The Democratic Party is so full of collaborationists. Just shows how democracy and capitalism are incompatible. The bourgeois class just buy the politicians.
Here’s who her donors are, if that’s of interest to anybody
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/elissa-slotkin/summary?cid=N00041357
What does “Retired” mean for top donor?
That’s broken down by profession of individual donor.
It shows that her biggest group of individual donors is boomers, who aren’t exactly known for being progressive.
Read the fucking article before you comment. It’s obvious most did not.
The article title is incredibly misleading. Even the first sentence of the article makes clear what she was actually saying:
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) has urged her Democratic colleagues to stop attacking the “oligarchy” on Thursday, arguing that the word did not resonate with most Americans and should be replaced with “kings.”
She’s advocating for using a more relatable term, not for a change in party values. The “woke” comment irks me, but again is focused on terminology and not ideology.
When you need the dumb fucks’ votes, you gotta speak their language. Or at least water it down to be palatable to someone who was “educated” in our broken-ass system.
Yea but opposing ‘kings’ isn’t even close to the problem of ‘oligarchs’
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
If it was really not ideologically tilted she’d suggest ‘billionaire’ instead of oligarch, but the dems are afraid of losing the support of the 'good billionaires
One is very clearly a result of a capitalist system, the other is a looser critique of authority generally.
I’m sure the average, middle-of-the-road voter with mundane concerns thinks that. So relatable.
“King” isn’t even related to capitalism.
People really like first not admitting they didn’t read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
“People shouldn’t be able to have that much money when everyone else is struggling”
You’re right, that is completely unrelatable, who would ever think like that
People really like first not admitting they didn’t read, then doubling down on absolute nonsense around here.
You speaking for yourself there?
I think we’re both talking past each other: oligarchy doesn’t imply capitalism, either.
The order you wrote the 2 sentences—kings…oligarchs then one…the other—isn’t parallel. Oligarchs have lesser, shared authority than a king, and neither implies capitalism, so semantic cues weren’t clear enough to reject suggested parallelism.
Someone who knows the cognitive meaning of oligarch would be confused the way you wrote that.
Anyhow, anti-capitalist sentiment isn’t really that relatable to many Americans: too many Americans dream about gaining obscene wealth, socialism is still a dirty word among too many, they think those business elites somehow “earned it more” than others. There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk. Meeting them where they at with a more familiar word isn’t irrational, either.
While I’m fine with explicit language to oppose business oligarchs, I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
The… cognitive meaning? Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?
There is some reason to think criticizing power (elites stacking the deck in their favor like unelected rulers) is more likely to broadly appeal to those folk
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck?? I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well - that the ‘elite’ are able to stack the deck in their favor because they have obscene wealth. Elon bought his way into trump’s circle and fucked with Wisconsin’s election using his immense fortune and influence. That isn’t a mystery, not even to diehard conservatives.
The other issue with ‘kings’ is that in a MONarchy, there is only one monarch, one King. Even the people you’re claiming to speak for know that the problem extends well beyond Trump, and thinking of Elon and Bezos and Zuck and Gates all as Kings of their own kingdom unnecessarily complicates what is otherwise a clear quid-pro-quo relationship between them and a government they are supposed to be subservient to. Oligarchs may be ‘officially’ less than the governing structure they’re a part of, but they are the defining feature of a government by the name of oligarchy.
I also see an argument for a different tact & same results in rustier, less urban states.
I have family in those states, and even though we have differing voting habits, they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence. It is often one of the few things we have in common politically, and I think democrats just don’t want it to be true.
Wtf is a ‘cognitive’ meaning?
Cognitive meaning is when words are used to convey information and emotive meaning is when words are used to convey your own beliefs (your emotions).
And how do you think those elites are stacking the deck??
It’s not about me. It’s about how others think, and they don’t necessarily think wealth is a problem. They may think more about power & corruption.
I think you’re intentionally dismissing something that most americans understand extremely well
I think you overestimate Americans & don’t know how many think unlike you.
they have always shared my resentment against those with ill-begotten obscene wealth and influence
That’s cool for your family.
It’s a mixed bag: plenty of people in those states also vote the way they do because they think they someday could be rich. There’s an anti-intellectual strain that dislikes people who say words like oligarch.
Merely complaining that someone is rich is oblique & takes some steps & assumptions to arrive to the part that bothers people. Complaining that they exercise undue power over you & cheat you out of a fair shot makes the point directly.
Many had little problem with the wealthy itself until they saw the Musks, Bezos, & Zuckerbergs line up with the president for favors, ie, corruption.
I understand where people are coming from when they say “identity politics” are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular, but I understand where it comes from.
But if she also thinks we shouldn’t be talking about class either, what the fuck does she want to do?
I understand where people are coming from when they say “identity politics” are politics getting in the way of class struggle. I vehemently disagree with it, these are also important issues we need to stand up for even when they are sometimes unpopular
The thing is, the things that help everyone helps everyone…
The people suffering from identity politics politicizing their existence as well
But when shit sucks, people lash out. If we were taking care of everyone, they wouldn’t need a Boogeyman to blame to distract them from the real problem.
Fixing the class issue makes it easier to fix societal issues.
You’re literally arguing to put the cart before the horse, to do things in the least effective manner to achieve all goals.
That’s why the wealthy use it to distract people, even though you think you understand it. You’re still missing the point and falling for it. It’s an effective strategy and loads of people keep falling for it. It exploits natural logic, because it should be easier to handle “identity politics” because it’s way less people.
Humans aren’t wired to think of more than like 220 people, and that fact is exploited by the wealthy constantly
If we want to take care of everyone, then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone. We have to stand up against persecution and injustice. We have to proactively offer a hand up to those who need it most right now. When people are being oppressed, silence is complicity.
If you want to sweep issues under the rug when they feel politically inconvenient, then you can’t also say you’re taking care of everyone.
then we need to be sure that we actually are taking care of everyone.
Literally what I’m saying…
We’re not, we should be, and that should be priority 1 because everything else is easy.
You’re so close to understanding this.
Does taking care of everyone mean saying “sorry you can’t get HRT, it just doesn’t poll well enough”?
I take back what I said:
You’re so close to understanding this.
I’m sorry I can’t put this very simple topic in a way you can understand. Hopefully someone else has better luck
So many people will say “this is a gross oversimplification, they do lots of progressive things” while ignoring the world around them.
The fact we had to invent a political term for them is enough to tell me that we need to abandon this fascist supporting party.
Outsider opinion: There are two sides who haven’t voted for you, one side who says they’ll vote for you if you change, and another side who says they’ll never vote anything but red. There seems to be an obvious vote to go after.
Capitulation to the right hasn’t worked for 20 years. The Third Way is dead and no one respects it.
Not only do we not respect it, we hate it with the heat of a thousand suns
deleted by creator
Elissa Slotkin IS the oligarchy. She is the Hot Dog Princess. Her grandpa owned BallPark Franks—subsidiary of the Tyson Foods megacorp. Every time someone eats a hot dog, Elissa gets more passive income than most folks earn from a year’s labor.
I feel like the headline conveys a different message than even what the article does:
“She said Democrats should stop using the term ‘oligarchy,’ a phrase she said doesn’t resonate beyond coastal institutions, and just say that the party opposes ‘kings,'”
argued that the Democratic Party needed to lose its “weak and woke” reputation and “fucking retake the flag,” adopting a “goddamn Alpha energy”
She’s literally saying the word oligarchy sounds pretentious and an opposition to kings resonates better, and that people think the party is weak and they need to present themselves more aggressively.
Click bait is click bait.
An Oligarch & a King are not the same fucking thing.
Sorry if people use big, scary words that mean things.
EDIT: What’s actually pretentious is talking down to people b/c you believe they are too stoopid to understand what an Oligarch is or learn if they don’t. She’s talking down to the Democratic Party for not talking down to their constituents. Pretty fucking pretentious if you ask me.
LMAO I’m well aware far-left lemmy will downvote me for saying this, but the fact that you’re copping an attitude with that person is funny because lefties are absolutely TERRIBLE at messaging. Democrats and lefties suck so badly at communicating with voters that a guy who rambled incoherently about immigrants eating pets was able to beat them.
Sadly, no, most Americans don’t know what the hell an ‘oligarch’ is because that’s what happens when you have decades of Republicans de-funding education. Pointing this out isn’t ‘pretentious’, because it’s sadly true.
And this is why fascism is winning.
Yep. When the ‘resistance’ grand plans are to adopt the fascist framing (e.g. that ‘woke is weak’ and should be surrendered) what’s the point in having an opposition party?
deleted by creator
Slotkin is the new Sinema and can GFY, but there is a component to this that does deserve some discussion.
If you look back on the past 10 years of the Democrats climbing hills for issues, I think it’s out of sync with the majority of people. The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that. Maybe there was a time when this was what their constituents wanted, but no longer.
Now they need to be really fucking strong on fighting the billionaires, pushing back against the front to vast majority of the country that has no wealth, and finding ways to make that flip around so that the wealthy who are imposing the enshitification of the lower and middle class are held accountable for doing so.
Forget the current struggles we’re forced to dread living through, and give people a clear plan and the hope that you’ll actually be attacking these things when elected. Seems pretty simple.
The staunch fight for identity politics is not what people seem to want or need right now, and they need to understand that.
They’re paid a lot of money specifically so they don’t understand that…
The entire reason for the culture war is to distract people from the fact that the wealthiest are fighting a class war.
You think she can’t understand because she’s not able to. It’s a willful ignorance, and require lots of money for that cognitive dissonance
Slotkin is the kind of Democrat who will be literally seig heiling at the DNC convention in ten years if the party continues to pursue the policies of capitulation that she is advocating for here. Four decades of this approach by this party has enabled the rise of US fascism we are dealing with now.
It’s really nice when the false progressives out themselves so openly.
We don’t need more “pro-israel centrists”
The reason Dem turnout in generals is depressed, is our choices are CIA war criminals like Slotking or a republican.
She is the problem, not the 99.9% who don’t want an oligarchy
I completely agree, but it’s also likely a reasonable representation of her Michigan constituents. It’s not a terribly diverse state.
I mean Michigan was the epicenter and main stronghold of the Uncommitted Movement; there’s obviously a good amount of support for progressive Palestine policy there.
You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support? The campaign designed to create a wedge issue in the 2024 election by simultaneously driving disinformation down politicians’ throats while stoking anti-Israel sentiment among progressive communities?
I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Disclaimer for the incoming troll replies: I’m not pro-genocide, I’m simply in favor of choosing the best of possible outcomes, of which Harris was clearly a better outcome for Palestine. Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
Good to know there are still Americans who haven’t learned a goddamn thing from November. This situation is directly the result of Democrat-voting Americans crying about the lesser evil while shutting down all attempts to make it not evil.
You’re pointing to a Mossad coordinated disinformation campaign as evidence that Michigan is a good spot to look for popular national support?
God not everything you don’t like is a foreign disinformation campaign.
I’m not saying it’s a bad take because obviously I can’t prove to you that Mossad played a part, but think about the result of the “Uncommitted Movement” and who in Israel benefits by having Trump in office.
Uncommitted wasn’t about giving Trump the White House, but about getting Harris and the DNC to stop supporting the genocide and then win in November. That obviously didn’t work out because rather than support them or even stay silent people like you kept shutting them down and dismissing their concerns about both the election and their loved ones being brutally murdered by goddamn modern Nazis.
Can you even imagine her announcing the Riviera of the Middle East?
No, but I also couldn’t imagine her winning, which is exactly the problem here.
But demanding opposition to genocide and neoliberal policies is purity testing!
Why can’t the left just accept liberal capitalism instead of purity testing human rights?
Surely the problem is with leftist individuals who hate liberalism so much they must secretly support Trump.
It couldn’t be any systemic or material issues that have compounded over decades, leading to populist sentiment and opposition to the status quo, as people demand solutions to the cost of living crisis that they’ve seen only ever get worse. It was surely not a mistake to not run of overwhelmingly popular democratic socialist policies that would’ve directly addressed those issues, or run on no weapons embargo despite it’s overwhelming support. The DNC did nothing wrong, it’s all the voters fault, especially those anti-genocide ones. Who cares if they had loved ones killed by Israel, they should have known better, it’s a simple trolley problem.
/s (this kind of sentiment is so annoying)
Stalin, I hate engaging with commies, but I can’t resist a good pun.
The left doesn’t have a cohesive platform, nor any political power. Your indignation is not righteous, and your sentiment does not inspire. US politicians are generally idiots, yes, but I disagree that calling for a more moderate path in the face of a populist criminal was a bad take. We are seeing it play out in real time, and we’re all in the same boat so I hope you’re enjoying the ride.
That ‘more moderate path’ has been an abject failure, as evident by the election.
Neoliberalism ideology is what has paved the way to rampant fascism in American politics. Neoliberalism, and even liberalism for that matter, will never be a successful opposition to fascism. Being beholden to corporate interests, at the expense of the voters interest nonetheless, will and has only ever normalized if not accelerated fascist policies.
The only way to have a genuine opposition to right-wing populism is by running on a platform of left-wing populism. Ignoring the material harms people are experiencing and aware of is a losing strategy.
Left-wing populist positions are overwhelmingly popular, they are even popular with independent and Republican voters. Those positions directly benefit everyone in the working class. The only issue for the neoliberal administration in charge of the DNC is that those policies come at the expense of billionaires and massive corporations, the people who fund their convention and races to secure their interests over the general population.
Human rights is nonnegotiable. If anyone is willing to throw a group of people under the bus for any reason, they are no ally.
If the DNC prioritized running on those popular policies and actually attempted to earn as many votes as they possibly could by offering concessions to as much people as they could, they would have won. Trump would not be president. We wouldn’t be funding one genocide while ramping up concentration camps for ‘enemies within’. But the DNC has proven themselves to priorities their corporate backers over the people. Only a small few like Bernie, AOC, and The Squad are genuinely interested in opposing the fascism of the Republican party. If they gain control of the DNC, we may have a chance out of this through legislation and reform. If the DNC continues to prop up corporate interests over progressives, then the way out will become much much bloodier.
Fascism does not compromise. Appeasement is the problem. Opposition is necessary.
Edit: after seeing your other comment, I’ll provide polls that support my point, on the large support of both on the weapons embargo and on left-wing populist policies.
Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win
Kamala Would Have Won With A Weapons Embargo
Democrats’ Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are ‘Why Trump Beat Harris’
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz’s Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
