The problem with your idea of the big tent is that James Carville is a veteran and architect of the DNC big tent. Where your new found love, Abdul El-Sayed, is a new guy in a new tent. When Carville says the DNC big tent is not compatible with the new guy’s tent, listen to him! Democrats can’t win the general election without independents. The Republicans will win over the independents if you insist on supporting and advocating for Islam ☪️ against Jews and Christians and most folks who were born before 9/11/2001.
I agree, in general, with your thesis here. But I do wonder where the limits to the tent are. There have to be some, right?
To twist one of your examples into a hypothetical, I actually don’t think we should eagerly allow into the party someone who has segregationist-level racist views because they also want universal healthcare.
What about the attachments or associations our politicians make? Can they be beyond the pale? We democrats certainly think they are for those on the political right and try to leverage that.
To be more concrete about this, you mention Abdul El-Sayed in this piece. He has willingly campaigned with Hasan Piker; someone who has said Mao and 9/11 were awesome, actually. That we should have forced reeducation camps for political opponents. That the Chinese genocide of Uyghurs is mostly a western hoax. He has put his name to all those odious things, and more, long before El-Sayed chose to publicly associate with him.
Let’s consider what we as Democrats would and have said if some otherwise normal-ish Republican invited Nick Fuentes or Alex Jones to campaign with them. I have strong doubts that “Hey! We’re doing a big tent thing here!” Would be an accepted counter to the criticism.
The issue should not be that the Democratic Party excludes people with particularly extreme viewpoints. Rather, the issue should be that the Democratic Party itself should not espouse those extreme viewpoints. So yes, regarding the example cited in the article, the Democratic Party can listen to the extreme view that society should defund police. But it must absolutely not support that view and in fact should reject it. The same position should be taken on trans females in sports, and a few other extreme positions. Allowing discussions around these issues without taking positions on them is not enough, as the rebubs will not make the kind of fine distinctions the author hopes for. Dems must eliminate these wedge issues entirely so the discussion can progress to the real issues that matter. Unless they do so, Dems will be painted with the same brush as before and voters will assume those extreme positions are actual postitions of the party.
Most insane article from this outlet yet. How on earth did “Democrats today are simply being asked to embrace compatriots who share the goal of, say, universal health care, but have different ideas of how to achieve it. There is nothing abnormal about seeing DSA members like Melat Kiros caucus alongside Josh Gottheimer” make it past editorial review. This is a demonstrable lie. The DSA(aka illiberal communists who’s members and supporters constantly shit on democrats as being no different from republicans) is not a fellow liberal movement that wants to fight fascism along side democrats; they think democrats are also fascists. They do not believe in liberal democracy beyond using it to shift the Overton window far enough for them to start advocating for the revolution. Why on earth should we allow people whose stated goal is to cannibalize the Democratic party to make it explicitly Socialist(government ownership over the means of production). They do not want to help pass moderate reform, leftists like the DSA only tolerate maximal proposals. They don’t want single payer health care in the same way liberal democrats do; they want to “decomposing” multiple core industries like healthcare and housing. These views are I no way comparable with liberalism an it’s hilariously naive to believe DSA and other Leftists would be allies to a liberal political movement, they hate liberalism.
Anyone can call themselves a Democrat and run for office, and in that sense the big tent is a fact, not something for which one needs to advocate.
So in what sense is El-Sayed being small-tent when he calls for the Democratic left to try to unseat John Fetterman via a primary? As best I can understand, your view is that the left should criticize right Democrats, but not try to defeat them (and vice versa), on the grounds that all Democratic politicians simply reflect their electorates.
The problem with this is that El-Sayed sincerely thinks that the Dem left can win in Pennsylvania and Carville sincerely thinks that the Dem right can win in New York. Maybe one or both are wrong, but we'll only know for sure if they fight it out - i.e. use the primary system as a factional battleground (not merely a candidate vetting process).
Well, what if we had a parliamentary system. Everyone to each's respective tent. Then we'd see how the extreme tents, often the loudest, have so few people in them. In that regard the Reds and Blues are just two big tents with all the little tents huddled beneath.
I'm in full agreement with this. While there is a ton of stuff I disagree with DSA types on, there are also areas of agreement. I agree the right solution is to be clear and public about both where we disagree and where we agree.
Genuinely curious where is there actual agreement between the Democrats and the DSA. It doesn’t matter if they are advocating for a similar policy position, their rational for those policies are based on an illiberal leftist political values. The DSA want to de-commodify the healthcare industry, not just have Medicare for all, or a single payer system. That is a huge difference. The DSA and other leftists knowingly color language of more moderate groups to hide their power levels, and seem more reasonable to a public who would disagree with the actual positions they hold.
Using Mamdani as a proxy for the DSA, here's where we agree:
- I support increased taxes on the wealthy. I actually think we should be going to back to pre-Reagan level level tax rates across the board, but I think the 2nd home tax was a reasonable start.
- I like fast buses. I even think there is an argument for free buses (although it requires ensuring order).
- I like the idea of developing an alternative group to handle mental health emergencies rather than the traditional police.
- I think some degree of rent control/stabilization makes sense, although it has to be accompanied by strong abundance policies otherwise.
- On Israel, I actually agree with DSA types about the West Bank (where Israel has been wrong for 20+ years and is now allowing actual terrorism against Palestinians).
So if I lived in New York, while there would likely be many people I would have supported ahead of Mamdani (althought notably not Cuomo), there are still areas of agreement even when we disagree.
Guess who said in his inaugural address " I was elected as a Democratic socialist and I will govern as a Democratic socialist." Even though he ran and won on the D ticket. That's why we're not just talking factions but a fundamental clash. I would be OK with a few DSA-run representatives if that is what their districts vote for. But for too long they have ridden on too much undue influence and disingenuous access to the D ticket while showing their contempt for most Democrat leaders.
This is a great analysis. Deceptively important also is the point about how the purpose of politics is to enact policies that help people.
The problem with your idea of the big tent is that James Carville is a veteran and architect of the DNC big tent. Where your new found love, Abdul El-Sayed, is a new guy in a new tent. When Carville says the DNC big tent is not compatible with the new guy’s tent, listen to him! Democrats can’t win the general election without independents. The Republicans will win over the independents if you insist on supporting and advocating for Islam ☪️ against Jews and Christians and most folks who were born before 9/11/2001.
I agree, in general, with your thesis here. But I do wonder where the limits to the tent are. There have to be some, right?
To twist one of your examples into a hypothetical, I actually don’t think we should eagerly allow into the party someone who has segregationist-level racist views because they also want universal healthcare.
What about the attachments or associations our politicians make? Can they be beyond the pale? We democrats certainly think they are for those on the political right and try to leverage that.
To be more concrete about this, you mention Abdul El-Sayed in this piece. He has willingly campaigned with Hasan Piker; someone who has said Mao and 9/11 were awesome, actually. That we should have forced reeducation camps for political opponents. That the Chinese genocide of Uyghurs is mostly a western hoax. He has put his name to all those odious things, and more, long before El-Sayed chose to publicly associate with him.
Let’s consider what we as Democrats would and have said if some otherwise normal-ish Republican invited Nick Fuentes or Alex Jones to campaign with them. I have strong doubts that “Hey! We’re doing a big tent thing here!” Would be an accepted counter to the criticism.
The issue should not be that the Democratic Party excludes people with particularly extreme viewpoints. Rather, the issue should be that the Democratic Party itself should not espouse those extreme viewpoints. So yes, regarding the example cited in the article, the Democratic Party can listen to the extreme view that society should defund police. But it must absolutely not support that view and in fact should reject it. The same position should be taken on trans females in sports, and a few other extreme positions. Allowing discussions around these issues without taking positions on them is not enough, as the rebubs will not make the kind of fine distinctions the author hopes for. Dems must eliminate these wedge issues entirely so the discussion can progress to the real issues that matter. Unless they do so, Dems will be painted with the same brush as before and voters will assume those extreme positions are actual postitions of the party.
Most insane article from this outlet yet. How on earth did “Democrats today are simply being asked to embrace compatriots who share the goal of, say, universal health care, but have different ideas of how to achieve it. There is nothing abnormal about seeing DSA members like Melat Kiros caucus alongside Josh Gottheimer” make it past editorial review. This is a demonstrable lie. The DSA(aka illiberal communists who’s members and supporters constantly shit on democrats as being no different from republicans) is not a fellow liberal movement that wants to fight fascism along side democrats; they think democrats are also fascists. They do not believe in liberal democracy beyond using it to shift the Overton window far enough for them to start advocating for the revolution. Why on earth should we allow people whose stated goal is to cannibalize the Democratic party to make it explicitly Socialist(government ownership over the means of production). They do not want to help pass moderate reform, leftists like the DSA only tolerate maximal proposals. They don’t want single payer health care in the same way liberal democrats do; they want to “decomposing” multiple core industries like healthcare and housing. These views are I no way comparable with liberalism an it’s hilariously naive to believe DSA and other Leftists would be allies to a liberal political movement, they hate liberalism.
Anyone can call themselves a Democrat and run for office, and in that sense the big tent is a fact, not something for which one needs to advocate.
So in what sense is El-Sayed being small-tent when he calls for the Democratic left to try to unseat John Fetterman via a primary? As best I can understand, your view is that the left should criticize right Democrats, but not try to defeat them (and vice versa), on the grounds that all Democratic politicians simply reflect their electorates.
The problem with this is that El-Sayed sincerely thinks that the Dem left can win in Pennsylvania and Carville sincerely thinks that the Dem right can win in New York. Maybe one or both are wrong, but we'll only know for sure if they fight it out - i.e. use the primary system as a factional battleground (not merely a candidate vetting process).
Well, what if we had a parliamentary system. Everyone to each's respective tent. Then we'd see how the extreme tents, often the loudest, have so few people in them. In that regard the Reds and Blues are just two big tents with all the little tents huddled beneath.
One more piece that confuses a party for a coalition.
I'm in full agreement with this. While there is a ton of stuff I disagree with DSA types on, there are also areas of agreement. I agree the right solution is to be clear and public about both where we disagree and where we agree.
Genuinely curious where is there actual agreement between the Democrats and the DSA. It doesn’t matter if they are advocating for a similar policy position, their rational for those policies are based on an illiberal leftist political values. The DSA want to de-commodify the healthcare industry, not just have Medicare for all, or a single payer system. That is a huge difference. The DSA and other leftists knowingly color language of more moderate groups to hide their power levels, and seem more reasonable to a public who would disagree with the actual positions they hold.
Using Mamdani as a proxy for the DSA, here's where we agree:
- I support increased taxes on the wealthy. I actually think we should be going to back to pre-Reagan level level tax rates across the board, but I think the 2nd home tax was a reasonable start.
- I like fast buses. I even think there is an argument for free buses (although it requires ensuring order).
- I like the idea of developing an alternative group to handle mental health emergencies rather than the traditional police.
- I think some degree of rent control/stabilization makes sense, although it has to be accompanied by strong abundance policies otherwise.
- On Israel, I actually agree with DSA types about the West Bank (where Israel has been wrong for 20+ years and is now allowing actual terrorism against Palestinians).
So if I lived in New York, while there would likely be many people I would have supported ahead of Mamdani (althought notably not Cuomo), there are still areas of agreement even when we disagree.
Guess who said in his inaugural address " I was elected as a Democratic socialist and I will govern as a Democratic socialist." Even though he ran and won on the D ticket. That's why we're not just talking factions but a fundamental clash. I would be OK with a few DSA-run representatives if that is what their districts vote for. But for too long they have ridden on too much undue influence and disingenuous access to the D ticket while showing their contempt for most Democrat leaders.
The Republicans are masters at "wedging" Democrats. Dems better not do it to themselves.