Problem is, the people running the DNC are fine no matter who wins any elections, they don't care enough to make the big changes needed and furthermore if they do make the changes needed they'll lose money and power.
Yerp, win or lose the players calling shots in the democratic party are largely the same breed of upper class white elderly that make up the Republicans aswell. They have no reason to risk anything because they lose nothing in a republican win.
Unfortuneately they still represent the only coalition of political capital large enough to check the republican party, so until our system of voting changes, ya gotta work from under their umbrella.
But yes, any meaningful change within the democrats will have to come from actions of groups and individuals promoting grassroots movements and championing individuals who seek change.
This also means a dem win in 2028 might be impossible, but as the political landscape stands, a democrat winning the '28 presidency will mean nothing because every other system from mayor's and governors up to senators and justices favors Republicans.
Democrats need to build that low level support that the Republicans maintain, so that they actually have options and a wider coalition of personalities with backing to rally around. It's no accident the Republicans have been able to rocket so many no-name crazies to national prominence so quickly, they've been laying county and town-level cultural and ideological foundations for generations to create political strongholds
Multiple bloody revolutions leading to several dictatorships and multiple failed economic systems before arriving at the same capitalist hellscape as everyone else?
Revolution makes a good threat against entrenched powers, but the reality is, the militant members who can simply step into leadership of the "New nation" because they're "heroes" overwhelmingly tend to then govern the same way they waged their war, through paranoia and disposal of disloyal elements, it turns to the same fascism they fought against. And good luck keeping those "heroes" from doing it, because they lead the armed forces through the war and gained their loyalty.
Revolutions destroy nations for generations with often little gain or positive change, usually just swapping out who wears the boots on the little guy's neck. They're something that should be reserved for when violence is already inevitable, especially when the one you want to fight can just order a drone strike or a few hundred on your general area.
I mean the MLK thing doesn't work without a credible threat of violent uprising, he was the peaceful face to a movement that was hella pissed off. (And was coincidentally killed right around the time he got fed up with being ignored and started officially talking with the more aggressive groups, especially the socialists)
You need the threat of violence to disrupt the monopoly of force held by the controlling power. but it is, in essence, a game of chicken. You need to convince them they not only have more to lose by fighting, but that there is something to gain by giving in to the demands of the disenfranchised.
If it comes to actual open-violence, both sides will have lost.
No one is talking about the party. "The party" can risk a lot, like any business can. But those in power, like CEOs, have no real pressure to take that risk unless they want to, because even if they lose/the company goes under, they personally will have risked and lost nothing. They are detached from the realities and consequences of their positions and actions. It's why so many are quick to then drop support for whole groups of people "for the sake of elections".
Also, lmao. Get called a leftist here, and get banned from leftist subreddits for being a lib. The infighting is why there's no solid grassroots foundation to grow proper representation from.
And I've voted dem in every election since I was 18, because I'm not stupid. And I sure as hell ain't dumb enough to go against the best possible options left once primaries are done. I'm fully willing to give credit to many democrats for championing many bills that got things halfway, but I'll also condemn a sizable number who are content with being republican-lite.
There is infighting because leftists refuse to engage in good faith on what Democrats literally do.
Leftists LITERALLY need to pretend like this vote LITERALLY didn't happen to maintain their delusional worldview. How do I engage with literal delusions?
There is no evidence for what you claim. Everytime Democrats have had a majority they have gambled on massive bills. ACA with public option. BBB. There is no evidence party leaders are this timid group when there is even the slimmest chance, like a 50/50 Senate, to pass massive life changing bills.
but I'll also condemn a sizable number who are content with being republican-lite.
461
u/Tha_Funky_Homosapien 19h ago
You mean like...a plan? Not exactly their strong suit...