I’m not seeing it. There are plenty of people who are too far to the left for my tastes on this message board, but I don’t see people like them in the Democratic leadership. Take Obama for instance, who was given a lot of crap from the left for his strong anti-illegal-immigrant executive performance.
And which one of the three is Hillary? The same Hillary who gave a lot of talks to Wall Street execs? I think that would rule out #1 and #3. Is there any evidence then that she is an anti-semite?
You’ll notice that Hillary had to rig the game against Bernie just to get the nomination, then she lost to freaking Donald Trump. I would not hold up Hillary as a beacon for the Democratic party.
It seems to me that right now the center of gravity in the Democratic party belongs to people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the new cadre of young socialists and radicals like AOC, ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. AOC and Tlaib are both members of the explicitly anti-capitalist Democratic Socialists of America.
These people are far, far to the left of the electorate in the country as a whole. They are a gift to the next Trump campaign, which will use them to characterize the entire opposition.
Because he’s dead?
There currently are no good Republicans. They sold their souls to the devil in exchange for political power. The party needs to be destroyed and replaced with responsible opposition to the Democrats.
The Democratic party has been for universal health care, a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich, etc., for decades. The only thing different now is the faces and labels, and perhaps some details about the proposals. But in fiscal and economic ideology, they’ve changed very little in the last few decades.
On social policy, they’ve changed a bit – moving to the left on things like gay and trans rights, abuse of women, as well as social justice more broadly, as society in general has also moved to the left (though the Democratic party is probably out in front of the “average” position on social issues, in general).
One party is damaged beyond recognition – the party that nominated, and continues to support and celebrate as President someone who bragged on multiple occasions about violating the consent of women, who spent years spreading an evidence-free racist conspiracy theory, who has routinely praised and tolerated white supremacists and white supremacism, and much worse. That’s not the Democratic party. There’s no “both sides” here. One side is severely fucked up. The other side is mostly the same as they’ve been for decades.
What would that look like to you?
There are several hundred congressional republicans. Can you name 5 self-describing socialists? How about 5 anti-semites? (Note: actual anti-semites, not “person who at one point had some tenuous connection to Louis Farrakahn” or “Person who has problems with the state of israel as it currently exists”.)
This is the cry of the radical centrist; the person who holds tight to the dogma of both-sides-ism. I think Krugman actually just had an article about this:
Finally, the hallmark of fanatical centrism is the determination to see America’s left and right as equally extreme, no matter what they actually propose. Thus, throughout the Obama years, centrists called for political leaders who would address their debt concerns with an approach that combined spending cuts with revenue increases, offer a market-based health care plan and invest in infrastructure, somehow never managing to acknowledge that there was one major figure proposing exactly that — President Barack Obama.
[…]
Both pundits and plutocrats like to imagine themselves as superior beings, standing above the political fray. They want to think of themselves as standing tall against extremism right and left. Yet the reality of American politics is asymmetric polarization: extremism on the right is a powerful political force, while extremism on the left isn’t. What’s a would-be courageous centrist to do?
The answer, all too often, is to retreat into a fantasy world, almost as hermetic as the right-wing, Fox News bubble. In this fantasy world, social democrats like Harris or Warren are portrayed as the second coming of Hugo Chávez, so that taking what is actually a conservative position can be represented as a brave defense of moderation.
But that’s not what is really happening, and the rest of us have no obligation to indulge centrist delusions.
This is silly. Alexandria Occasio-Cortez may be the latest obsession of the republican party, and she’s clearly a damn good politician who has a whole lot of people very excited, but she’s one member out of hundreds. Meanwhile, the actual powerbrokers are still Chuck Shumer and Nancy Pelosi - hardly radical leftists.
The billionaire whose policy proposals thus far are “cut taxes on the rich”, “cut entitlements”, and “free college or healthcare is impossible”? That guy, not welcome in the democratic party? 
Clearly this is a sign of extreme polarization.
If the Republicans imploded, then I’d see the Democrats splinter into a pro-business faction and a pro-consumer faction. The pro-business faction would be a little softer on environmental regulations and a little more conservative socially, but neither would be anywhere near as far right as today’s GOP.
OK, but you didn’t answer the question that I asked.
You know, this is perilously close to hate speech. I’m sending this to that pit
Policy-wise, I think you are wrong. The majority of Americans want a health-care system that is comparable to those of other developed nations. They want support for public schools. They want the ultra-wealthy taxed fairly. They want the planet to be saved for their children. They support gay marriage. They want entry-level work to pay at least a bare living wage. They want fair elections. They want corporations controlled. I could go on. They want, in fact, what amounts to the generic Democratic ticket.
When I was a lass, mainstream Republican politicians staked out a ground more or less where centrist Democrats are now. I could certainly live with a Republican party like that, although I found them appalling when I was eighteen.
I have to agree, As far as I can tell, all the good Republicans are statesmen.
Paul Ryan was a “good Republican,” as is Mitch McConnell. They opposed some of Trump’s agenda, particularly in foreign policy. Domestically, they supported lower taxes for the wealthy, cutting the social safety net (especially healthcare) for the middle class and poor, fewer regulations inhibiting big business from exploiting U.S. workers and ravaging the environment, limiting abortion, voting rights and immigration, and opposing most if-not-quite-all Democratic Party initiatives by default. Isn’t this what being a “good Republican” is all about?
These have been Republican Party values for a number of years before Trump’s election, and Ryan and McConnell are undoubtedly proud of their accomplishments. Any Republican today going against this agenda is at best a RINO, at worst, a traitor to the party, and in no way worthy of being called a “good Republican.”
… but possibly worthy of being acknowledged as a good person.
Used to be, both parties agreed that what was good for the nation was White Supremacy, and the big difference was whether that included slavery. This was challenged during Reconstruction, but that didn’t last long enough to wipe it out.
Since the 1950s, White Supremacy has become disfavored even in the mainstream, but only one party is effectively anti-White Supremacy at the policy level, whereas the other party remains pro-White Supremacy de facto, with the primary difference between now and 1919 being the terminology and specific policy positions it uses to shore up its White Supremacy beliefs and signal to the hardcore that it is, indeed, on their side.
Having sovereign debt is not irresponsible. Trying to make bad financial policy into “responsible government” is dishonest, and a wonderful way to excuse cutting welfare programs and tank the economy.
I’d say “motherhood statement” but you would just wonder why I was insulting your momma.
Again, you’re using words and somehow failing to say anything.
Include economic rationality here.
I voted for Republicans a couple of times. My very first vote, not long after I turned 18, was for Thomas Lawson McCall (who ultimately failed in his bid to return to the Governor’s office). Some years later, I think I voted for Mark O. Hatfield, which was the year I voted “NO” on the Presidential ballot and stopped voted at all for two decades because that election left me with such a filthy feeling of disgust that an hour in the shower was not enough to make it go away.
Today, I would vote for a Republican if … uh … if … just, no.
Let me try again:
We’d see blue Dems, who favor higher minimum wages, strong unions, higher corporate taxes and greater taxes on the wealthy, and so on.
There would be purple Dems, who would be more Wall Street friendly and more reluctant to increase entitlements.
But Dems of both stripes would be squarely in favor of minority rights, abortion rights, immigration reform. Both sides would be agnostic on gun control, it won’t be a make or break for either color of Democrat.
No place in either one for religious zealots, bigots, climate change deniers and the like.
Boiling down what Little Nemo said to “sovereign debt is irresponsible” is a straw man.
From the CIA’s World Factbook, revenues and expenditures for selected countries:
Denmark
revenues: 172.5 billion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 168.9 billion (2017 est.)
(A surplus of over 2%.)
Finland
revenues: 134.2 billion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 135.6 billion (2017 est.)
(A very modest deficit of a little over 1%.)
Norway
revenues: 217.1 billion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 199.5 billion (2017 est.)
(A nearly 9% surplus. Of course Norway is notoriously rich from all that North Sea oil.)
Sweden
revenues: 271.2 billion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 264.4 billion (2017 est.)
(A surplus of over 2.5%.)
These are all countries with famously generous social safety nets, universal health care, and so on. (They also have modest military forces, and high taxes.)
Another group, our “Anglo-Saxon” peers:
**Australia **
revenues: 490 billion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 496.9 billion (2017 est.)
(A deficit of less than 1.5%.)
**Canada **
revenues: 649.6 billion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 665.7 billion (2017 est.)
(A deficit of nearly 2.5%.)
New Zealand
revenues: 74.11 billion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 70.97 billion (2017 est.)
(A surplus of over 4.4%)
**United Kingdom **
revenues: 1.028 trillion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 1.079 trillion (2017 est.)
(A deficit of over 4.7%.)
And a couple of other countries for further comparison:
France
revenues: 1.392 trillion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 1.459 trillion (2017 est.)
(A deficit of over 4.5%.)
Japan
revenues: 1.714 trillion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 1.885 trillion (2017 est.)
(A deficit of over 9%.)
And then we have the United States:
revenues: 3.315 trillion (2017 est.)
expenditures: 3.981 trillion (2017 est.)
(A deficit of over 16%.)
Oh, wait, what’s this note?
note: revenues exclude social contributions of approximately $1.0 trillion; expenditures exclude social benefits of approximately $2.3 trillion
(Scratch that, the deficit is actually over 31%!)
And we don’t even have a very good social safety net! We have a very expensive social safety net, which provides something like universal health insurance…for old people; and some form of “old age pension”, but which is very stingy for what American politicians call “welfare” (payments to poor people). We have an enormous military. And now we’ve had have big tax cuts for the rich (those will magically pay for themselves, just like they always do!!1!¡), and low taxes compared to a lot of the other advanced economies. All of which adds up to Zimbabwean deficit levels –Zimbabwe: revenues: 3.8 billion (2017 est.); expenditures: 5.5 billion (2017 est.); a deficit of just under 31%–and of course we are borrowing in what is effectively the World Currency (the Almighty Dollar…for now) which is quite helpful.
Compared to that
seems pretty sensible.
I’m not calling for “austerity”. I am saying “enormous tax cuts for the rich” is not sustainable. And sneering at the very idea of “fiscal responsibility” is stupid.
I think Krugman’s wrong. I consider myself a centrist. I’m not looking to vote for a right wing or a left wing candidate. I want a moderate as President.
And I saw Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all as moderates. Which is why I voted for them. I wasn’t settling for them because I couldn’t elect a more liberal candidate. I preferred Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
I think this has been a huge move in American politics that’s somehow invisible. Since the eighties, the Republican Party keeps moving to the right and the Democrats have filled the void in the center. And there’s a huge block of votes in the center.
It’s even reflected in the Republican party. When primary voters had a choice between John McCain and Mike Huckabee in 2008, they voted for McCain. When they had a choice between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in 2012, they voted for Romney.