Because populism at its heart is about exclusion. Going against a central tenet of the Democratic Party. For populism to be successful regardless of ideology, it requires “punching down.” People don’t want to be at the bottom, they want someone below them.
Because populism at its heart is about exclusion. Going against a central tenet of the Democratic Party. For populism to be successful regardless of ideology, it requires “punching down.” People don’t want to be at the bottom, they want someone below them.
The New Deal did almost nothing for nonwhites and FDR ordered Japanese people to be locked up. Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan and the GI Bill did almost nothing for nonwhites. Humphrey was anti LGBTQ and anti choice. They all “punched down.”
No he didn’t. Roe v Wade became law in 1973 and he was a candidate for President in 1976 (he died in 1978). It had absolutely become a major issue by then. Also while in the Senate he proposed a law making it a felony to be a member of the Communist Party. So yes, he absolutely DID “punch down.”
Abortion had been an issue in Presidential Elections as early as 1972. Lest we forget George McGovern was trashed as the candidate of the “three As, “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Yes Humphrey was always very good on civil rights - his advocacy for a strong civil rights platform at the Democratic National Convention in 1948 speaks for itself - but sadly not on women’s rights. His widow Muriel Humphrey was pro choice though.
You're saying because they weren't progressive on those issues by today's standards or as progressive as a highly moral presidential candidate who was utterly drubbed in 1972, that's how they were able to be popular, and it had nothing to do with their standing up economically for the average Joes?
The point is that for Democrats to be seen as "standing up economically for the average Joes" most of them will have to take positions, particularly on social issues that base Democratic Party voters hate. Howell Heflin today could NEVER win a Democratic Party nomination, even in Alabama because he was VERY anti choice, anti LGBTQ, and anti gun control. Yes he was left on most economic issues, pro civil rights, and pro affirmative action, but on most social issues, THE antithesis of base Democratic Party voters. Left populism alone stopped winning national elections in this country after WWII. The growth and prosperity of American suburbs, plus the nationalization of American politics, plus the fact that Americans are naturally aspirational people killed that sentiment. The Democratic Party only did well down ballot precisely because most of those Democrats were to the RIGHT of the national party.
I don't think we should be initially presumptous over any political leaning of average joes. They may or may not be political but it depends on where they live and what they are specifically dealing with. What an average joe is in West Virginia may not be the same as in Maine.
Truth is, most average joes if we're talking about standing up economically really care about the following:
-Is this politician addressing my bread and butter issues?
-Am I being looked out for?
That said, I don't think the average joe would be sold on Bernie Sanders' original universal healthcare proposal from a tax policy standpoint. Sanders had mentioned that the UHC plan he advocated for in the 2016 presidential primary race would be paid for by a tax on all Americans (a fair tax varying by income). Average joes may not necessarily be willing to pay more in taxes than they already do, especially considering they are not millionaires.
"The point is that for Democrats to be seen as "standing up economically for the average Joes" most of them will have to take positions, particularly on social issues that base Democratic Party voters hate."
That is literally their problem. The history of this country is that racism and other forms of bigotry have held the country back because white people insist on voting for the right-wing party that by denying things to "those people" deny them to everyone.
Not just White people anymore. Some conservative Latinos, Asians, and yes African Americans are voting for the right-wing party because of social issues, and even in some cases economic issues. Again it comes down to wanting someone they can "punch down."
Because populism at its heart is about exclusion. Going against a central tenet of the Democratic Party. For populism to be successful regardless of ideology, it requires “punching down.” People don’t want to be at the bottom, they want someone below them.
Yeah, the likes of FDR, Truman, Hubert Humphrey sure did a lot of punching down.
One of the central tenets of the Democratic Party stretching back to Jackson and Jefferson was economic populism.
The New Deal did almost nothing for nonwhites and FDR ordered Japanese people to be locked up. Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan and the GI Bill did almost nothing for nonwhites. Humphrey was anti LGBTQ and anti choice. They all “punched down.”
Oh FFS. Talk about changing the subject. And Humphrey died before gay rights and abortion became big issues.
No he didn’t. Roe v Wade became law in 1973 and he was a candidate for President in 1976 (he died in 1978). It had absolutely become a major issue by then. Also while in the Senate he proposed a law making it a felony to be a member of the Communist Party. So yes, he absolutely DID “punch down.”
He didn’t run in ‘76. It was not a major issue until Republicans injected it into some of the senate races in the ‘78 midterm.
Abortion had been an issue in Presidential Elections as early as 1972. Lest we forget George McGovern was trashed as the candidate of the “three As, “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Yes Humphrey was always very good on civil rights - his advocacy for a strong civil rights platform at the Democratic National Convention in 1948 speaks for itself - but sadly not on women’s rights. His widow Muriel Humphrey was pro choice though.
You're saying because they weren't progressive on those issues by today's standards or as progressive as a highly moral presidential candidate who was utterly drubbed in 1972, that's how they were able to be popular, and it had nothing to do with their standing up economically for the average Joes?
The point is that for Democrats to be seen as "standing up economically for the average Joes" most of them will have to take positions, particularly on social issues that base Democratic Party voters hate. Howell Heflin today could NEVER win a Democratic Party nomination, even in Alabama because he was VERY anti choice, anti LGBTQ, and anti gun control. Yes he was left on most economic issues, pro civil rights, and pro affirmative action, but on most social issues, THE antithesis of base Democratic Party voters. Left populism alone stopped winning national elections in this country after WWII. The growth and prosperity of American suburbs, plus the nationalization of American politics, plus the fact that Americans are naturally aspirational people killed that sentiment. The Democratic Party only did well down ballot precisely because most of those Democrats were to the RIGHT of the national party.
I don't think we should be initially presumptous over any political leaning of average joes. They may or may not be political but it depends on where they live and what they are specifically dealing with. What an average joe is in West Virginia may not be the same as in Maine.
Truth is, most average joes if we're talking about standing up economically really care about the following:
-Is this politician addressing my bread and butter issues?
-Am I being looked out for?
That said, I don't think the average joe would be sold on Bernie Sanders' original universal healthcare proposal from a tax policy standpoint. Sanders had mentioned that the UHC plan he advocated for in the 2016 presidential primary race would be paid for by a tax on all Americans (a fair tax varying by income). Average joes may not necessarily be willing to pay more in taxes than they already do, especially considering they are not millionaires.
"The point is that for Democrats to be seen as "standing up economically for the average Joes" most of them will have to take positions, particularly on social issues that base Democratic Party voters hate."
That is literally their problem. The history of this country is that racism and other forms of bigotry have held the country back because white people insist on voting for the right-wing party that by denying things to "those people" deny them to everyone.
Not just White people anymore. Some conservative Latinos, Asians, and yes African Americans are voting for the right-wing party because of social issues, and even in some cases economic issues. Again it comes down to wanting someone they can "punch down."
Simply wrong.. The New Deal helped all races
Not equally. I'm not going to pretend it did. Deal with it.
No-one pretends that it did.
Still wrong and creating straw men to boot