I would imagine it depends a lot on how you quantify things, there’s all sorts of procedural votes and “renaming a post office” bills with no real substance that you could reasonably argue should or shouldn’t be included, to say nothing of ranking the partisan quality of different legislation (like, if Sanders and Harris both voted the same way in a routine budget bill that got unanimous support, should that count the same as them voting the same on some legislation he sponsored that failed or something?).
My personal opinion is that she’s willing to change her positions a lot if she thinks that’s where voters are going, which isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than the last generation of Democratic leaders who are also willing to change their positions a lot but think voters are way more conservative than they actually are (because that generation is still stuck in the 1980s). Kamala didn’t start talking about Medicare for All until Bernie made it popular, but when he did she didn’t have a problem jumping on board (unlike Biden, who would only ever go as far as public option).
It’s one thing for a politician to say whatever to get elected and then go the opposite way. Actually changing positions based on new information and what you think is what voters need is exactly what a politician SHOULD do. I never get this complaint… I guess it’s just that people don’t trust that politicians are ever genuine?
Isn’t it good that she is willing to change her position if she thinks that’s where the voters are going. It seems to me that nobody really cares what the voters are thinking.
Yes and no imo, our political leaders should be responsive to the desires of the people they lead, but on rare occasions the people are stupid and need to be told so (e.g. for most of the 1960s, civil rights were not popular), and a lot of the time leaders need to help people recognize problems or opportunities that haven’t been widely discussed by the media or other politicians before (e.g. universal healthcare, basic income, safe drug use sites, etc.).
Bad leaders do whatever public opinion polls say or whatever they want, good leaders find a way to do what they can without compromising on the values they ran on, great leaders find a way to move public opinion polls closer to them. Kamala is a good leader, not a great one, imo.
That’s good how you replied, but your reply was very general and idealistic. What about the current situation and a pragmatic situation? I mean, besides the fact who is on the opposite side lol.
I’m not sure exactly what the question is, but with the way I defined things above I think Kamala is a good leader running against a party full of bad ones, so she’s got my vote.
I would love a great leader that could engage and organize the general public a bit more and push opinions on things like immigration/asylum, police accountability, and trans rights and human rights in general in more positive directions, but there’s nobody with a real shot of being President who fits that description so I’ll take what I can get.
I’d prefer for candidates to be ideologically aligned but votes in the interests of people i.e. ask the constituency what’s most important to them, and voting in that direction despite ideological beliefs. I see that as a trait in Bernie, and that has yet to be established in Kamala yet.
I’m just so fucking happy that Kamala is the candidate, the news actually made me relax a bit for the first time in a while.
So in Europe, it is standard govermental procedere to transfer 20% ownership of big corporations to employees? It is standard govermental procedere to have 45% of BoD elected by workers? Are you sure about that?
So in Europe, it is standard govermental procedere to transfer 20% ownership of big corporations to employees? It is standard govermental procedere to have 45% of BoD elected by workers?
It is absolutely not standard in Europe, so have my upvote. Although there are exceptional cases such as Germany’s, where large enough companies must assign a percentage of the BoD positions to worker-elected union members.
I’d probably put Sanders left of plenty of European social-democratic parties, roughly landing around the positions of contemporary left populist parties (Podemos, France Insoumise, old Syriza), perhaps somewhat distanced from Eurocommunist parties.
Although there are exceptional cases such as Germany’s, where large enough companies must assign a percentage of the BoD positions
Codetermination/worker representation is a thing in some countries, but with the exception of Germany, it’s not half of the BoD.
I’d probably put Sanders left of plenty of European social-democratic parties
I’m sure there are members of social democratic politicians who are as left wing or even more left wing than Bernie. I think if he was European, he would be in the left wing of a social democratic party. But what many people don’t seem to want to realize is that we aren’t living in the 70s anymore… Europe might have some remains of social democratic elements left, but barely…
And it certainly isn’t “standard governmental procedure”. And I do wish Bernies policies were the norm in Europe, but they simply aren’t…
The comment wasn’t about whether worker councils are a thing or not, the comment was about Sander’s policies being “standard govermental procedure” in Europe… They aren’t… I wish they were, but they aren’t, and I don’t understand how denying reality is in any way helpful…
Sanders is more of a populist and idealist, while Harris is more pragmatic. Sanders has voted against a lot of things that were 95% positive because they had 5% awful shit, while Harris (and Warren, for that matter) would tend to vote for them to get policy points through. That means that while Sanders remains ‘pure’, Harris (and, again, Warren) end up being more effective.
Note that both of these behaviors may be valid strategies, rather than ideological fervor. As members of the Democratic Party, Harris and Warren are somewhat expected to participate in team efforts; while Sanders, by virtue of being independent, should avoid being taken from granted, as forcing other representatives to negotiate with him gives him a bit of leverage to introduce changes to bills. There’s a reason why he’s been capable of influencing so much policy despite being an outsider.
I’m… torn. I think that we need idealists to lead because they can inspire. But pragmatists get more done. I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, and again in 2020, because I believe in his message. But I also voted for Biden in 2020 even though the Democratic party fucked Sanders. (I voted for Stein in 2016, because I was in a reliably blue state, and could vote for her without risking affecting anything. And man, do I regret that.)
I do think idealists are important to help inspire us to work towards the future. In terms of actual voting, pragmatism is more important IMO. There’s nothing stopping someone from doing both, if they’re good enough at both speeches and policy.
is this true? I know nothing about US politics, but everything I hear from/about Bernie makes him sound awesome.
Mostly. She didn’t quite make that mark but she is between Sanders and Warren ideologically.
As a fan of Bernie this fantastic news, I want to hug the scroll if it can be corroborated.
I would imagine it depends a lot on how you quantify things, there’s all sorts of procedural votes and “renaming a post office” bills with no real substance that you could reasonably argue should or shouldn’t be included, to say nothing of ranking the partisan quality of different legislation (like, if Sanders and Harris both voted the same way in a routine budget bill that got unanimous support, should that count the same as them voting the same on some legislation he sponsored that failed or something?).
That all said, this CNN article I found from 2020 makes it sound more true than not, but there’s some nuance - tl;dr, at the start of her career as a state AG she did some more conservativ-ish things, but she’s been consistently more and more progressive since then.
My personal opinion is that she’s willing to change her positions a lot if she thinks that’s where voters are going, which isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than the last generation of Democratic leaders who are also willing to change their positions a lot but think voters are way more conservative than they actually are (because that generation is still stuck in the 1980s). Kamala didn’t start talking about Medicare for All until Bernie made it popular, but when he did she didn’t have a problem jumping on board (unlike Biden, who would only ever go as far as public option).
It’s one thing for a politician to say whatever to get elected and then go the opposite way. Actually changing positions based on new information and what you think is what voters need is exactly what a politician SHOULD do. I never get this complaint… I guess it’s just that people don’t trust that politicians are ever genuine?
Isn’t it good that she is willing to change her position if she thinks that’s where the voters are going. It seems to me that nobody really cares what the voters are thinking.
Yes and no imo, our political leaders should be responsive to the desires of the people they lead, but on rare occasions the people are stupid and need to be told so (e.g. for most of the 1960s, civil rights were not popular), and a lot of the time leaders need to help people recognize problems or opportunities that haven’t been widely discussed by the media or other politicians before (e.g. universal healthcare, basic income, safe drug use sites, etc.).
Bad leaders do whatever public opinion polls say or whatever they want, good leaders find a way to do what they can without compromising on the values they ran on, great leaders find a way to move public opinion polls closer to them. Kamala is a good leader, not a great one, imo.
That’s good how you replied, but your reply was very general and idealistic. What about the current situation and a pragmatic situation? I mean, besides the fact who is on the opposite side lol.
Sorry for going into hypotheticals.
I’m not sure exactly what the question is, but with the way I defined things above I think Kamala is a good leader running against a party full of bad ones, so she’s got my vote.
I would love a great leader that could engage and organize the general public a bit more and push opinions on things like immigration/asylum, police accountability, and trans rights and human rights in general in more positive directions, but there’s nobody with a real shot of being President who fits that description so I’ll take what I can get.
I’d prefer for candidates to be ideologically aligned but votes in the interests of people i.e. ask the constituency what’s most important to them, and voting in that direction despite ideological beliefs. I see that as a trait in Bernie, and that has yet to be established in Kamala yet.
I’m just so fucking happy that Kamala is the candidate, the news actually made me relax a bit for the first time in a while.
Bernie is pushing for what is standard governmental procedures in areas of Europe like France, Germany, Sweden, or Norway
So in Europe, it is standard govermental procedere to transfer 20% ownership of big corporations to employees? It is standard govermental procedere to have 45% of BoD elected by workers? Are you sure about that?
It is absolutely not standard in Europe, so have my upvote. Although there are exceptional cases such as Germany’s, where large enough companies must assign a percentage of the BoD positions to worker-elected union members.
I’d probably put Sanders left of plenty of European social-democratic parties, roughly landing around the positions of contemporary left populist parties (Podemos, France Insoumise, old Syriza), perhaps somewhat distanced from Eurocommunist parties.
Codetermination/worker representation is a thing in some countries, but with the exception of Germany, it’s not half of the BoD.
I’m sure there are members of social democratic politicians who are as left wing or even more left wing than Bernie. I think if he was European, he would be in the left wing of a social democratic party. But what many people don’t seem to want to realize is that we aren’t living in the 70s anymore… Europe might have some remains of social democratic elements left, but barely…
And it certainly isn’t “standard governmental procedure”. And I do wish Bernies policies were the norm in Europe, but they simply aren’t…
Workers councils are definitely a thing in Europe
The comment wasn’t about whether worker councils are a thing or not, the comment was about Sander’s policies being “standard govermental procedure” in Europe… They aren’t… I wish they were, but they aren’t, and I don’t understand how denying reality is in any way helpful…
Man I wish, it could all be so easy
Pretty close to it, yeah.
Sanders is more of a populist and idealist, while Harris is more pragmatic. Sanders has voted against a lot of things that were 95% positive because they had 5% awful shit, while Harris (and Warren, for that matter) would tend to vote for them to get policy points through. That means that while Sanders remains ‘pure’, Harris (and, again, Warren) end up being more effective.
Neat. I’m liking Harris more every day. Pragmatism is one of the core tenets of my political belief system.
Note that both of these behaviors may be valid strategies, rather than ideological fervor. As members of the Democratic Party, Harris and Warren are somewhat expected to participate in team efforts; while Sanders, by virtue of being independent, should avoid being taken from granted, as forcing other representatives to negotiate with him gives him a bit of leverage to introduce changes to bills. There’s a reason why he’s been capable of influencing so much policy despite being an outsider.
I’m… torn. I think that we need idealists to lead because they can inspire. But pragmatists get more done. I voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries, and again in 2020, because I believe in his message. But I also voted for Biden in 2020 even though the Democratic party fucked Sanders. (I voted for Stein in 2016, because I was in a reliably blue state, and could vote for her without risking affecting anything. And man, do I regret that.)
(RIP)
I do think idealists are important to help inspire us to work towards the future. In terms of actual voting, pragmatism is more important IMO. There’s nothing stopping someone from doing both, if they’re good enough at both speeches and policy.