politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The democrats have been pushing that angle with Trump since 2015, and with republicans in general before that.
"Reasonableness" is at the core of democratic messaging, and that's a problem because what that does is allow the right to set priorities and values uncontested. Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama didn't stop that, he just said he would conduct the war in a more "reasonable" way. The same thing with Biden's attempted immigration bill that would've expanded the executive's ability to crack down on immigrants, the idea that cracking down on immigrants is necessary is uncontested, it's just about doing it in a more "reasonable" way. And when someone's electoral pitch is being reasonable, it puts them in a weaker position because they're expected to be reasonable and willing to compromise even when the other side stonewalls them, which republicans always do.
Apart from those things being bad, it's also not really an effective strategy. Many people are more concerned with whether a politician is on their side and representing their interests rather than whether they are being reasonable. On top of that, many Americans are straight-up anti-intellectual and so the reasonableness angle doesn't resonate with them. And there's a certain extent to which reasonableness is socially defined, and so if the current system isn't working for people and they want it to change, then they're probably not going to be concerned with existing norms of what is and isn't reasonable. Essentially, the reasonableness angle can at least potentially come across as elitist.
The democrats squeaked out a win with that angle in 2020, in the middle of Trump's terrible mishandling of the pandemic, and it's possible that they'll squeak out another one now, but if reasonableness was such an effective angle then every election against Trump should've been an absolute blowout.
I wildly disagree with this take. Both parties used to be a form of "reasonable", with differences generally around a few wedge issues, budgeting, and government size (at least outwardly). Since the Tea Party became a large voice, the Republican party has embraced conspiracy theorists, fascists, bigots, and christian nationalists. This has steadily pushed their rhetoric to absurdity. They can't even admit their guy lost in 2020! They've recently been claiming that Democrats can control the weather and that Biden's accomplishments or failures are Kamala's, despite the fact that the Vice President as as position does next to fuck-all regardless of who is in power. I think it's entirely fair for anyone with more than two lead-free braincells to rub together to point at the circus and question why it was running our country.
Additionally, Democrats are campaigning on a lot more than just being reasonable. Kamala is talking about child tax credits, first time homebuyer credits, fairer taxation, and even marijuana legalization. As a party, the Democrats have consistently been the better of the two when protecting our rights and promoting equity with minorities in our country. Sincerely, I'd literally sooner piss on a Republican than vote for one because their party is using people like me (trans woman) as a scare tactic and are legislating us out of our medical care, rights, and comfort.
What you see as a "squeaked out" win in 2020 is actually a predictor of what happened in 2022. A complete blowout where Democrats won way more seats than was expected of them. And a lot of that was because they're the only "reasonable" party left. I don't think that's a losing position. It would take them actively spitting on the center-right or center-left of this country to make them lose the support they've garnered by trying to keep our heads above water and fascism out of our country's government.
I never claimed that the Republicans are not unreasonable. As you say, the Tea Party was very unreasonable, and republicans at that time stonewalled Obama, despite his all of his attempts at reasonable compromise. That's my point, it isn't new.
My issue is that the narrative of reasonableness is tied to the status quo. When the status quo is failing, then people will be more prone to drastic changes then staying the course. If the two sides are "the status quo" and "not the status quo," then the worse the status quo gets, the more prone people will be to consider the "not the status quo" option. If you think things are generally headed in the right direction, I suppose that's fine, but if you feel, as I do, that conditions are deteriorating, then that's a problem, and if that continues, then it becomes inevitable that the strongest "not the status quo" option is going to win, whether now or later.
That's why I think it's a better strategy for the left to embrace progressive policies in a very bold way, in order to present an alternative vision of the future that is distinct from both the status quo and the far-right. Those policies would be the best chance of setting us on a positive path that would prevent things from falling into chaos, while also offering an alternative to the failing capitalist status quo that isn't fascism. Because the road we're on currently makes fascism an inevitability.
If what you say is true, and the democrats are now assured victory on the basis of being the only reasonable party left, then why is this election still a toss-up?