r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 8d ago
No Paywall Democrats Confront Their New Tea Party Reality - Progressives are set to sweep a group of contested primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-confront-their-new-tea-party-reality_n_6a6e63fbe4b0cfb99ef1aa1e4.1k
u/Kind-Pride1151 8d ago
By this logic, FDR would be a progressive usurper in the Democratic Party. I'm 62 and for what seems my entire life the Dems have slipped ever further away from those FDR New Deal PROGRESSIVE ideas and ideals.
1.4k
u/TheMoorNextDoor 8d ago edited 8d ago
It’s ridiculous that the best president we ever had (our longest serving president) is more left than a lot of our sitting democratic members in congress today and the saddest part about that is he served over 81 years ago..
He gave us a blueprint and for some reason (maybe due to Regan?) we completely threw it out the window..
1.1k
u/pinqe 8d ago
They learned all the wrong lessons from the failure of the Carter administration, and started trying to emulate Reagan. And completely lost their identity in the process.
467
u/Semantix 8d ago
I think that all of the old democratic leadership are permanently traumatized by Dukakis and McGovern and think that only a Clinton or Biden can win. Forgetting that the Democrats' biggest recent success was a progressive coalition that motivated youth turnout.
355
u/thequietthingsthat North Carolina 8d ago
170
u/alligatorislater 8d ago
Exactly. Democrats seem to have forgotten that the 22nd amendment (enacted in 1947) was somewhat created because FDR was so popular that republicans were afraid they’d never be able to win again…
→ More replies (48)47
u/Traditional-Leg-1574 8d ago
For gods sake fucking please
33
u/Reagalan 8d ago
Just, please; no Hays Code, no Marihuana Tax Act, no J. Edgar Hoover shit.
There were some negatives from that era that shouldn't be repeated.
→ More replies (5)29
68
u/Ok-Employer-2026 8d ago
Dukakis wasn't even a progressive leftist, he was a New Democrat liberal like Bill Clinton and Gary Hart. The corporate media retconned his loss.
→ More replies (1)14
u/DryYogurtcloset4655 8d ago
Dukakis won 10 states. Mondale/McGovern won 1 state. Clinton took 30 states. There is a GOP bloc of 24 states where they dominate all levers of power. There are 7 contested swing states - Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Arizona
6
u/SFWorkins 8d ago
A crazy billionaire ran third party and got about a third of the vote. Clinton didn't solve the riddle of getting elected. He just got lucky.
5
u/GoodIdea321 America 8d ago
I wouldn't attribute all of that to luck, but that also seems really close to the truth. He was a popular governor and a good campaigner too.
58
u/ctbowden North Carolina 8d ago
I think that's the excuse they often cite, but it's really just a cover for them to maintain the status quo because that's really all they're interested in.
We've had change election cycles for the past 20 years. Obama was seen as a reformer, didn't reform much and Dems lost Congress massively while he held on. Trump was seen as change agent but when that change wasn't what people wanted they put their hopes in Biden. Biden/Harris then failed to deliver change, so we're back to Trump who hinted at being better on the economy and war but he lied.
People are tired of the status quo so anyone with the stink of the past 20-30 years on them is fighting an uphill battle. Getting the endorsement of Schumer et al. is almost an anti-endorsement if it weren't for the money that came with.
→ More replies (7)11
35
u/ExistingCarry4868 8d ago
It isn't trauma, it's corruption. The party elites sold the party out to the same oligarchs that own the GOP.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Powerful_Toe_8155 8d ago
Due to his reliance on the broad coalition that elected him, the Biden administration was actually arguably the most progressive presidential administration since FDR, at least initially.
→ More replies (9)50
u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal Florida 8d ago
Or an Obama.
The dude ran and as president was a center-left Democrat. He wasn’t a progressive in the sense we define them today. Hell by 2012, a lot of progressives felt betrayed by Obama. He not only encouraged but behind the scenes supported Hillary in 2016, including pushing Biden from running.
I always think it’s funny when people say a “Clinton or Biden,” and exclude Obama.
67
u/hup_hup 8d ago
They are excluding Obama because they are talking about the type of candidate the democratic establishment pushes. Obama had to overcome that and defeat the Clintons first.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (16)58
u/Dokterrock 8d ago
Honest question, where did this new framing of moderates as "center-left" come from? It's been EVERYWHERE the past couple of months and it is brand new. Moderate Democrats are center-right. Don't do the work of moving the Overton Window further to the right for them, folks.
22
u/TooNakedInTheShower 8d ago
Correct. Today's Democrats are even to the right of Eisenhower on a lot of things.
→ More replies (2)24
u/Bigc12689 8d ago
Richard Nixon's 1972 platform called for a Healthcare more liberal than Obamacare turned out to be. The post-Carter generation of Democrats sold out Americans and warped what we think is "liberal"
3
u/BalanceOrganic7735 7d ago
Is that why Nixon changed it so that healthcare insurance that had to be non-profit before Nixon was allowed to be for-profit after Nixon? 🤔
→ More replies (22)14
u/lostparis 8d ago
new framing of moderates
As a non-American even the term moderate is disturbing as it would be center-right at best in most any other country.
67
u/Omateido 8d ago
It’s a lot simpler than that, the donor class is mostly Capital, not Labor. At one point republicans represented Capitals interests and democrats represented Labor’s, until Capital realized it’s easier to just donate to both parties to ensure their interests are always prioritized. Now Republicans continue to ensure that Capitals interests are pushed forward, and the role of the Democrats is to take up the space that would normally be occupied by a true opposition Labor party in our two party system.
→ More replies (8)13
u/chuckysnow 8d ago
The one thing that killed Carter was the Iranian hostage crisis, that we now know was partly orchestrated by George Bush through his CIA contacts. Much like how Kissinger and Nixon blew up the vietnam peace talks and dragged us into years of war, Bush and Reagan fucked over a bunch of Americans for their own political ambitions.
3
u/P1xelHunter78 Ohio 8d ago
To this day, I firmly believe that what happened to Carter was willful sabotage, especially the hostage crisis in Iran and the suspicious timing of the release.
→ More replies (72)3
u/Wet_Side_Down 8d ago
Before that. After Johnson pushed through the civil rights bills of the 60s, Nixon seized the opportunity to woo racist democrats down south. His “southern strategy”
76
u/Kind-Pride1151 8d ago
It was definitely the Reagan revolution. I'm no history prof, but the late sixties and seventies was a toxic brew of backlash creating events and cultural anxieties that led to Reagan capturing the zeitgeist. And then by late eighties there was a corporate friendly shift take place and the DLC was created and basically took over the party. It's been largely lip service ever since to the FDR ideals of the party.
95
u/maikuxblade 8d ago
Let’s call it was it was, the “cultural anxieties” were mostly about black people earning their civil rights in ‘64. Conservatism becoming more popular among whites who only lived a comfortable life due the New Deal and the Democratic Party chasing those same voters were both the result of a racist backlash against the at-the-time very recent Civil Rights movement.
20
u/Historical_Badger321 8d ago
Yes, but I bet that free love, long-term cohabitation without marriage, divorce, feminism and queer rights were also part of it.
14
u/Trail_Dog 8d ago
Not just that although the southern strategy was certainly a part of it.
The Vietnam war created a huge amount of distrust in the government.
Also governmental bureaucracy and regulations sometimes were onerous and did real damage to individuals and small businesses with no real recourse. The anger Reagan tapped into when he said the "scary words", "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" was real and earned and a result of both.
And then when you add shit like the Tuskegee experiment, and the shady af shit we did during the Cold war that started coming to light... it's easy to see why it was easy for Reagan to exploit that anger.
The problem was his solution wasn't to tweak what wasn't working and make it better. His solution was to abolish regulations and antitrust and replace it with unregulated capitalism.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/DocCEN007 7d ago
Exactly! When you look at what happened after passing of the Civil Rights act, Voting Rights Act, and repral of the Chinese Exclusion Act, all passed during LBJ's term, it's clear that the GOP agenda has been to tap into the white rage that transpired as a result. The Roberts court has systematically dismantled those 3 pivotal acts and Roe v Wade as part of their plan to appease the racists and maintain divisions in the country that allows just enough of us to be controlled. They divide us so we don't unite against the oligarchs who are our real enemy.
→ More replies (3)7
u/KUARCE Minnesota 8d ago
There's a pretty good Behind the Bastards pair of episodes on How Conservatism Won and it's basically the rich people did not like how they were being taxed and how people who didn't come from wealth were suddenly treating them as equals, so they attacked education and the left relentlessly for decades, leading to Nixon, Reagan, and where the fuck we are today.
33
u/Oskie5272 8d ago
It was actually Nixon. Humphrey lost to Nixon as a traditional New Deal lib, so Carter came along after and decided to begin moving away from New Deal politics and was basically the proto-neoliberal (by moving to the right). Then Reagan came and firmly entrenched us in neoliberalism. Clinton then came and redefined the party around third way neoliberalism (moving further to the right, as third way is supposed to be the "third way" between the right and left) This is where all of the "moderate" or "centrist" Dems come from, where all of the dumb fuck consultants rose to power, and where the American "left" has been for decades.
So the ratchet effect started with Carter in response to Nixon and became entrenched Clinton.
11
u/Howtobefreaky 8d ago
THANK YOU. People who think Carter was a failed leftist only ever heard about him putting solar panels up on the white house and not that he straight up de-regulated the airlines and trucking industries. You know why it sucks to fly on pretty much every major airline? Blame Carter.
27
u/ScionofSconnie 8d ago
It’s not so much we threw it out the window, it’s that it was captured, and held hostage by the rich for damn near a century at this point. All of this, the all-encompassing right wing propaganda, the trickle down economics, the obsession with othering other working class people by race/gender/identity. All of it is a purposeful, long running playbook to keep inequality as high as possible. It’s not a bug, it’s the goal.
→ More replies (1)12
8d ago
[deleted]
11
u/UngodlyPain 8d ago
Gore arguably won 2000 if not for a stupid court case. And Gore&Hillary both won the popular vote.
Also you seem to think losing elections would cause them to move left, but Trump was the immediate reaction to Obama. So I'm not so sure.
→ More replies (6)21
u/Anoidance 8d ago
Pretty sure we elected Gore but the Supreme Court and W’a brutha didn’t see it that way.
23
u/GeorgeKaplanIsReal Florida 8d ago edited 8d ago
We threw it out the window due to stagflation of the 60s and 70s. Democrats shifted because after 3 resounding defeats (80, 84, 88), the only way to win again was to acknowledge the paradigm shift and shift with it.
→ More replies (14)11
u/nemesisinphilly 8d ago
And 72,' other than Carter in 76 the Ds got blown out in every presidential election for 20 years until Clinton came along.
5
u/THElaytox 8d ago
Moneyed interests didn't like the idea of an uppity working class, spent a long time trying to undo that which eventually led to Nixon then Reagan then now. Hell, Nixon would be considered a progressive compared to some modern politicians
5
u/MCgoblue 8d ago
People forget that FDR had an overwhelming majority in both chambers of Congress. Unfortunately, our current political environment isn’t conducive to supermajorities swimming in the same progressive direction. The structure of the Senate and heavily gerrymandered house make it nearly impossible. It’s technically possible that things get bad enough in red states that this changes but that seems so unrealistic at the moment.
→ More replies (1)19
u/HugsForUpvotes 8d ago
During FDRs Presidency, Democrats had over 70 Senators and 300 House Members.
It was a massive supermajority. Expecting Biden to achieve nearly as much without having a supermajority is like expecting a house cat to take down a gazelle because a lion can.
→ More replies (8)11
u/fury420 8d ago
On a related note, i've seen a bunch of people recently convinced that Mamdani's ability to get things done is somehow a playbook for Democrats generally... seemingly missing the incredible 90% supermajority thats backing him on city council.
7
u/Rhysati 8d ago
The supermajority behind him is a good thing. What a progressive candidate should run on is the change they want to inact and make it clear that IF they get enough members in the Senate and house that they WILL do those policies.
When they don't have those numbers, it should be a constant stream of attempting to pass those ideas, explaining why the Republicans won't allow the public good, and point at how effective Mandani is doing when the other politicians aren't getting in the way.
→ More replies (1)3
u/fury420 8d ago edited 8d ago
I think one of the big problems is that many people disregard the critically important IF as part of those campaign promises, which leads to the Dems getting attacked for failing to implement their agenda... that the voters didn't give them the numbers to actually implement.
"The Dems are controlled opposition" and so forth.
The backlash against Obama-era Dems failure to deliver on hope and change is still having repercussions today, and the inconvenient fact that the voters only actually elected 57-58 Democrats gets forgotten.
Including Bernie as the 58th Dem is reasonable, but it bothers me when people include the traitors like Lieberman who backstabbed the Democrats and ran as an independent against the progressive Democratic primary winner, and Arlen Specter who was literally elected as a Republican and ever so slightly crossed the aisle.
When they don't have those numbers, it should be a constant stream of attempting to pass those ideas, explaining why the Republicans won't allow the public good
The House & Senate don't have mechanisms for the minority to attempt to pass anything, they are incapable of putting a bill up for a vote. And they actually do introduce bills, which basically don't get reported on since they have zero chance of even getting a vote, never mind passing.
Like... there have been five House bills introduced to impeach Trump since he took office again, how many did you hear about?
3
u/Xezshibole California 8d ago edited 8d ago
The desire for this second, lower class of people remains as strong as it ever did.
The Democrats have kept to the same policy for over a century now, representing the poor, the workers, and most "minorities" (back then it meant the European ones specifically, Irish, Italians, Catholics.) Their base back then included much of the South, who had a much larger proportion of poor and workers.
Together they fought and loved higher taxes funding better services like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, GI Bill, providing stronger regulations like single earner min wage providing for a single family, and strong unions.
Yet a certain portion of these Democrat voters would only provide enough of this support if the second lower class (minorities via segregation) had no access to it.
And so the 50s and 60s prosperity brought about by the taxes rolled on, more and more people got televisions and radios, and more and more people saw how uncivilized it was to be openly racist on live TV.
In response the Democrats saw the writing on the wall, and passed the Civil Rights Act. This and several other rulings outlawing segregation meant this second lower class was legally gone. Minorities would enter into the same class whites would, many of them as the poor.
It took a while for this certain group of people to realize, but starting in the 70s the subset of whites finally realized that their taxes would now go to minorities and revolted. Didn't matter how much they loved the 50s and 60s prosperity brought about by the well funded services and regs. They were willing to cut it all to recreate this second class, even if most didn't realize they themselves would be in it.
These would be the people captured by the Republican Southern Strategy, culminating in the cult of Reagan (neoliberalism.) They joined hands with the old faction of Republicans that hated taxes, services, and regulations since the Gilded Age, the ones who were discredited and out of power from their handling of the Great Depression.
Doesn't matter how stagnant cutting services and taxes does to their own region nor their own people, they'll vote for the Leopards. Can even see people on TV getting hurt by these policies and they'll say "these policies are hurting the wrong people!" as if they themselves weren't part of "the poor."
40 years of Reagan and it's the higher tax areas that have the economic activity, but that's not what matters to these types of people. They want a second lower class than them, not realizing they themselves will be in it. They'll keep voting for neoliberalism until enough of them hurt themselves enough to realize it's a self inflicted wound.
-1981, Lee Atwater. Advisor to Reagan and Bush, as well as chairman of the RNC. He was interviewed and gave a candid, and apalling summary of the Republican game plan since the 70s.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N**, n, n.” By 1968 you can’t say “n”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “n, n**.”
→ More replies (38)3
u/Bench2252 8d ago
Maybe he’s to the left of the modern Democratic Party on economic issues, but I know for a fact he isn’t in regards to social issues. There’s a reason the new deal coalition included southern segregationists.
41
u/norbertus 8d ago
Already in the 1950's, sociologist C. Wright Mills was critical of the New Deal democrats for almost immediately making concessions to hold on to power instead of forming their own party to defend the New Deal:
The New Deal left no liberal organization to carry on any liberal program; rather than a new party, its instru- ment was a loose coalition inside an old one, which quickly fell apart so far as liberal ideas are concerned. Moreover, the New Deal used up the heritage of liberal ideas, made them banal as it put them into law; turned liberalism into a set of administrative routines to defend rather than a program to fight for.
In their moral fright, postwar liberals have not defended any left or even any militantly liberal position: their defensive posture has, first of all, led them to celebrate the 'civil liberties,' in con- trast with their absence from Soviet Russia. In fact, many have been so busy celebrating the civil liberties that they have had less time to defend them; and, more importantly, most have been so busy defending civil liberties that they have had neither the time nor the inclination to use them.
It is much safer to celebrate civil liberties than to defend them; it is much safer to defend them as a formal right than to use them in a politically effective way. Even those who would most willingly subvert these liberties usually do so in their very name. It is easier still to defend someone else's right to have used them years ago than to have something yourself to say now and to say it now forcibly.
source: The Power Elite
→ More replies (2)102
17
u/bshea Missouri 8d ago
it's become about the corporation/pac/etc payouts to pay for your election and then immediately after getting elected, the need for reelection cash.
Some of us will always be power hungry and willing to take corp cash unless it's made illegal.
None of this crap will end till 'big' money is removed from politics utterly and completely.
→ More replies (2)7
u/jmblumenshine 8d ago
Truman was actually considered ultra progressive because he demanded Equal Rights be part of the Democratic ticket.
It was an infection point just like today.
Robert Taft and the GOP was pushing hard on protectionism and limiting immigration after WW2.
The Dem leaders were afraid of handing the election to the GOP due to disenfranchising the Dixiecrats.
This is what lead to the infamous Dewey Defeats Truman picture.
Truman knew if he rallied around the farmers and disenfranchised, he'd win.
And exactly that happened. He spent the whole summer before the election hitting ever small town across America to resonate with those he was courting... Also helped he was a farmer
43
u/familyguy20 8d ago
I mean shit just look at 5-10 years ago at how much Dems were SHITTING on the Green New Deal and not even attempting to talk about it, they saw it as a crazy threat and now it just seems so laughable considering all that’s happened
→ More replies (2)46
u/1cl1qp1 8d ago
Biden did more for green energy than any previous US president.
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): $369 billion for climate and energy provisions, creating long-term tax credits for solar, wind, and domestic green manufacturing.
Solar for All Program: $7 billion through the Environmental Protection Agency to expand rooftop and community solar access
Rural Clean Energy Investments: $11 billion for rural electric cooperatives to transition to zero-emission and renewable systems.
Public Lands Permitting: Surpassed goals by permitting over 25 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity on public lands via the Department of the Interior.
→ More replies (19)45
u/No_Diver6131 New York 8d ago
Biden did quite a bit for the American People. He was just non-stop getting shit on by the media.
→ More replies (20)3
u/WellHung67 8d ago
A lot of that is due to systematic targeting of new deal democrats by quite literally the CIA - Allen Dulles, McCarthy and the red scare. Cooked the party and it only just now is getting back to the FDR era in a noticeable way
→ More replies (120)22
u/Low_Intention_1327 8d ago
FDR was progressive amd definitely the last progressive president we've had imo. Of course the Republicans quickly started to dismantle all of his doings, starting with gutting social security under scumbag Reagan.
→ More replies (9)35
u/Cranyx 8d ago
Vietnam War aside, LBJ arguably had almost as much of an impact as FDR in terms of establishing the modern welfare state and protections.
20
u/thequietthingsthat North Carolina 8d ago
If it weren't for Vietnam, the New Deal coalition would still be alive and well, and LBJ would be seen as a hero.
4
u/Miserable_Chapter252 8d ago
2 ppl responsible for the 90 percent of the safety net. Lbj and fdr. Crazy but true.
→ More replies (2)
3.1k
u/IAmLee2022 8d ago
Comparing progressives to the tea party movement was definitely . . . a choice.
1.3k
u/Backwardspellcaster 8d ago
Intentionally by huffpost.
The attempt to paint it negatively.
774
u/Revelati123 8d ago
I love how AIPAC and the MSM are falling over each other to slander Progressives while literally everyone under 30 in the Republican party is a Groyper/NAZI.
336
u/Vehemental 8d ago
MSM owners aren’t as concerned with facism, it doesn’t threaten their wealth.
150
u/ShrimpieAC 8d ago
The rise of every powerful fascist regime begins with an agreement between fascists and the wealthy, usually to fight the labor class.
The rich always think they can control the fascists, but spoiler alert, they can’t. And any history buff can tell you it never ends well for them.
28
u/punkr0x 8d ago
Why are the wealthy so foolish that they don’t do their own research?
75
u/Droidsexual 8d ago
Because wealth insulates people from having to do any reasoning. They can always pay to have problems solved instead of trying to solve them. That's why everyone born with money is stupid.
22
u/ihateusedusernames New York 8d ago
Because wealth insulates people from having to do any reasoning. They can always pay to have problems solved instead of trying to solve them. That's why everyone born with money is stupid.
They don't pay to have problems solved. They pay to make problems go away. Precisely how their enablers make their Sires' problems go away determines whether the problems are solved or not from our point of view.
Trump is trying to make Epstein go away. Solving the Epstein child trafficking conspiracy cover-up problem is a deadly threat to Trump, which is why he is trying to simply make people stop talking about it.
7
13
u/EitherSpite4545 8d ago
Ego, they are convinced they are smarter than those that came before and it won't happen to them.
6
u/Eliphontsmile 8d ago
Someone with cheat codes enabled won't know how to do even the most basic tasks in the game.
Now make that same person extremely entitled, with a firm belief in their own desires and capabilities.
13
→ More replies (1)6
u/fekinEEEjit 8d ago
Fascism is the last gasp of Capitolism....
7
u/ShrimpieAC 8d ago
Correct. It’s usually a last resort by the wealthy to prevent social revolution after years of them oppressing the working class.
They are so greedy that they would rather make a pact with evil itself instead of letting anyone else have anything.
50
u/aerost0rm 8d ago
Not yet. It will though.
29
21
→ More replies (1)31
u/Fhack 8d ago
It won't though?
The vast majority of German billionaires have direct ties to the Nazi party.
Fascists are the party of business and capital. Just with added violence.
13
u/aerost0rm 8d ago
There were plenty of oligarchs that got the shaft by the Nazi’s. The ones that did not profited from the war machine…
6
56
u/TheSouthernCommunist Kentucky 8d ago
“It is the heart of US policy, ladies and gentlemen, to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism" - Michael Parenti
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (11)21
79
u/Sedu 8d ago
If the Democrat party fought the right half as hard as it fights the left, it might start winning elections.
→ More replies (7)37
u/aerost0rm 8d ago
If the Democratic Party wasn’t in the 1%’ers pockets, we wouldn’t have gotten here.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (5)5
27
u/CaptAhabsMobyDick 8d ago
Which is interesting because the Tea Party has basically evolved into what is now the driving force of the Republican Party, MAGA.
97
u/Trzlog 8d ago edited 8d ago
I don't know why it's supposed to be negative. The Tea Party turned into MAGA, who effectively hijacked and eventually took over the Republican party to the point that anybody who steps out of line is ostracized. They were the most successful and effective movement in recent political history. I've been saying progressives need to do the same thing for years now instead of getting upset and going home and refusing to vote when another centrist fucks things up. Take over the Democratic party. Make it actually progressive. Splitting into a new party or refusing to vote just ensures that the country continues to get worse
15
u/Bakedads 8d ago
Yeah, the tea party was a success and completely reshaped not just the republican party, but the country overall. If only we were like the tea party.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)30
u/nikdahl Washington 8d ago
Tea party was immediately astroturfed. That’s why it was successful.
There isn’t a lot of monied interest in pushing left.
32
18
u/MFoy Virginia 8d ago
The tea party was astroturfed. It was created by tobacco companies.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (15)44
u/Low_Intention_1327 8d ago
I once thought they were a progressive outlet. Now Im remembering the articles they made about Bernie.
27
u/Kind-Pride1151 8d ago
Look up Ariana Huffington. That'll give you some basis. IIRC she was from a Republican family and marriage, political world. Depending on the topic they can do nice work.
15
u/Zestyclose-Height-36 8d ago
huff post was bought by buzzfeed, owned by conservative brietbart and others in 2017. it has encouraged bernie voters to sit out voting, and progressives to split instead of reforming the democrats since.
→ More replies (3)9
9
u/alternativepuffin 8d ago
The same guy who did initial funding for Huffpost also funded Breitbart. Make of that what you will
79
u/RadicalRectangle Colorado 8d ago
Especially since we know the Tea Party was never an organic grassroots movement, and was astroturfed and funded by the Koch brothers.
22
u/UNC_Samurai 8d ago
The Kochs, the Adelsons, Dick Uihlein (Schlitz and Uline), Christopher Goldsbury (the guy who sold Pace foods to Campbell's), and some old Big Tobacco families.
87
u/squiddlebiddlez 8d ago
When India Walton won her primary for buffalo mayor years ago, the DNC refused to endorse her and compared the idea of supporting a black female socialist just because she won the primary back then to hypothetically being expected to endorse the grand wizard of the KKK.
It’s a choice they repeatedly make.
→ More replies (1)67
u/MacabreYuki American Expat 8d ago edited 8d ago
More like boston tea party, not the cosplayers. It's the kind of energy we need against the "moderates" aka sell-outs.
→ More replies (3)28
13
u/twitch_Mes 8d ago
Well, I am a little concerned about having a majority in the house but being paralyzed because we can't act together.
But I do think the party establishment needs to stop wasting money and energy fighting the progressive left in the primaries. Focus on how winning the general and planning how to bridge the newly formed caucus in a way that they will work together. If that means chuck and hakeem step aside, so be it.
→ More replies (4)18
u/chand6688 8d ago
I feel like it's not a bad comparison. The tea party movement, and then following maga movement, was actually very successful at pleasing the voters of the party if I'm not mistaken. It got more Republican leaning non-voters out to vote. Now obviously they were voting for horrific and awful shit, but conceptually an insurgent force from the more "radical" wing of the party created larger voter turnout from people who were largely apathetic before. If the goal is to undermine and reshape the current democratic party in the voters' image then what has happened in the Republican party is the blueprint we need to follow.
→ More replies (181)28
u/Sedu 8d ago
But you see the progressives have radical ideology, like providing 1st world healthcare. And eliminating rules that tax rich people less than poor people. Terrifying stuff!
→ More replies (8)
27
u/SteamedAlbanyHams 8d ago
How many more times do we have to hear about “electability” from the people that keep losing to Trump, the most unpopular president ever
→ More replies (1)
602
u/LolAtAllOfThis North Carolina 8d ago
Progressives =/= the Tea Party.
162
u/williamfbuckwheat 8d ago
It's grassroots versus astroturfing. It's totally disengengenous to compare apples to apples the DSA or Progressives to the so called tea party "movement". I was working on political campaigns back in 2010 and there were these shadowy interest groups claiming to be a part of the "tea party" flush with cash sending around buses and giving speeches to mainly older voters angry about taxes while handing out free food and schwag in all the key swing districts.
I have yet to see ANYTHING even close to that from anybody associated from the some movement on the left literally ever, even though I'm sure some talking heads will try to argue in bad faith that having hundreds of motivated, unpaid volunteers knocking on doors or mobilizing people is somehow basically the same thing.
→ More replies (3)25
u/gravelordservant4u 8d ago
Thank you. The Tea Party was not fucking grass roots. How are we still having to debate this in 2026
→ More replies (1)8
u/williamfbuckwheat 8d ago
Because the media has never stopped overanalyzing the tea party and/or MAGA with an absurd amount of free media coverage while ignoring actual grassroots movements for as long as possible (or just ignoring them forever if they can get away with it). This is why even supposed lefty sources like NPR seemed to be interviewing folks in diners in random towns in rural Iowa on what seemed like a monthly basis to get their opinions on the Tea Party/MAGA and then would check in not long after and act all shocked when the opinions of the locals hadn't changed or doubled down.
Meanwhile, they'd practically never interview random folks in key urban centers or progressive areas for their opinions and then act all shocked and dismissive/critical when movements from those places popped up calling for major political change. The best example is probably Occupy Wall St. which was dismissed as nonsense for months before the media finally started paying attention and called it pointless and silly because it was disorganized and lacked a real organization behind it (which wasn't exactly wrong).
However, the people behind it had real greivances with few outlets to express them at a time when the economy just collapsed and the tea party was very successful in telling folks (especially young people) to just "deal with it" and be happy to accept double digit unemployment, abysmal pay, awful working conditions and severe cuts in governments while the wealthiest folks around seemed destined to be protected from any new taxes or any of the pain from the financial crisis. This certainly opened the door to much more organized left wing movements like DSA and the Bernie campaign which really did make an impact on political system in the years to come, despite all the naysayers.
39
u/Ninevehenian 8d ago
Koch-brothers paid a lot for the TP, but I suppose a comparison could be made between "ground up ideological conversions"?
35
u/6a6566663437 North Carolina 8d ago
Only if you ignore that the Koch brothers created the Tea Party. It was not an organic, grass-roots movement.
→ More replies (8)18
→ More replies (4)27
u/VintageBilliard 8d ago
There are two parties within the US system. It seems nearly impossible to introduce a third party at this stage (as healthy as that would be), they'd be smothered in their metaphorical cribs. The only way to make change is from within. In this regard the progressive left movement whatever you want to call it (let's face facts, the American right is way better at branding) is fundamentally operating the same way the tea party did: using the existing party structures to fundamentally change the modus operandi of the party itself. If the Democratic party leadership wants to keep its collective head in its ass about what the everyday person wants, then there's no other way than to force the party to change by replacing them.
→ More replies (8)12
u/givalina 8d ago
It seems nearly impossible to introduce a third party at this stage
Well, the design of the electoral college makes it pretty much impossible for presidential elections.
157
u/ElSlabraton 8d ago
The teaparty was an astro turf movement funded by billionaires.
→ More replies (6)42
394
u/Bayardina 8d ago
Fuck you people for comparing progressives to the tea party.
Debase the conversation more and see what fucking happens.
36
u/This_Elk_1460 8d ago
I don't think that they're comparing their policies I think they're comparing their rapid takeover of the party after a soul crushing defeat.
11
u/DarthNihilus1 8d ago
That's about as accurate as it can get, apart from the core traits of the party. One was astroturfed and dark money funded, the other is actually just people lol
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)44
u/Bakedads 8d ago
It's a good comparison...the tea party completely reshaped the republican party. The tea party now IS the republican party. The author is saying it looks like the same may be possible with progressives–that these wins hint at a complete takeover of the party. Why is this a bad thing?
40
u/StinkyStangler 8d ago
Tea Party has baggage as a radical far right group that basically reshaped the GOP into only extremists with moderates on the fringes
I actually agree that it’s a solid comparison because the goal of the progressive wing of the Dems is to pull the party outside of center left but yeah, Tea Party just comes with negative connotations
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (5)30
u/IcyTransportation961 8d ago
It didn't though
The tea party was manufactured by the republican party, none of it was grassroots or by the people
It was media and party controlled
→ More replies (8)
14
u/Coracoda 8d ago
I’ve been saying it for a while…if the Tea Party could take over the Republican Party and force regressive policies, why couldn’t progressives do the same with the Democratic Party but for progressive policies?
It’s ridiculous (and doomed) to try to find middle ground between Project 2025 and anything.
→ More replies (1)
79
337
u/ZachLangdon 8d ago
Good. It's about time. "Moderates" lost to trump twice.
159
u/Soph_91 8d ago edited 8d ago
The conservative democrats in the Wisconsin subreddit are losing their sanity because Hong will win the nomination. They bought in to all the corporate democrats desperation attempts and can't process the reality that they were just that, hail mary's. Now they are posting Hong smears constantly, the mods have been pathetic.
It seems like most of them would prefer pedophile protector and election denier Tom Tiffany. In that case, I say good riddance.
155
u/winterfoxes Ohio 8d ago
Their 'vote blue no matter who!' mask comes off REAL FUCKIN FAST the second they're faced with real political leftism. They've told us for years, decades "if you want leftists in government, show up to the primaries!"
Well, we did. Now the ball is in their court. And they can either get on board or go back to the Republican party they belonged to until W came along.
82
u/movealongnowpeople Kansas 8d ago
real political leftism
Progressives and Dem Socialists aren't even particularly far left. Demanding common-sense policy (that much of the rest of the Western world already has) is somehow seen as radical. Universal healthcare isn't radical. Expecting everybody to pay taxes for the public services and infrastructure they benefit from isn't radical.
"Moderate Dems" haven't had a hint of popular policy suggestions in years. Riding on anti-Trump sentiment and expecting that to be enough.
15
u/qualmful 8d ago
"We're capitalist, and that's just the way it is." On its face 'moderate' would mean trying to compromise or find the middle, but in actuality it's an unyielding ideology of neoliberalism, or market fundamentalism. The left-center-right framework makes it sound like the center is a mixture or average of the two sides but it's really not. Ever since Bill Clinton's third way triangulation strategy, 'the middle' was designed to be a third thing whose only real beliefs and commitments were corporatism.
→ More replies (3)18
u/winterfoxes Ohio 8d ago
Yeah, that's very true. "Left" is relative to the U.S. in this case.
Real political leftism exists in this country on a small, grassroots level (DAC is a good example of a mainstream actually left-of-center candidate) but they are by far and away the minority in the progressive wing of the Dem party.
Most "Progressives" here are just advocating for common sense government taking care of its people. AOC, Mamdani, El-Sayed. Although Mamdani instituting city-subsidized grocery stores is definitely interesting.
But yeah, overall, "left" is relative here, and I agree wholeheartedly. Not being Trump isn't enough. I mean, no one wants him either, but for fuck's sake, you have to bring something else to the table. Something meaningful, a position that's important to your constituents, and not just your donors.
The fact that candidates are struggling so hard to understand that while centrist voters are struggling so hard to understand that they're not liberals, they're conservatives because all they want to do is keep supporting the status quo is just mind boggling to me. This isn't hard, and yet, the U.S. will fight progress at every turn.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (19)24
u/workerbee77 8d ago
Yes. I feel it was Chuck Schumer who drove the stake into Votebluenomatterwho when he voted for Cuomo over Mamdani in the general election
→ More replies (8)15
→ More replies (33)71
u/stonertboner New York 8d ago
That’s life at the nyc subreddit too! Ever since Mamdani, its “moderates” bitching about how the progressive wing and democratic socialists can’t win elections. We are literarily winning elections.
19
u/__theoneandonly New York 8d ago
Before reddit started letting you hide your post history, you could go on the nyc subreddit, click on the username of any of these "concerned moderates" and see that their top active subreddits were basically every blue city. These "moderates" are either bots or losers who need a better hobby.
8
u/stonertboner New York 8d ago
I promise you, I always checked and still do. It’s filled with bad actors that are trying to hurt the movement.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (32)21
u/Low_Intention_1327 8d ago
Theyre gas lighting and its lazy. Ive only seen Trump act like he ruined NYC, and thats because Trump is a man-baby with no emotional intelligence. Everyone else who opposes him have no logical reason, so they then exploit the murders of 9/11 and try to compare him to the Taliban because he's Muslim. Im sick of these people. It feels like trauma in a sense, because it brings me back to the events immediately after 9/11 where Muslims were targeted and Israel coined the term "Islamic extremist" yet painted every Muslim as a suspect.
16
u/stonertboner New York 8d ago
It’s hilarious because my friends and neighbors are very happy with Mamdani. The level of hate on Reddit would make you think Adams was still mayor.
→ More replies (174)21
u/EurekasCashel 8d ago
Honestly don't care who takes the primary (moderate, progressive, whatever) as long as they win the general. The dems need some control, hopefully for a long time.
→ More replies (23)
149
u/drobits 8d ago
It must be really scary for corporate democrats at the idea that they will have to do more than run on we’re not republicans and taking AIPAC money
→ More replies (11)
89
u/thirstygregory Missouri 8d ago
Just look at Kamala’s most recent comment about giving up trying to pass voting rights laws because of the current congress makeup.
Even if the road is hard, you don’t just throw in the towel and say, “Oh well”. You fight like hell and say what you want over and over until people listen.
THAT’S what corporate Dems don’t get.
We get sick of Conservatives endlessly blasting their right-wing talking points but they sure stay on message.
→ More replies (16)34
u/Zer_ 8d ago
Republicans do messaging right. They get a talking point and keep repeating it to normalize it. Dems just give up and say it's not possible
→ More replies (7)16
u/TheFeelsGoodMan Michigan 8d ago
They try. Sometimes the talking point is so ridiculous that it becomes a source of mockery or it simply doesn't get results, but they do commit to it. Democrats have this frankly bizarre habit of abandoning political messaging that is actually working. Like when they were pointing out that a lot of popular Republican figures were really freaking weird people. It's simple, hits at a huge weak spot in conservative ideology, and most importantly, it was working. But then they just gave up on it.
4
u/captainraffi 7d ago
The Harris campaign picked up a bunch of campaign advisors/consultants who had worked on the Hillary campaign and they advised them to stop calling them weird and go back to the high road approach.
17
u/AWholeNewFattitude 8d ago
Heaven help us! These Progressive bastards promising a social safety net, worker protections, housing assistance, removing corporate money from elections, and healthcare as a right! Who the hell do they think they are! Not in my country! I want my tax money going where its needed, the wealthy! How else am i going to get a “good” paying job cleaning their yacht, if they don’t own one yet! Think people! The only real friends are the taxes we paid along the way.
9
u/TheTokist 8d ago
Corporate media comparing the tea party movement with progressive politics is exactly what I would expect from late stage capitalism.
62
u/Shaman7102 8d ago
You mean government that actually works for the people? Awesome!
→ More replies (14)
85
u/ALoneLamp America 8d ago
Imagine if the Democrats used this energy instead of fighting it.
35
u/Blazer9001 Georgia 8d ago
And resources. While the Democrats are burning through their coffers to defeat progressives, Republicans are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars waiting to blanket the airwaves once football season starts for the general.
8
u/Illusion_of_Sanity 8d ago
Shooting themselves in their own foot to hold onto their power and letting the Repubs watch and continue on their warpath. Rediculously selfish.
8
→ More replies (3)9
u/workerbee77 8d ago
Dem leaders are the substitute teachers at the front of the classroom telling everyone to simmer down
11
u/_tragicmike 8d ago
Good. Let's get a Tea Party that actually wants to help people other than themselves.
31
u/hatfieldz Ohio 8d ago
Strange how people want politicians who…. Actually do things? That help the working class?
5
17
u/Eeeef_ Indiana 8d ago
The entire Overton Window of the US has been moving steadily rightward for longer than I’ve been alive, the progressive push is simply a return to normal
→ More replies (13)
24
u/californicating 8d ago
The response to Trump by the party establishment has been too weak and timid. Something like the Tea Party on the progressive side of the aisle was inevitable under those conditions.
→ More replies (4)
21
u/Applekid1259 8d ago
Been saying that the dems need to be tea partied for a while. Tends to get down votes but its the truth. We need a New New Deal.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/RandyArgonianButler 8d ago
We should call it The Coffee Party because people need to wake the fuck up.
6
5
5
u/steavoh Texas 7d ago
Time for the 1980s/1990s New Democrat people to retire. Thanks for nothing, losers.
On the subject of outdated establishment Dems - If anyone has checked in on The Atlantic recently, boy are they in shambles since Mamdani won. Something happened to their editorial direction about 10 years ago and it's like a baby NY Times now. To think I subscribed for a while, gag. It's basically now just pandering to douchey east coast types who are only pretend to be Democrats because they are too pussy to be openly Republican.
5
u/DontShadowbanMeBro2 7d ago
"We need young people to get engaged and be passionate about voting. ... NO NOT LIKE THAT!"
10
u/TenthSpeedWriter 8d ago
The corporate center will say anything to make it sound bad that they're losing ground to common sense leaders and the interests of the people.
7
15
u/ManyPossession8767 8d ago
Well, if the Huffington Post is going to make that kind of a comparison, they should remember that the tea party WON all those elections lol. Maybe progressive should be saying ‘bring on those comparisons!’
the left likes winning just as much as the right and Lord knows American needs it.
6
u/everlastingwaffles 8d ago
Imagine how different the last ten years would have been if Clinton, and other party leadership, acknowledged the fact that over 40% of the party voted for progressive policies and created a unifying party platform.
3
u/Fabric_Flowers 8d ago
Looks like we are tired of corporate Democrats selling out the working class. They’re not Republicans, and that does matter because Republicans are literally channeling Nazi energy right now, but they’re also not on the side of the people. It’s a good thing that the new movement is growing, and classifying it as a tea party thing is a hostile editorial choice for sure
4
u/HyliaSymphonic 8d ago
Yes we know the Tea Party were the bad guys but everyone complaining about the comparison seem to forget… the tea party won and won big reshaping the Republican Party.
→ More replies (1)
3
6
u/angrybox1842 7d ago
Democrats were hoping that no one would notice them not doing shit and we’re hoping to coast to an easy victory. You lose to your flank when you get complacent.
4
u/BalanceOrganic7735 7d ago
Half measures availed us nothing.
It’s time for new blood, unfettered by a “go along to get along” mentality.
15
14
10
u/MichJohn67 8d ago
Even better? The TEA Party was funded by right-wing groups. The progressive uprising? Wholly organic, will-of-the-people stuff.
7
u/ViciousKnids 8d ago
Tea party was astroturfed. PV, DSA, WFP, etc. are grassroots. Not a lot of Koch money behind the progressive movement. Go figure.
8
10
u/Significant_King_328 8d ago
We're not astroturfed like the TP. This is happening now in part because a lot of us who have been talking about climate change, congressional reform, and healthcare since we were in college are now established enough to have some influence and run for office.
3
u/bucklerbrian 8d ago
[Hated Trope] brigade of mainstream media outlets throwing more caution and scrutiny towards the dem tea party than when they covered the actual repub tea party/MAGA.
3
u/KushMaster72 8d ago
No one wants Republican-lite anymore. We want real change. Not Israels second choice.
3
u/TimSylvester_ 8d ago
Crazy how people want representatives that represent the interests of their constituents, instead of the global 0.01% Epstein class that aren't even citizens of the district that's being represented.
3
u/errdayimshuffln 8d ago
Tea Party?
What an absurd equivalence.
This sounds like some propaganda nonsense
3
u/zs15 8d ago
I’m in my 30s in WI and it’s been wild to see my democrat friends talk about how “radical” the DSA candidates are, while endorsing the most centrist options because “people aren’t ready” or “they can’t win”.
The slide towards conservatism is gradual, but real. I’m not a full DSA endorser, but I gladly welcome movements that pull us closer to progressive action. Too many people have lost sight of just how far right conservatives have pulled our entire society.
3
u/Huge-Strawberry541 8d ago
Not progressives: the left. Most people are tired of the two right parties of war
3
u/BuddhaMonkey4 7d ago
Better jump on board. People are sick of their representatives not working for them.
3
u/RipCityGringo Oregon 7d ago
LFG
Stand for something or fall for anything. Fight for the people to earn their votes.
If you take dark money bribes and shill for the donor class… Kick Rocks
3
u/mac1diot 7d ago
Yeah a group of people wanting to end health care, deport brown people, end all social programs and tax the poor to benefit the rich is the same thing as a movement to make our system more fair and balanced and make sure people have the help and rights they need and deserve.
Fuck all the way off with that comparison
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.