Hardkill

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?

How is he not a greedy corporate tyrant who has amassed vast amounts of wealth through ruthless and unethical business practices, similar to Jeff Bezos or like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Even if he doesn't have any cash, how has he been able to buy media companies like X, donate large sums of money to political campaigns, and bribe voters with million-dollar checks?

Robber barons like Musk probably want a recession so that greedy pigs like him can buy an ample amount of new stocks on the dip. They also believe that their right-wing propaganda machine, the ignorance and conservative-leaning beliefs of the majority of Americans, the Democratic party's far-left stances on social issues, and using all of the levers of power they have now to subvert future elections will protect them from being punished in the 2026 midterms and/or in the 2028 presidential election. I fear they may be right.

Oh yeah, that article mentioned politicians like John Fetterman who basically have been doing what I've been saying. Sherrod Brown from Ohio was like that too.

Well, I'll admit that I don't know much about Canadian politics, I am aware of the economic problems that have been occurring in your country, and I have a certain degree of bias towards center-left to left wing parties. However, from what I know, Carney and the Liberal Party are still the lesser of the two evils.

I enjoyed seeing Jordan Peterson being upset about it:

Yeah, I largely agree with everything you're saying. Though, what if Democrats and progressives start talking about how corporate greed has ruined family values, traditional gender norms, true patriotism, real Judeo-Christian values, law and order, and other traditional values in America? It's not just older voters, rural folks, white voters, Protestants, men, and working-class people who feel like Democrats don't really speak to them culturally. Even a significant portion of middle-aged voters, younger first-time voters, suburbanites, Black and Brown people, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, women, and highly educated folks think the Democratic Party has been pushing left-wing social issues too hard and too quickly. Here are examples of how Democrats and progressives should frame traditional values through economic populism or frame economic populism through traditional values or both: Family Values: "Corporate greed forces both parents to work overtime for low wages, robbing families of time together. That’s not freedom — that’s economic tyranny." Patriotism: "Real patriots don’t offshore jobs to China or hide profits overseas. That’s betrayal, not patriotism." Law & Order: "The biggest looters wear suits — corporations steal wages, poison water, and walk free while poor folks get prison time." Judeo-Christian Values: "No religion teaches that billionaires should hoard wealth while kids go hungry. The donor class mocks faith with every tax loophole they exploit." Traditional Gender Norms: "It wasn’t feminism that pushed moms into 60-hour workweeks — it was low wages and unaffordable healthcare."

Also, Americans are more conservative than people like me had thought before and the country is going through a serious right-wing populist backlash. However, if Dems sounded a lot more like right-wingers on virtually every social issue, except on climate change and abortion rights, and ran on more New Deal economic populist type of messages, then they could eventually win back the solid majority of the people including the majority of white voters and rural voters in this country. I hate to say it, but it's become clear to me now that most of the social justice stances the Democrats have taken since the late 1900s have hurt their party way too much by scaring too many older voters, rural voters, white voters, protestant voters, men, and working-class voters.

Yes, people say they want the kinds of things that Bernie proposes, but most Americans don’t trust the government to enact those progressive policies to the degree that liberals/progressives believe in using the government as an agent of human welfare. Also, the way he sold M4A was bad because he said that it would replace all private health insurance with government run health insurance. Most Americans still prefer private health insurance over government run health insurance.

I am surprised that Sweden is seriously considering this. It's a liberal/progressive-leaning country. If it's not part of some good plan they have for managing sex and porn in their country then I think it could backfire.

Happy birthday, Leo! Congrats on reaching the 4th decade of your life! That's a major milestone! Thank you for all of the work you've done and all of the advice you've given us over the past several years!

Yet, he lost the Democratic nomination in 2016 and 2020. It wasn't even close either times. It's because he doesn't come off as someone who can relate to most everyday Americans culturally.