I will reserve judgement until I see precisely who he intends to replace them with.
His adoption by a lot of centrist Dems, and his absorption and placement as DNC Vice Chair makes me wonder if he's just the Centrist Dems' vehicle to remain the top influence in the party by replacing old Centrists with young Centrists.
Edit: To clarify for anyone else who is confused, I really hope he does what he says he will! We need lots more young progressives.
Makes perfect sense. After all:
Bottom line, we can't support anything on the left. It's better to just let the right wing (or the conservative/corporate wing of the Democrats or et cetera) win whatever contests, until we all go to El Salvador.
Got it. I completely agree with you. This is totally sensible.
/s
Centrist Dems are half the reason we have Trump. Don't try to frame this as some anti-Left thing, this is about milquetoast, feckless neolibs who have and still do spend enormous effort preventing the party from actually aligning with its voting base.
If he's not that, I support him fully! But until I see that, I'm not going to celebrate just because he's young.
But go off with your ad hominems! They sure worked this past election to cajole support. /s
Centrist Dems are half the reason we have Trump.
More than half, I'd say. That's precisely one reason I think it's weird that you're coming out against someone who wants to get rid of them.
Don’t try to frame this as some anti-Left thing
I mean, this guy's left, and you're anti- him. Sounds like it is an anti-left thing. Again, that's actually what irritated me about your message.
this is about milquetoast, feckless neolibs who have and still do spend enormous effort preventing the party from actually aligning with its voting base.
Absolutely.
If he’s not that, I support him fully!
Yeah. If he's not a child molester, then I support him fully too! Isn't that a weird way to frame things?
this guy’s left, and you’re anti- him
What part of "reserve judgement" do you not understand?
If he’s not a child molester, then I support him fully too! Isn’t that a weird way to frame things?
It wouldn't be if he was the Vice Chair of an org that had historically been run by child molesters, as the DNC has and is run by Centrist Neolibs.
If he is not a neolib, he would be the exception to a very longstanding precedent of DNC leadership, so I think it's a very fair question to pose, especially right when Sanders and AOC are making news as they are.
The DNC leadership is not going to go down without swinging, and I fully expect them to try to co-opt Progressivism as a label and redefine it rightwards. Like I said, if he's not that, and throws his weight behind established Progressives or better, awesome!
But I will heavily scrutinize anyone that any DNC leader is backing; we don't need any more Fettermans or Sinemas, even if it's just a post-election "conversion" to the Center.
I mean it’s just weird. I won’t say you’re in any way wrong to be suspicious of anything DNC-related. But it just seems weirdly and pointlessly extra in this case. And this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test (or even, as in this case, maybe doesn’t pass some weird purity test, just based on no knowledge at all) does a lot of damage. It’s a good way to splinter and diffuse progress and put up obstacles to people who are trying to accomplish something.
Put it this way: If one mid-level priest said he wanted to do something about pedophilia in the Catholic Church, that would be good. It wouldn’t really make me decide to be Catholic, but it seems like a good indication about them. If someone said “Yeah but he’s CATHOLIC CHURCH so how do we know he’s not a pedophile himself!” then that’s weird. Even if maybe the person has a point to be cautious, it’s just a weird point to decide to make.
this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test... does a lot of damage. It’s a good way to splinter and diffuse progress and put up obstacles to people who are trying to accomplish something.
Right now, Sanders and AOC are making a lot of progress, and they're the ones I trust to be pushing for the changes to the party that we need. If anyone is splintering or diffusing progress, it would be someone other than them popping up and trying to do their own thing. If Sanders or AOC endorse Hogg, I would trust their opinion.
Put it this way: If one mid-level priest said he wanted to do something about pedophilia in the Catholic Church, that would be good.
I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay Hogg's position in the DNC; he's literally the second-highest ranked person. And like I said, if he does push for progressives, that would be good.
If anyone is splintering or diffusing progress, it would be someone other than them popping up and trying to do their own thing.
So no one is allowed to "pop up" and start to try to make progress. Otherwise, they're "splintering." Got it.
And like I said, if he does push for progressives, that would be good.
Quick question: What is he doing, as the main topic of the article you're posting under?
So no one is allowed to “pop up” and start to try to make progress. Otherwise, they’re “splintering.” Got it.
You're the one who claimed that a splintering was occurring. I pointed out that there is a unified effort already happening.
Quick question: What is he doing, as the main topic of the article you’re posting under?
He is making claims about his future actions. Nothing less, and nothing more.
Now, I am very interested in why you seem dead-set on immediately and unwaveringly and unquestioningly trusting him, to the point you're framing me saying "let's see if his actions match his words" as an unacceptable attack or evidence of malfeasance, all while repeatedly mischaracterizing what I've said? Because at this point you're starting to look like you're pushing an agenda.
“let’s see if his actions match his words”
Would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to say. On the other hand, you said:
His adoption by a lot of centrist Dems, and his absorption and placement as DNC Vice Chair makes me wonder if he’s just the Centrist Dems’ vehicle to remain the top influence in the party by replacing old Centrists with young Centrists.
... which is a load of puckey. He was elected by the full membership of the Democratic Party. He's trying to primary old and centrist leaders. Could it all be a smokescreen? Sure. Why are you comitted to shitting on him preemptively and immediately reacting to a story about him refusing to go along with the DNC's attempts at "party unity" with some of their centrist leaders, and trying to specifically make efforts to primary them, by saying he obviously has the support of centrist leaders so maybe we can't trust him?
Now, I am very interested in why you seem dead-set on immediately and unwaveringly and unquestioningly trusting him
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. When did I do that? Quote me.
Because at this point you’re starting to look like you’re pushing an agenda.
Honestly, I'm just irritated at pointless fact free purity-testing of anyone who is left who is trying to accomplish anything at all. It had partly nothing to do with anything you said, it's just I've lost patience with this kind of harassment and questioning of anybody at all who has a realistic chance of doing something good. Let the fucking guy make some progress without immediately starting to bite your nails about what flaws he might have. Maybe he's a horrible centrist in disguise. Sure, could be. On the other hand, he could be somebody who is trying to do what you say you want to see happen. Let's see without starting to throw "centrist dems" "old centrists" "young centrists" at him for more or less no reason at all.
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. When did I do that? Quote me.
Sure:
this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test (or even, as in this case, maybe doesn’t pass some weird purity test, just based on no knowledge at all) does a lot of damage
So you literally referred to me saying I'd reserve judgement as "hyper-criticism" (when I in fact had at no point offered any criticism of him). If that's not unwavering and unquestioning, I don't know what is.
Why are you comitted to shitting on him preemptively
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. Unless you just think that being cautious of someone based on their associations is "shitting on" them, in which case that's a 'you' problem.
… which is a load of puckey. He was elected by the full membership of the Democratic Party.
Yes, the full membership of the Democratic Party that has been doing almost nothing whatsoever to counter Trump, the same full membership of the Democratic Party that kowtowed to Biden deciding he was the best candidate instead of having a primary, and lost us 2024. That same full membership is exactly why I'm cautious. As you said,
I won’t say you’re in any way wrong to be suspicious of anything DNC-related.
Which is obviously not true, seeing as when I was, you then accused me of being "hyper-critic[al]".
At this point, it feels like arguing for the sake of arguing, because my second comment, after you came right out of the gate accusing me of being a right-wing stooge, clearly stated:
If he’s not that, I support him fully!
clarifying that "reserving judgement" meant I was/am perfectly open to him actually being good, and supporting him!
But that was apparently not good enough for you.
I heard an interview with this guy on NPR. He seems to understand what it means to be a progressive in America and how you can actually advocate for your agenda in a meaningful way.
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.