A socialist will not win 2028, provided there even is an election. NYC is not representative of the whole country. And most Americans are still on this cold war hangover where socialism became a dirty word. An outspoken socialist would not win. Unless we get another great depression - which will if history is our guide more likely lead to war. Or if they manage to fake centrism so believably well and are then okay to be a one-termer once they show their real colors. The Democrats need a Mr. Rogers type politician (preferably male, blame the Midwest) without scandals (so nobody from CA) who can appeal to a sense of decency again. #MADA
All that’s really required is to rebrand socialism. People are all for socialism if you just describe the aspects of it without using the word.
Kinda like the ACA vs Obamacare. Late night talk show hosts did that by asking people if they supported Obamacare. When they said no, they’d mention the ACA and describe the aspects of it, then asked if they agreed with it. Of course they did.
I am afraid that this isolated (and probably edited and not very scientific) example of people seeing the power is reason will not scale to the masses. The fear of socialism is irrational and I don’t think you can fix that with rational explanations alone. It’s not like people like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez aren’t trying and there is enough of a base to get them elected - but not into executive power. On top of that you have the MAGA cult followers who would happily vote against their own self interest if they can say they owned the libs in the process.
I hope you are right. I personally don’t see it. I think we cannot underestimate the cult factor. All it takes is a Vance or an orange (or even the deviant MTG) to point at it and screech like a Body Snatcher: “It’s socialism! It’s handouts! Kill it with fire!” It won’t matter what you branded it as. Their branding will be stronger.
Why do you think a Mr. Rogers type person would be the ideal choice? That just leads to “we need to forgive and put this all behind us” type responses which drives even more unaccountability, more inaction, and leads to more problems. I think a Mr. Rogers type is the exact opposite of what we need in response to Trump.
I chose him because he is generally well liked. I haven’t heard anybody shit talk him. I don’t see him as a person of inaction or unaccountability. I do see him as somebody who acts from a set of values and who can heal wounds thoughtfully (without letting perpetrators go unpunished). Go ahead and replace him in your mind with somebody who fits that profile.
A socialist will not win 2028, provided there even is an election. NYC is not representative of the whole country. And most Americans are still on this cold war hangover where socialism became a dirty word. An outspoken socialist would not win. Unless we get another great depression - which will if history is our guide more likely lead to war. Or if they manage to fake centrism so believably well and are then okay to be a one-termer once they show their real colors. The Democrats need a Mr. Rogers type politician (preferably male, blame the Midwest) without scandals (so nobody from CA) who can appeal to a sense of decency again. #MADA
All that’s really required is to rebrand socialism. People are all for socialism if you just describe the aspects of it without using the word.
Kinda like the ACA vs Obamacare. Late night talk show hosts did that by asking people if they supported Obamacare. When they said no, they’d mention the ACA and describe the aspects of it, then asked if they agreed with it. Of course they did.
I am afraid that this isolated (and probably edited and not very scientific) example of people seeing the power is reason will not scale to the masses. The fear of socialism is irrational and I don’t think you can fix that with rational explanations alone. It’s not like people like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez aren’t trying and there is enough of a base to get them elected - but not into executive power. On top of that you have the MAGA cult followers who would happily vote against their own self interest if they can say they owned the libs in the process.
Right, that’s why I said we should call it something else. It’s not socialism they have a problem with, it’s the name.
I hope you are right. I personally don’t see it. I think we cannot underestimate the cult factor. All it takes is a Vance or an orange (or even the deviant MTG) to point at it and screech like a Body Snatcher: “It’s socialism! It’s handouts! Kill it with fire!” It won’t matter what you branded it as. Their branding will be stronger.
Why do you think a Mr. Rogers type person would be the ideal choice? That just leads to “we need to forgive and put this all behind us” type responses which drives even more unaccountability, more inaction, and leads to more problems. I think a Mr. Rogers type is the exact opposite of what we need in response to Trump.
I chose him because he is generally well liked. I haven’t heard anybody shit talk him. I don’t see him as a person of inaction or unaccountability. I do see him as somebody who acts from a set of values and who can heal wounds thoughtfully (without letting perpetrators go unpunished). Go ahead and replace him in your mind with somebody who fits that profile.
Maybe Governor of Kentucky Andy Beshear. Seriously!
more career-family politicians are not what anyone in the US needs, you want actual change you need a Lincoln type.
working class roots whose class/privelage conscious, but also not ignorant/naive of The Game.
Well that’s a game I haven’t heard about for a while