I don’t see this going well.
We all know the answer is just going to be “So-and-so policy will bankrupt us, just like Venezuela” and the cite will be some right-wing dude’s opinion.
Although, I suppose there could be some hilarity if HurricaneDitka has a good imagination, and really runs with the various talking points e.g. “You’ll have to use 50 different genders to refer to people!”
I foresee the imminent return of the dastard Strawman Liberal and his plan to destroy America via an agenda of Socialism, Political Correctness, Atheism, Veganism and Climate Change.
Tbh, I’m not sure that the “Democrats” have much of a coherent agenda. Various Democrats have various agendas, many of which have some degree of overlap, but I’m not seeing much in the way of central planning and certainly not from the DNC.
The first thing that comes to mind is wanting to give advantages to minorities. Not equality, but advantages, that may stifle non-minorities in an unfair way. Which, in turn, leads to frustration by the majorities and therefore they are annoyed and vote against this AND their economic interests and start voting for batshit crazy conservatives or a president that can’t spell and confuses life insurance with health insurance. This is clearly being destructive. See what you made them do?
Most likely he’s talking about specific, vertical programs from specific Dems he thinks might be elected. Things like ‘free’ healthcare or ‘free’ college, or someone actually taking the New Green Deal seriously enough and having the political capital to make it a real thing. Then you have the fear that several of the Progressives might push through a Socialist agenda which could be harmful to the country.
There is a lot of fear on the Republican side wrt what the Dems MIGHT do if they regain the White House in the current climate. From my perspective, though many of the things I listed up there would be, for me, sub-optimal, I don’t see any of them being more destructive than what we currently have. Even if the Dems completely roll back everything happening with China, which I feel would be a mistake, the net positive for the rest of their presumed foreign policy would outweigh that, at least from what I’ve seen of the various candidates.
I am at the point of challenging righties to Describe even a single Democratic policy proposal, along with the reasoning behind it. Bec a use, if you haven’t noticed, most arguments against the Dems (it is usually framed as The Left or Liberals because those are scarier) consist of rants that don’t really analyze policy at all, but tap into preexisting anxiety or anger in the listener. Too poor? That is the fault of Liberals, just wait until they take all of your money to give healthcare to illegals. Climate change? A hoax and Trojan horse leveraged by The Left for a socialist governement takeover, and yanno, Pol Pot caused a lot of deaths, Stalin had the gulags, there used to be terrible famines, and The Left did that and will do it again!! :eek:
I don’t want to detail your thread, but I think this is an appropriate response. Righties with a clear conception of Any Dem policy are rare, and rarer still one that project it into the future. The propaganda tells them it is Doom Itself, and that’s what they think. Details just screw it up.
A good example: the corporate world fears Warren. I will try to find the quote later, but she talks about inequality and tax policy, things “they don’t want the public thinking about”. It is misdirection and misinformation from that team.
As I noted above, I’m not sure “lefties” could describe a Democratic policy proposal that has widespread acceptance across the party. There are lots of policies proposed by Democrats but ones that most of them will endorse are much fewer.
That’s fair enough but still, I have never met a single person who says they are motivated by Liberalism or Hating America. There are a few socialists, but never one promoting Radical Agrarian Reform or a communist land grab. Even former conservative staples like balancing the budget now put you in the Big Government camp if it involves raising even a dollar of revenue from the wealthy, and, viewed through the conservative fun house mirror, that puts you right back at gulags and the end of civilization.
Who besides the activists pay attention to platforms?
Frontrunner Elizabeth Warren is running with a policy to destroy property rights in every major corporation in the US.
“Employees at large corporations would be able to elect at least 40% of the board of directors. An estimated 3,500 public US companies and hundreds of other private companies would be covered by the mandates.”
That may or may not be a good idea (I think Germany does something similar) but how would it “destroy property rights.” A board member elected by employees has the same fiduciary duty to the corporation as any other board member.
The owners are the shareholders. Under Warren’s proposal they get to elect 60% of the board, which is sufficient to appoint managment and set policies. They’ll just have to listen to the other 40% now and then before they make a decision. As I said, maybe good and maybe not, but hardly earth shattering.
It’s hardly new to say that you can have all the policies in the world, but if you haven’t got a framing narrative that chimes with what is important to people, you’re on a hiding to nothing. The trouble is that this effect is enormously amplified by social media, especially if someone’s manipulating it (I’ve just been reading Peter Pomerantsev’s This Is Not Propaganda, which is very good on this). Rational argument about policies just won’t work against it - you just get a harsher, cruder version of Reagan’s “There you go again” in response.
Then what is the point of Warren’s proposal? If board members elected by shareholders and board members elected by non-shareholders are compelled to act the same, then forcing them to be elected by non-shareholders achieves nothing.
I expect that Warren’s proposal is based on the idea that board members elected by employees will push to act for the benefit of employees rather than shareholders when the two are in conflict.
Raising profits is good for the corporation. Firing employees is bad for employees. It is entirely possible that the two goals are in conflict.
It’s rather similar to requiring unions to put management on their boards. The two groups have similar but not identical interests.
Different people have different ideas about what would help the company the most. A board member who better understands the employees perspective might have some better ideas.
Certainly, adding those voices to the meetings can’t hurt.
I think it would lend credibility to the claim that manufacturing in the USA can be “brought back”. I also think a well structured TPP is necessary to help stem the flight of manufacturing jobs by making foreign workforce options less financially attractive to US companies. So multiple things would have to happen to improve the odds of saving, or perhaps re-invigorating US manufacturing. Democratizing publicly held companies with 40% employee voting share seems like an idea that merits serious consideration.