I don’t understand where this position that dems embraced neo-liberalism and abandoned unions comes from.
Who passed “right to work” laws in state houses all over the country? Who supported money as a form of speech in Citizens United? Who has tried to suppress the raising of the minimum wage at every opportunity?
Not dems, afaik. Dems have consistently fought these things.
Dems have definitely been consistently more pro-union than Republicans, but not nearly as pro-union as they used to be or could be. Biden has actually been a serious move in that direction in terms of his NLRB appointments and rhetoric, but there’s a lot farther to go.
They don’t have to start actively attacking the unions to have abandoned them. Clinton was the main break point.
I can definitely see an argument for Clinton, the champion of NAFTA, moving in a neo-liberal direction, but calling it some broader break-point where the whole democratic party abandoned labor is a much, much broader claim. Wouldn’t you say?
there are factions within any party that can be ascendant in any given cycle (measured in decades). I am guessing this may be obvious to you, but reagan and the dirty tricks full court press by the republicans terrified the “left” in the US and made it easier for neo-liberal mindshare to metastasize in the democratic party.
clinton style neo-lib ideology didnt get much resistance because it seems that the dems have been the place where anyone to the left of attila the hun moved and set up shop for quite a while.
so the arc of the democratic party continues to ebb and flow. hopefully the “new left” will make a permanent mark on it and course correct the neo-lib terror of the last 30 years.
The problem is that Clinton’s neoliberalism and rejection of the unions both wasn’t just Clinton (he didn’t get a revolt from other Democrats over NAFTA) and the results weakened the unions so they were less valuable to Democrats. Neoliberal economic policy has been the dominant philosophy of the party establishment for 30 years now, to the detriment of the unions. Hell, many of those establishment politicians were already in power during Clinton’s term.
Now, this doesn’t mean “all Democrats never listen to unions”, but they’re just often not a priority. And hopefully it’s changing. Biden’s done some meaningfully pro-union things (albeit with one very high-profile anti-union thing), and the resurgence of the labor movement in general means they’re more powerful.
I think (hope) people are downvoting because they think this is an anti-woke screed rather than dismantling such centrist propaganda.
I can’t even see the downvotes (and I sincerely love it). This right here is why downvoting is stupid: it’s lazy commentary, and people who can see it are left wondering why.
Downvoting is an important method of grassroots quality control when used correctly, you just have to actually take the time to see what it is that you’re downvoting.
when used correctly
This is the core problem. It’s disruptive when used incorrectly; there’s no way to ensure it’s used correctly, and then people like OP are left scratching their heads.
The better option is to engage or move on. If you think someone deserves a downvote, show it with your words. Nobody knows the true intentions behind a downvote, otherwise.
Unsurprisingly, the authors saying “Wokeness is to blame for Democrats not having an overwhelming majority!” are old white men.
I’m so tired of this “woke agenda” bullshit. Being Woke means one thing and only one thing. It simply means you’ve been disillusioned from “the land of the free” rhetoric we’ve all been fed since we were children and you acknowledge that the institutions that have been built up in the US, whether intentionally or otherwise, disproportionately disenfranchise minorities. It has jack shit to do with climate change, politics, abortion, or gun control. (Other than maybe how those things contribute to racist institutions) being for Abortion rights or climate action or gun control does not automatically make you ‘woke’. Not unless you’re approaching those issues specifically from the angle of fixing how this country has historical treated POC. Unfortunately, that’s basically never the case and liberal policies that do end up being put in place either don’t address minority issues at all or they may even exacerbate them.
I’m so sick of it being used as a catch all term for anything republicans disagree with. It takes the word away from its actual meaning and risks us forgetting what it actually stood for in the first place. And that’s a shame. Because it’s messaging is important. And the more watered down it gets the more we’ll ignore the already downtrotten in this country.
