't want to join the Democratic Party. If they want to support the party because they prioritize democracy above all other issues, that is certainly their right and I'm sure we would welcome the support... However, I also think that means you're not entitled to the same level of privilege as people who are on the team. Those who still are registered and identify as Republicans, who refuse to join the team, shouldn't get to tell the team what to do.
Charlie, you seem to have a lot of ideas about what Democrats "should do", but if you ask me, as long as you refuse to join the party, even if that means as a very conservative democrat, then you don't get to role-play as the coach of the team. You can still come to the games, buy the jerseys, cheer (or not) if you want, but you don't get to be the coach. You don't get to select the roster or call the plays. You don't deserve the right to pretend to be a member of the McAuliffe campaign (or any other Democratic campaign for that matter), when you still refuse to even put on the jersey.
If you want to join the party and fight for a much more conservative faction of the Democratic party, then that's fine, lets talk. But as "Saint Joe Manchin" put it, if you want more Reaganite conservative policies, you're going to have to elect more Reaganite conservatives. That might not be possible within the Democratic party, but we KNOW it's not possible within the Republican party, which has become completely Trumpified.
It's your life and your choice, but IMO, until you are willing to join the party, you don't deserve the right to tell the party what it should or must do.
So, how do you feel about a liberal who does not and never has been a part of the Dem party ( In OH, I have to pick one to vote in a primary, but I just pick one when I know which one I want to vote in)...I don't get tribes, and have no desire to be in one
I am, however, a liberal who votes liberal when they represent my values and ideology...so, I am not allowed an opinion on how I think the party should go as it matters to how I vote?
I don't think you should get to roleplay campaign strategist, no. I think everyone can have whatever opinion they want, but if you want to say "Democrats should/need to do X" you better be a member of the party if you want me to take that opinion seriously.
There's a difference between saying "this is what would make me vote for the Democrats" and saying "Democrats should/need to do what I say if they want to win."
If you want to say a) as a non-Democrat, go for it. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But it's not in the party's best interest to let non-members dictate how we campaign, message, etc. If you want to do that and be taken seriously, you should join the party.
I don't believe The Bulwark is offering prescriptions only to democrats. They're offering prescriptions to everyone. Yeah, they believe the focus on the 3.5 trillion never-gonna-pass progressive wish list is misguided, but they also believe conservative republicans should vote for democrats even if they find many of the policy positions espoused by these democrats repulsive. Read Mona Charen on the subject:
Why is it that conservatives are expect to compromise on even some of their highest priorities, but progressives get whatever they want? This is not how compromise works.
I'm not saying they have to compromise on their highest priorities. I'm saying, they shouldn't expect to dictate the party's agenda if they refuse to join the party. It's fine if they want to fight for a very conservative faction of the Democratic party, but as I said above:
"As "Saint Joe Manchin" put it, if you want more Reaganite conservative policies, you're going to have to elect more Reaganite conservatives."
You can't refuse to join the party or even be such an infinitesimally small faction and expect to dictate terms.
I don't view the Bulwark's mission as trying to dictate to the Democratic Party what it should do. I see it as engaging the left in conversation as to how they can grow their coalition with the overriding goal being the preservation of democracy and constitutional governance. Consider the selling of the $3.5 trillion dollar human infrastructure bill. Progressives and Republicans are united in emphasizing the topline dollar amount. Progressives find the big number exciting and Republicans find it repulsive. The middle might be won over by emphasizing that we are talking about 1.2% of GDP over ten years and by talking more about what the bill is trying to accomplish.
I'll leave aside the discourse about progressive and democratic messaging because I think it deviates from the point I was trying to make.
I don't know how you can consume the content of the Bulwark, especially the daily podcasts, and not come away with the impression that they believe they understand politics, and even intra-party politics, better than people who are actual members of the Democratic party. There was literally a podcast just last week titled "Some Tough Love For the Dems". They put out content like this constantly.
All I'm saying is, if you want to try to dictate what the party does, maybe you should actually, you know, join the party.
Personally, I did join the Democratic Party the moment it became clear that Trump was going to win the Republican nomination. Been contributing to Democratic candidates ever since, including those well to the left of me.
Everybody who steps up to say something about our politics does so with a sense that they have something to say that is worth hearing. I don't see this as a sin.
That's great. I'm glad you joined the party. To be clear, I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to contribute to a reasonable civil discourse.
What I personally object to, is the constant backseat campaigning from people who aren't even willing to call themselves Democrats. I mean, I'd personally be a lot more willing to hear them out if they'd just be like "Okay, I'm on the team, I don't agree with progressives for XYZ reason and I'm going to argue against them... But I'm still a Democrat and intend to support the party against an authoritarian opposition."
It's fine in my opinion if Never Trumpers don't want to join the Democratic Party. If they want to support the party because they prioritize democracy above all other issues, that is certainly their right and I'm sure we would welcome the support... However, I also think that means you're not entitled to the same level of privilege as people who are on the team. Those who still are registered and identify as Republicans, who refuse to join the team, shouldn't get to tell the team what to do.
Charlie, you seem to have a lot of ideas about what Democrats "should do", but if you ask me, as long as you refuse to join the party, even if that means as a very conservative democrat, then you don't get to role-play as the coach of the team. You can still come to the games, buy the jerseys, cheer (or not) if you want, but you don't get to be the coach. You don't get to select the roster or call the plays. You don't deserve the right to pretend to be a member of the McAuliffe campaign (or any other Democratic campaign for that matter), when you still refuse to even put on the jersey.
If you want to join the party and fight for a much more conservative faction of the Democratic party, then that's fine, lets talk. But as "Saint Joe Manchin" put it, if you want more Reaganite conservative policies, you're going to have to elect more Reaganite conservatives. That might not be possible within the Democratic party, but we KNOW it's not possible within the Republican party, which has become completely Trumpified.
It's your life and your choice, but IMO, until you are willing to join the party, you don't deserve the right to tell the party what it should or must do.
So, how do you feel about a liberal who does not and never has been a part of the Dem party ( In OH, I have to pick one to vote in a primary, but I just pick one when I know which one I want to vote in)...I don't get tribes, and have no desire to be in one
I am, however, a liberal who votes liberal when they represent my values and ideology...so, I am not allowed an opinion on how I think the party should go as it matters to how I vote?
I don't think you should get to roleplay campaign strategist, no. I think everyone can have whatever opinion they want, but if you want to say "Democrats should/need to do X" you better be a member of the party if you want me to take that opinion seriously.
huh, so I have no say in what would make me vote for them...or as a liberal what I think the goals should be?
Interesting
There's a difference between saying "this is what would make me vote for the Democrats" and saying "Democrats should/need to do what I say if they want to win."
If you want to say a) as a non-Democrat, go for it. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But it's not in the party's best interest to let non-members dictate how we campaign, message, etc. If you want to do that and be taken seriously, you should join the party.
Hope that clears things up
Well, they wouldn't listen to me anyway, I am nobody...
I don't think it is dictating, I think it is suggesting, they are free to disregard or ignore
But, I get your point...
I don't believe The Bulwark is offering prescriptions only to democrats. They're offering prescriptions to everyone. Yeah, they believe the focus on the 3.5 trillion never-gonna-pass progressive wish list is misguided, but they also believe conservative republicans should vote for democrats even if they find many of the policy positions espoused by these democrats repulsive. Read Mona Charen on the subject:
https://www.thebulwark.com/why-im-a-single-issue-voter/
Why is it that conservatives are expect to compromise on even some of their highest priorities, but progressives get whatever they want? This is not how compromise works.
I'm not saying they have to compromise on their highest priorities. I'm saying, they shouldn't expect to dictate the party's agenda if they refuse to join the party. It's fine if they want to fight for a very conservative faction of the Democratic party, but as I said above:
"As "Saint Joe Manchin" put it, if you want more Reaganite conservative policies, you're going to have to elect more Reaganite conservatives."
You can't refuse to join the party or even be such an infinitesimally small faction and expect to dictate terms.
I don't view the Bulwark's mission as trying to dictate to the Democratic Party what it should do. I see it as engaging the left in conversation as to how they can grow their coalition with the overriding goal being the preservation of democracy and constitutional governance. Consider the selling of the $3.5 trillion dollar human infrastructure bill. Progressives and Republicans are united in emphasizing the topline dollar amount. Progressives find the big number exciting and Republicans find it repulsive. The middle might be won over by emphasizing that we are talking about 1.2% of GDP over ten years and by talking more about what the bill is trying to accomplish.
I'll leave aside the discourse about progressive and democratic messaging because I think it deviates from the point I was trying to make.
I don't know how you can consume the content of the Bulwark, especially the daily podcasts, and not come away with the impression that they believe they understand politics, and even intra-party politics, better than people who are actual members of the Democratic party. There was literally a podcast just last week titled "Some Tough Love For the Dems". They put out content like this constantly.
All I'm saying is, if you want to try to dictate what the party does, maybe you should actually, you know, join the party.
Personally, I did join the Democratic Party the moment it became clear that Trump was going to win the Republican nomination. Been contributing to Democratic candidates ever since, including those well to the left of me.
Everybody who steps up to say something about our politics does so with a sense that they have something to say that is worth hearing. I don't see this as a sin.
That's great. I'm glad you joined the party. To be clear, I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to contribute to a reasonable civil discourse.
What I personally object to, is the constant backseat campaigning from people who aren't even willing to call themselves Democrats. I mean, I'd personally be a lot more willing to hear them out if they'd just be like "Okay, I'm on the team, I don't agree with progressives for XYZ reason and I'm going to argue against them... But I'm still a Democrat and intend to support the party against an authoritarian opposition."
I appreciate their views and also happen to think they are right about the missteps in the party right now, and I hope some of them are listening