Sanders 2016?

[adaher]

I think it’s more their ignorance. When you say a lot of things that don’t make sense or are really ignorant of the facts, then that will alienate even your supporters. Sanders doesn’t seem to have that problem at least, although I don’t see what Democrats in red states would find to like about him. I guess right now Democrats believe they don’t need to expand the map to win anymore, but making Republicans comfortable in places like North Carolina and Indiana means that they have more money to spend in Ohio and Florida.

[Zakalwe]

@adaher

I think it’s more their ignorance. When you say a lot of things that don’t make sense or are really ignorant of the facts, then that will alienate even your supporters.

Dear Santa,

Look, I know it’s really early in the year and all, but my irony meter just EXPLODED (seriously - have you ever seen Scanners?) and I really need a new one soon.

Thanks!

Zakalwe

[BrainGlutton]

@Chronos

I agree with Jonathan Chance. Run in the primary for long enough to pull the Overton window as far left as he can, then bow out gracefully and endorse the winner. Hopefully, rehabilitate the word “socialist” a bit in the process, too.

@adaher

That’s about as likely as rehabilitating fascism.

You’ll find socialism is a far more popular word/thing the whole world over than fascism. America is an outlier in that regard.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Depends on how you define socialism. If we define it in Marxist terms, then . . .

. . . it has never been tried.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

In any case, who would want to rehabilitate the term “socialist”? I’d thought that ideological battle between socialism and free markets was settled. Unless there are some socialist capitalists running around, in which case I have no idea what the point is.

Well, there are such things as “libertarian socialists.” Noam Chomsky is one.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Explain to me the difference between socialism and liberalism, because what you describe as socialism just looks like liberalism to me.

Here, read this.

All of it. Yes, I know there’s way too much material on Anarchism.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

In other words people who have no actual effect on policy. Should Ted “Obama is a subhuman mongrel” Nugent be used as a yardstick for Republican opinion? :dubious:

@adaher

To the extent that he does represent a lot of Republican opinion, yes.

Then, you agree it would be unwise for anyone to vote Pub until that changes?

[BrainGlutton]

@E-DUB

The best explanation of the difference between socialism and liberalism/progressivism that I ever read is about 100 years old and comes from the Milwaukee Journal;

“Conservatives fight socialism blindly … while the Progressives fight it intelligently and seek to remedy the abuses and conditions upon which it thrives.”

Conservatives don’t see a difference because both Socialists and Progressives are pointing out social problems that Conservatives either deny exist or would just as soon see ignored, but they do so with different intent and for different purposes.

Of course, “progressive” then means something very different from “progressive” today – the latter being what would be called “social-democratic” in Europe, i.e., something well to the right of “socialist” and well to the left of “liberal.”

[adaher]

@BrainGlutton

Then, you agree it would be unwise for anyone to vote Pub until that changes?

No, because you don’t vote for voters, you vote for representatives. Not voting for a party because some celebrity who supports them says things you don’t like is just an excuse to do what you already intended to do.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@skdo23

My first post was a bit vague, and in hindsight probably not my best work. What I meant was that Sanders would probably alienate moderate voters, including moderate Democrats, in the same way that ultra-conservatives such as Palin and Bachmann have alienated moderate Republicans.

I understand where this comes from, but OTOH Sanders does not have the penchant for making controversial statements like Palin and Bachmann-if one looked at his positions he seems to be a pretty solid Democrat.

@adaher

No, because you don’t vote for voters, you vote for representatives. Not voting for a party because some celebrity who supports them says things you don’t like is just an excuse to do what you already intended to do.

So then why did you bring up this whole tangent about Hollywood celebrities being Communist apologists?

[adaher]

It was in the context of liberals being naive about those to the left of them. And why it can often be hard for conservatives to tell the difference when so many liberals demonstrate sympathy for leftists totalitarians.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

And why it can often be hard for conservatives to tell the difference when so many liberals demonstrate sympathy for leftists totalitarians.

But any fault there lies with the conservatives, who seem habitually to view the whole left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope, and cannot tell Keynes from Stalin.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

Of course, “progressive” then means something very different from “progressive” today – the latter being what would be called “social-democratic” in Europe, i.e., something well to the right of “socialist” and well to the left of “liberal.”

As for Sanders, Kucinich, et al., I think they’re really more progressives than socialists; likewise with most of the Democratic Socialists of America. (The way I define it, it’s not socialism if it does not involve the nationalization/socialization of most of the means of production, which very few American political activists demand.)

[adaher]

That’s my view as well. The welfare state has been with us since long before Marx. It’s just not socialism. What makes socialism different is nationalization of industry. There was some of that in Europe, but now all those old parties are liberal now even if they kept “social” in their name. Which is fine, because “Christian Democrats” aren’t all that religious anymore.