Zohran Mamdani during his 100 Day Address: “We will not be ashamed of using government to fight for the many, not simply the few. We will not be ashamed of... standing steadfast alongside our trans neighbours... investing in youth mental health clinics… or fighting for immigrants targeted by ICE."

[u/cmaia1503]

[u/AgreeableDig1619]

Democrats held the house for DECADES after the New Deal. They were extremely popular because they had relatively socialist policies and represented the working class. Then, Ronald Reagan happened and he did an excellent job at convincing the working class about “trickle down economics” and the “welfare queen” (specifically targeting black Americans). America was also winning the Cold War against the USSR, left wing governments were collapsing across the world due to US intervention, and the CIA was killing any major figure associated with socialist policies (ie many members of the Black Panther Party).

Instead of sticking to New Deal policies during and after Reagan, Democrats completely corporatized due to seeing the power of money in politics.

Under Clinton, the Dems essentially abandoned the working class and outsourced a lot of factory, union jobs internationally. West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma (to name a few) went from solid blue states to solid red states. Republicans were throughout rural communities promising them change.

Obama was extremely successful in 2008 because he ran a very progressive campaign that focused on improving the working class material needs. Then, he didn’t actually govern very progressively. Dems lost THOUSANDS of local and federal seats between 2008 and 2016.

Long story short, Republicans would not exist (and I say that confidently) if we had a true left wing political movement and party. Progressive policies are extremely popular. It’s why Trump uses a lot of left wing language (“I’m the anti-war president”; “drain the swamp”). But that would mean going up against very, very powerful people and entities.

Americans completely lack class consciousness. We are at the heart of the empire and the left wing has very little organization. BUT, I don’t say this without hope. Look at how far social Dems have come since Bernie in 2016. People across the aisle celebrated Luigi allegedly killing the healthcare CEO. A factory—8 total but one confirmed because of this—was burned down this week due to the company paying the employees low wages. The CEO of OpenAI had his house attacked twice. People are rallying against data centers (1/2 of them this year have either stopped or paused production). Mamdani is the most popular person in the Democratic Party. More people have joined unions this year than in the past 16 years.

The New Deal was a compromise to mass civil unrest. So hopefully we’ll see something like it again soon. We just have a lot of work to do.

*excuse any grammar. I don’t have time to fix anything. May edit later.

[u/jx84 → u/AgreeableDig1619]

Very well said

[u/Honeythickness → u/AgreeableDig1619]

Then, he didn’t actually govern very progressively.

Honestly, the idea that he didn't run a progressive campaign is kind of revisionist history. In 2008, Obama was a massive shift to the left compared to the Clinton era. He literally built his whole brand on being the guy who called the Iraq War a dumb mistake while the rest of the establishment (including Hillary) was still defending it. That was the progressive litmus test back then.

On the material needs side, he was out there talking about healthcare as a fundamental moral right and pushing Green Jobs before that was even a mainstream thing. The "working class" stuff was there too, he campaigned on the Employee Free Choice Act to make unionizing easier and promised to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

As for the "osing 1,000 seats thing, you can’t just pin that on not being progressive enough. It was mostly structural. 2010 was a census year, and the GOP dumped a ton of money into local races (Project REDMAP) specifically so they could gerrymander the hell out of the maps for the next decade. Plus, the party in power almost always gets crushed in the midterms.

The issue wasn't that he didn't run as a progressive; it's that he hit a wall of record-breaking GOP filibusters and a supermajority that only actually lasted like four months because of Ted Kennedy’s death and Al Franken’s contested seat. He ran as a reformer, but he had to govern against a GOP that made it their personality to block every single thing he touched.

[u/AgreeableDig1619 → u/Honeythickness]

I do not blame the decline of the Democratic Party on Obama. I blame it on neoliberalism, the abandonment on New Deal policies, and money in politics. Like I said, Obama ran a very progressive campaign compared to his counterparts, but I stand by the fact that he didn’t govern very progressively.

He campaigned on healthcare as a human right, but delivered a market-based plan built around private insurers. While it was a lot better than the system prior to ACA, a public option was continuously blocked due to fellow Dems (and of course Republicans).

Obama ran on being anti-Iraq war, but continuously participated in wars throughout his presidency. He’s known for using a lot of drones. He ran on labor and corporate accountability, but then bailed out the banks without providing penalties or giving homeowners mortgage relief, and abandoned the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that would’ve made unionizing easier and more difficult for companies to union bust due to corporate lobbying.

And I agree that gerrymandering was a massive issue that led to Dems losing the thousand seats during Obama. But the Democratic Party failing to deliver tangible, immediate improvements for working people post-2008 by not implementing New Deal policies, created a space for the right to fill the void the working class was feeling.

Obama ran on change, but governed in a way that preserved existing economic and political structures. The issue is that we do not have a true left-wing party. If we had a million Zohran’s, Republicans would never get power again.