Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Soulless): ‘Nobody Dies Because They Don’t Have Access To Health Care’

[moonbladem]

Of course, neither he, his family nor the GOP ever have to find out if that's true.

Comments

[moonshaz]

big reason why i don't think thejacobin/intercept neoliberal wahrgarbleis anymore convincing than anything the establishment dems are doing.

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm going to ask anyway, lol...

I find this comment confusing, and I'm really unclear about what you intended to convey, particularly the part I've bolded.  I googled "jacobin"  but didn't get anything that was very helpful in understanding what you mean here. I'm assuming the word has some specific meaning here (beyond the apparent historical reference), but I can't work out what that is, particularly in the context of what Democrats are currently doing.

I'm not sure what "intercept" means in this context, either. I have some theories, but I don't want to assume anything. And I really don't have any idea how either "jacobin" or "intercept" relates to "neoliberal."

In particular, it would a big help if you could elaborate on what thing(s) the "establishment dems" are doing that you find unconvincing. Or maybe just give an example or two?

In closing, I realize there are quite a few people here who have an extremely negative view of the Democratic Party, especially its so-called  "neoliberalism," but not all of us are at the point where we literally can't see anythingpositive about it. Personally, I know the party isn't perfect (what the hell is?), but I'm far from being ready to flush it down the toilet. And with that orange baboon in the White House, I honestly feel like there are higher priorities to put our energy into at the moment than trashing the major party that opposes him. I have a lot of respect for those  Dems in Congress who are speaking out about the awful things the GOP wants to do and doing everything they can to put as many roadblocks as possible in the path of Trump and his congressional toadies--not an easy job whhen they’re as outnumbered as they currently are.

[lovedforaday]

The Jacobin is a Progressive website and magazine similar to the Intercept. They post essays that often show up here, there's one on the front page right now.

The big thing that annoy me about the Dems, and the Progressives for that matter, is their, imo, mistaken belief if they reach out more to White people, or in the progressives case, keep the "identity politics" talk to a minimum, they'll vote for Dems in bigger numbers. That ship has sailed and it sailed 30 plus years ago. Time to shore up the devoted base and quit taking them for granted and focus on shit like voter suppression (real voter suppression not independents can't vote in primaries "voter suppression").

[blackjedii]

Except - and lord know I say that a lot - that may work in California, or New York, and it may win the Dems the Senate, but forgetting about "white people" (which is such a muddled thing anyway since there is no collective anyone) will not hand them the House of Reps. You need geographical advantage to get the numbers for that, and the Dems don't have it.

I'd also point out that a southern Dem is different from a San Francisco Dem, who is probably different from a Rhode Island Dem. Hence why I side-eye the idea of purity tests and/or falling back on identity politics as a catch-all for defining groups in different parts of the country.

tl;dr either way it's all about districting and who you can get to vote where. And voter suppression is only a small part of it when you don't even bother running candidates because "the data doesn't support it"

[lovedforaday]

I don't agree with the Dems not running anyone, but I can't blame them when the Dem candidate barely gets 30% of the vote in some districts. But then I believe white folks abandoned the Dem party, especially after CRA and Reagan's and Nixon's dogwhistles, instead of the other way around.

I'm aware that Dems are different in different parts of the country, but that won't stop me from feeling alienated when Progressives who lectured people all election season now want to run imperfect candidates to chase votes. I will still vote, of course, I don't have the privilege to believe the parties are the same.

[blackjedii]

There are still Dems in WV and rural areas of Virginia so I don't think it's just that "white working" has abandoned - there's a lot of chicken and egg to that issue because Dems really HAVEN'T tried to dissociate themselves from the "elite" label or do anything to change their own narrative. And there's a lot to be said about just how run down and absolutely trashed some of the poorest areas are. Dems write it off and Repubs know it's easy picking so they make a lot of promises and not keep them, It's all lose-lose...

I'm not saying Dems have to run everyone everywhere and pour money into everything but they have to at LEAST make an effort to get some skin back in the game outside of their safe urban districts. There's elections for mayor, elections for board of education (and srsly - think of how much THAT would pay off to have Democratic-leaning school board people who get to decide funding and decide whether their kids get ACTUAL sex education and write rules about discussing sexuality or adding Creationism to science class) , there's delegates to state houses, etc. The Republicans figured out in the early 2000s that was where to target and it's paid off BIG TIME.

[moonshaz]

Thanks for the clarification. I think we are mostly in agreement about the reaching out thing. I think reaching out is fine UP TO A POINT, but the minute they start compromising on things the Dems have always stood for, that's where I draw the line. Like reproductive rights--I don't necessarily care what someone's PURELY PERSONAL beliefs about abortion are, but afaic, anyone who wants to call themselves a Dem had better be willing to protect the rights of women to make their own choices and NOT be trying to enact their personal anti-abortion beliefs into law. If they can separate their personal beliefs from their responsibility as lawmakers, fine. If not, they won't get my vote or my support.

As for "identity politics," ugh, I'm sick of people using that phrase like it means something nasty! I became a Democrat years ago because that was the only major party that seemed to care about the needs and rights of women, minorities, poor people (including poor whites), etc. It was a long time ago, so lgbtq rights weren’t on the list yet, but when lgbtq folks started fighting for better treatment, it was right and natural, it was the Dems who supported that. You could name just about any group other than straight, white, rich, cis males and it's been the Dems, if anyone, who have been most active in passing laws that address their needs. I definitely agree that it's "time to shore up the devoted base." Furthermore, I think there's a lot of education that needs to be done, to remind people in all those non "straight, white, rich, cis male" groups that there's only one major party that gives a single fuck about them, and it ain't the GOP! Recognizing that the Democrats are the only major party that has an IOTA of interest in doing anything to help poor people, poc, women, glbtq folks, etc. isn’t "identity politics," afaic; it's simply reality!