Hardkill

This might seem like a dumb or crazy question—especially considering your political beliefs and mine—but if the country elects Trump 2.0 and embraces neoliberalism on steroids in 2024, with America still stuck in toxic Stage Orange mania, what then? Do you think the Democratic Party should start supporting more and more of Trump’s and the GOP’s policies—like more tax cuts for the rich, further deregulation of the financial system and environmental protections, and cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on? Or is that not what you are saying or suggesting?

Congratulations Leo! Now you're officially recognized as being the person closest to becoming God. 🤣

I never thought that this thread would turn into a heated debate over trans and corruption.

but left-wing policies that have granted civil rights and voting rights for racial minorities, women, the lgbtq+ community, etc. have restricted what kind of good freedoms?

The right-wing is not truly for freedom either. Right-wing ideology and conservatism is really about hierarchy, order, and traditions.

Oh....so is becoming a tier-2 individual all about transcending the corruption of left, right, and center?

So, are centrists less corrupt than the right-wing, but more corrupt than leftists, are?

Pretty much. The media environment used to be very centralized and relatively neutral. Before the 1980s-1990s, the internet and social media obviously never existed and there were only a very few amount of channels on the radio and on TV that had political commentary. Furthermore, every show on tv and radio that talked about politics had to present both left-wing and right-wing views on every single issue because of the Fairness Doctrine. That's it. That helped create enough downward pressure on right-wing propaganda, which helped Democrats, liberals, and moderates get their message across clearly and helped keep the spread of misinformation in check.

Liberals and centrists used to dominate the media environment before the rise of the right-wing media ecosystem beginning in the 1990s.

Yeah, I’ve tried convincing conservatives to be more open-minded about abortion, diversity, civil rights, and immigration rights, and they’ve responded with things like, “No! It’s murder! It’s murder!!!” or “I’m not going to argue with you about this. Obviously, we’re not going to agree, so leave me alone!” or “I’m sorry, but I just can’t get there… it’s so un-American!”—or they simply refuse to engage at all.

Right! I would mean that we fight another day so to speak on trans rights and other social justice issues. Also, have them talk about how corporate greed, Elon Musk, and Trump are the real Devils who are destroying the Judeo-Christian roots of our country. The Democrats have to really talk A LOT more on masculinity and how there's nothing inherently wrong with male sexuality of men and men being good strong leaders of society. They should also say that while they respect women's right to work any kind of job and earn as much money as she wants, many women these days are not behaving as feminine as women in older generations did and don't have the right kind of men who can guide them guide them properly and protect them.

Why can't we just hold off on fighting for more civil rights for another decade or so, while focusing on fixing the economic problems first?

So, then why don't run on socially moderate to conservative stances while running on economic populism from now on?

If people are so malleable, then why did it take a bloody Civil War to free African Americans from slavery? Why did it require one of the largest and most effective civil rights movements in U.S. history just to secure women the right to vote? Why did it take yet another herculean effort—along with the traumatic loss of many innocent lives—to finally end Jim Crow laws through the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century? And why did so many gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer people suffer, face violence, die by suicide, or endure unnecessary death and suffering from AIDS during the decades-long fight for LGBTQ+ rights—before mainstream acceptance and the eventual legalization of gay marriage in the mid-2010s? Democrats obviously shouldn't normalize Nazism or Trump-like rhetoric. Hell, even most Republicans don't normalize Nazism.

So, what if we are conforming to old-school values from the 1940s? Most Americans are either conservative or moderate. How can you realistically expect to convince the majority of Americans to accept DEI, transgender rights, and other left-leaning social issues when many are undereducated and barely making ends meet? Let the right-wing and the Republican Party think they’re winning by siding with them on almost all social values—except on abortion and climate change—and then completely shock them when they realize they're losing the fight on economics through a revival of New Deal or Square Deal-style policies. That doesn’t mean Democrats have to sound insulting toward foreigners, racial minorities, women, or the LGBTQ community like Trump often does. And it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t call out serious, unconstitutional actions committed by Trump and the GOP—especially when those actions have gravely harmed individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Democrats just need to sound more like Reagan Republicans on cultural issues—minus the rhetoric on “welfare queens,” anti-abortion stances, and climate denial—while forcefully opposing far-right extreme freaks like Alex Jones and Steve Bannon. On economic issues, they should sound like New Deal Democrats.

What you’re suggesting is not how TR and FDR successfully built their winning party coalitions that would last for decades and not how they successfully shifted the Overton window to the left. They too had to pick their battles by focusing primarily on economist populism to the hilt while putting on a believable performance that they stand for all traditional American values including Judeo-Christianity, abiding by what the Bible said, patriotism, the dominance of masculinity, women serving their men and raising their children at home, men being men, women being women marriage between a man and a woman, law and order, being tough on crime, being very pro military while also being strong diplomats, keeping America pure, prioritizing the well being of white people, etc.

Obama and the Democrats consistently promoted unity and acceptance of differences during his presidency—but it didn’t work. By the end of his time in office, they had lost over 1,000 legislative seats at the state and national levels, numerous governorships, and many other key state and local offices across the country. Not to mention, his presidency and the party’s direction played a major role in creating the conditions that led to Trump’s election. Biden also tried to unify the country by running—and governing—as a good old white American “moderate” in 2020. Sadly, he failed at that too. Besides, how do you explain the dominance of FDR and the New Deal coalition, which was economically left but socially moderate, and managed to shape American politics for decades? When LBJ and the Democrats passed a series of landmark civil rights and voting rights laws for Black and Brown Americans in the 1960s, it cost them much of the South, large parts of rural America, and the majority of white voters for at least a generation. Then, when the Democratic Party embraced women’s rights in the mid-1970s, they lost even more support—especially among male voters and Protestant voters (who still make up the largest share of Christian voters in the U.S. today). In fact, the Democratic Party hasn’t won the majority of Christian voters since around 1976. They continued to lose ground in the South and rural areas for yet another generation. By 2024, they had even lost the majority of Catholic voters across the country. We haven’t won the majority of white voters or male voters since around 1964. We’ve lost too many Christian voters and have essentially ceded rural America. The vast majority of the South has been solidly Republican since the 2010s. In 2024, Democrats also lost a solid majority of young male voters nationwide. Too many people in this country feel like they’re losing their traditional way of life—while living paycheck to paycheck, stuck in miserable jobs, and watching their communities decay. And too many Americans still see the Democratic Party as a group of “woke,” overly educated coastal elites who talk down to everyday Americans—lecturing them about racism, xenophobia, misogyny, guns, and even climate science. Honestly, I’m not even sure anymore whether the majority of Catholic voters will ever again believe that the Democrats are on their side—especially considering that Christian voters still make up more than two-thirds of the electorate nationwide and Democrats have always needed to win the majority of Catholic voters since the 1990s or the Aughts to win the presidency. The Democrats have no choice but to seriously devote their time and resources over the next 10 years to winning back white voters, Southern voters, rural voters, Christian voters, working-class voters, and men—especially young men. If they don’t, they may never regain control of the U.S. Senate or the presidency for the foreseeable future.

You know, I used to believe in always taking a principled stance and challenging the Republican Party’s framing of what’s considered "normal" on every issue. And yes, Harris did a good job of avoiding identity politics altogether. However, Bill Clinton and other Democrats including moderate and progressive-leaning ones argued that Harris made a mistake by not responding to that trans ad with a clearer stance—specifically by stating that she does not support allowing transgender athletes to compete in sports, and that transgender rights are not a priority right now. It’s also clear to me now that Democrats and progressives can’t win every issue—especially given how much smaller and less influential the Democratic-aligned media ecosystem is compared to the Republican-aligned one. We have to pick our battles. Plus, it’s obvious that most Americans today don’t really care about social justice issues. Right now, people care more about having their material needs met, because millions of Americans are currently struggling to provide for themselves and their families due to rampant corporate greed, historic levels of economic inequality, and the lingering effects of inflation—which still haven’t fully subsided.

That's why I say that Democrats and progressives should try to eliminate the distraction of culture war by going on right-wing shows like Fox News and Ben Shapiro and agree with them on traditional social stances but disagree with them on economic ideas. However, they would also need to make it clear to the public that they will not talk to truly extreme right-wingers like Charlie Kirk, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, or Steve Bannon unless they are debating them hard.

Also, a white man as POTUS will be deemed more socially acceptable to the public if he is a fiery populist in office then either a man of color, a woman, or a woman of color. I believe that's partially why Obama was too conciliatory when he was president because if he pushed too aggressively, he risked being labeled “an angry Black man” — a racist stereotype deeply ingrained in American political psychology. Obama knew that millions of white voters were looking for any excuse to view him as illegitimate, divisive, or threatening. If a woman president came off as "too aggressive," she would likely face a double standard that male leaders are rarely held to — one rooted in longstanding gender norms about how women should behave in public life. Voters, media, and opponents might say she’s: “Cold,” “harsh,” or “shrill” “Overly ambitious” or “trying too hard to prove herself.” The harsh reality is that assertiveness in women is often interpreted as hostility, while the same behavior in men is seen as strength or leadership. If a woman of color became president and was perceived as “too aggressive,” the backlash would likely be even more intense and layered than it would be for a white woman — due to the intersection of racial and gender stereotypes. Biden on the other hand had tremendously More Political Experience and was a man with a White Irish-Catholic background, which made it more credible and "safe" for him to be more aggressive than Obama, which is partly why Biden's rhetoric became increasingly more populist and confrontational in office like Harry Truman.

Only the ARP ended in terms of the legislation he passed with Congress.

I don't see how AOC can win the Democratic nomination when too many Democratic voters including older and more moderate voters are terrified of anything or anybody who identifies herself as some kind of socialist and doesn't run enough on traditional American cultural values. Also, after Harris lost in 2024, I don't think now is the time for the Democratic party to put up a woman of color as the presidential nominee any time soon.

Okay, good! I'm glad you're actually saying that. Obviously, the Democratic Party isn’t going to become the party of Bernie Sanders or AOC anytime soon, and we’ll have to wait until 2026 or 2028 to see how significant a shift they actually make toward economic populism. Still, it’s encouraging that the party does seem to be heading in that direction. And just because a majority of people voted for Trump and his hyper-capitalistic MAGA agenda in 2024 and America is still so attached to toxic stage Orange doesn’t mean the Democratic Party should throw up its hands and say, “Alright, we give up on progressivism and economic populism because apparently the American people don’t want that. We get it now—the era of big government is over, and from now on, we’re going to give bipartisan legitimacy to the economic philosophy of Trump and the MAGA Republicans,” much like how Bill Clinton’s “Third Way” politics in the ’90s essentially triangulated Reaganomics. So then, is the larger point you’ve been making that even if Democrats run on a more “progressive” and economically populist agenda in the coming years, those efforts would still be trapped within a deeper, systemic stage of development—namely, neoliberal capitalism? That would be political suicide for Democratic party. Yes, we would need to do that to make something like Medicare for All (M4A) work, but of course we know that most Americans are never going to go for that for the foreseeable future.

The Bulwark, which is a conservative-leaning anti-trump organization, is saying that Democratic party as a whole must fight MAGA Republicans like Trump and corporate tyrants like Musk more aggressively than before. Even the majority of Democratic voters in America want their party to really take the fight to them:

I get all of that. Of course, he has created immense value for society and the rest of the world through Tesla and SpaceX. Yet, you know greedy pigs like him still need to be held accountable—just as corporate tyrants such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were by the early 1900s—even though their companies provided enormous benefits to America and the world. In any case, why wouldn't Musk be able to use some of his assets from Tesla, SpaceX, or elsewhere in his net worth to buy more stocks during a dip?