Oh, can you not see my comments? Weird, maybe that's the problem
I'm not sure we are working from the same definition of reactionary.
Lmao, it's literally all vibes
"people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them" is a take that's completely divorced from physical reality. You have to be completely blind to how people's material and cultural reality relate to each other if you're to believe this.
FDR’s New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.
If it wasn't Reagan, it would have been another reactionary politician. Looking at history as if individual men/women dictate our reality as if in a decontextualized vacuum is maddeningly idiotic. Reagan represented a popular movement of reactionary conservatism - he didn't invent it out of whole-cloth. There has never been a social-democratic government that hasn't eventually been privatized or been subject to increasing austerity measures, and that pattern can be studied and rationalized as a dialectic.
Your analysis is just vibes, bud, it doesn't have any eye or consideration for any systems or material relations
If tomorrow we passed a law protecting trans and minority rights, the next election the reactionary forces will push back and make it harder - if not impossible - to run on protecting them again.
Why do you think it's so hard for Harris to run on Palestinian liberation, or immigration reform, or trans rights? Because she'd lose, because the American voter base is frothing at the mouth and becoming more reactionary every election cycle, and your 'analysis' doesn't even bother to see or acknowledge that trend, let alone address it.
I've been hearing people talk about this giant change for years, and never seen anything like an advance.
Because we're still in a period of decay.
There's a reason why AES projects are mostly started in underdeveloped regions: once capitalism is established as the dominant system, it is impossible to escape it through democratic means. Capital has captured the democratic process, and it won't allow for its own destruction
If revolution doesn't happen, America will eventually fall to fascism or collapse under its own late-stage capitalism completely. Doesn't matter if you find it impractical, that's just what the analysis points to.
You can suggest your own analysis if you disagree with ours.
One party is reactionary populism, the other is pinkwashed corporatism
Neither one is responsive to minority working-class interests, but they both support white and capitalist-class interests.
Newsflash: Democrats shouldn't be taking minority votes for granted or dismissing their concerns as veiled misogyny
Alright, well good job all-around, I guess
Primaries: "I agree with those progressive policies, but we need to vote for the person most likely to win"
Campaign: "wait until after they win to protest and push them left"
Post-election: "They have a mandate to govern and they didn't campaign on your progressive politics. Wait until next primaries"
You need them all to get in, but even after you’re in, you STILL have to deal with AIPAC.
But people keep telling me that I need to wait until after the election to push for change - is that not the case? Really sounds like voters loose all leverage once the election is over, whereas the monied interests keep theirs?
Maybe i'm confused, it seems like you were responding to me calling Reagan reactionary by saying he wasn't 'anti-labor'.
Not sure how your response related to my comment otherwise, honestly. Either you were addressing my use of the word reactionary or you were talking to yourself.