• archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    2 months ago

    I came really close to getting sucked in to a D vs R labor relations debate, but this bit woke me up and stopped me:

    Edit: yā€™know how I said I donā€™t know much about Sean Oā€™Brien? Well thanks to another lemmyer, now I do!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/31/teamsters-racial-discrimination-lawsuit

    So yeah, if thereā€™s an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that heā€™s the kind of guy whoā€™s a probably secretly a conservative forā€¦other reasons.

    I think this is where liberal understandings of union and labor relations as R or D policy agendas really gets in the way of a broader historical understanding of labor movements, and itā€™s the reason Iā€™m not particularly interested in having this debate with you. There have been many labor groups and unions in the USā€™s history that have been on the wrong side of racial and civil rights issues. W.E.B. Du Bois described the relationship between American racism, slavery, and labor relations during and after slavery almost 100 years ago now. Hell, even as recently as the civil rights movement unions were split on the support of racial segregation in the south. Hereā€™s one article from Herbert Hill written in '59 that discusses this issue pretty clearly.

    Teamsters is a union of truck drivers. In American political terms, truckers are one of the most vocally conservative labor demographics in the US; it shouldnā€™t be surprising that there would be discrimination within it. But thatā€™s exactly the problem with american political discourse. We cleave our working class apart with racial and social animosity at the expense of solidarity.

    Without a broader understanding of material relations as fundamental to political movements, I donā€™t think weā€™ll see eye-to-eye on this. It isnā€™t as simple as ā€˜democrats are more labor friendlyā€™ - both parties are dominated by capitalist interests, even if one makes greater attempts to balance it with labor concessions. If labor is to gain any ground in the US, it needs to be party agnostic and be aggressive about negotiating with both parties.

    • aalvare2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I have a lot Iā€™d like to, but wonā€™t, say about your comment, because itā€™s very dismissive of my entire reply, in favor of you choosing to dissect my motivations for adding a loosely-related footnote. I will say that most of your comment feels like I could boil it down to ā€œyou almost tricked me into taking your questions at face value, but then you said that Oā€™Brien being racist might be sorta relevant, so clearly I have a broader understanding ofā€¦somethingā€¦then you, so youā€™ll never see that Iā€™m rightā€. You could clarify if you want, but I donā€™t really care.

      That said, Iā€™ll try to focus on your last couple sentences:

      It isnā€™t as simple as ā€˜democrats are more labor friendlyā€™ - both parties are dominated by capitalist interests, even if one makes greater attempts to balance it with labor concessions. If labor is to gain any ground in the US, it needs to be party agnostic and be aggressive about negotiating with both parties.

      If this is the entire point youā€™ve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we wonā€™t see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of ā€œmaterial relations being fundamental to political movementsā€, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of ā€œactual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-termā€. I think you and I might just have different priorities, and Iā€™m fine leaving it at that.

      All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasnā€™t ā€œwhat is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfactionā€. It was literally something as nebulous as ā€œDid AOC ā€˜punch leftā€™ by criticizing Oā€™Brienā€. OP already admitted he probably just chose the wrong words, which I respect. Can we at the very least agree, whether your personal answer to that question is yes or no, that suggesting AOC is ā€œpunching leftā€ is a poorly-worded and/or insufficiently brief critique?

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        2 months ago

        If this is the entire point youā€™ve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we wonā€™t see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of ā€œmaterial relations being fundamental to political movementsā€, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of ā€œactual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-termā€.

        Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of liberals get caught up in the electoralism of general elections, and get (maybe even understandably) offended when a group they thought should clearly be on ā€˜their sideā€™ decides to make a statement against them, or even simply withhold an endorsement.

        Sure, meat-and-bones policy is important for advancing working class interests (iā€™m not sure why you chose ā€˜worker satisfactionā€™, maybe this is further evidence of our ideological differences or maybe this is just me being pedantic, but ā€˜satisfactionā€™ sounds more like corporate HR jargon than the revolutionary language of class consciousness), but endorsements arenā€™t like straw-polls. Unions come from a bloody and cutthroat history of class struggle that have to negotiate with multi-billion dollar industries - an endorsement or even a signal of approval toward competition is just another way to gain leverage. As much as we would all really like to be able to just pick a party/ticket like picking a flavor of ice cream, thatā€™s just not what class struggle is, least of all to a labor union.

        All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasnā€™t ā€œwhat is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfactionā€. It was literally something as nebulous as ā€œDid AOC ā€˜punch leftā€™ by criticizing Oā€™Brienā€

        Yes, I still think it is punching left, and I think @[email protected] was mistaken in walking it back. It would be one thing if she was making a point to advocate for democratic policy choices, but the comment from AOC in question was:

        ā€œWhen the Teamsters are in trouble, who do they call when we need to make sure that Teamsters pensions are bailed out? ā€¦ It was Sean Oā€™Brien calling Democrats for helpā€

        I think thatā€™s a petty and entitled thing to say to a union advocating for its members. This was in response to them simply declining to endorse either candidate because they ā€œcouldnā€™t get commitments on our issuesā€. Teamsters is perfectly within their right to withhold their endorsement in service of pushing for labor commitments from democrats even if you think theyā€™re wrong, and the worst way to respond to that feedback is to throw a tantrum and complain that theyā€™re being ungrateful.

        Democrats really need support from union households in the swing states where Teamsters is reporting a trump advantage in their membership. They canā€™t afford to be throwing punches at them (even if you think itā€™s not punching left). What drives me crazy is that democrats have been willing to bend to a bunch of conservative issues in order to gain moderate republican support - this one issue that is objectively a leftist issue and involves a crucial block of voters in swing states is, whatā€¦? too radical?

        I honestly donā€™t know anymore. dDmocratic politics have just lost all coherence as a left-wing political party. Maybe this is just a temporary change in messaging, but it really feels like theyā€™re abandoning all pretense as a progressive party.

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of liberals get caught up in the electoralism of general elections, and get (maybe even understandably) offended when a group they thought should clearly be on ā€˜their sideā€™ decides to make a statement against them, or even simply withhold an endorsement.

          Okay, Iā€™ll take ā€œmaybe even understandablyā€.

          Sure, meat-and-bones policy is important for advancing working class interests (iā€™m not sure why you chose ā€˜worker satisfactionā€™, maybe this is further evidence of our ideological differences or maybe this is just me being pedantic, but ā€˜satisfactionā€™ sounds more like corporate HR jargon than the revolutionary language of class consciousness),

          Dude. SUPER pedantic.

          but endorsements arenā€™t like straw-polls. Unions come from a bloody and cutthroat history of class struggle that have to negotiate with multi-billion dollar industries - an endorsement or even a signal of approval toward competition is just another way to gain leverage. As much as we would all really like to be able to just pick a party/ticket like picking a flavor of ice cream, thatā€™s just not what class struggle is, least of all to a labor union.

          I guess Iā€™ll more or less repeat myself from earlier: Not endorsing the democrats could be likened to going on strike from some company, but threatening to endorse the GOP would be like choosing to go work for an even more exploitative company in retaliation.

          Yes, I still think it is punching left, and I thinkĀ @[email protected]Ā was mistaken in walking it back.

          Okay, fine, you disagree. But the immediate question I asked was ā€œcan we agree it was a poorly worded and/or insufficiently brief critiqueā€ aka the kind of statement that itā€™s easy to get lost in pointless pendantry over? Yā€™know, the kind of pedantry I feel like weā€™ve been arguing over this whole time?

          I think thatā€™s a petty and entitled thing to say to a union advocating for its members.

          Depends on how you define ā€œadvocating for its membersā€. Signaling support for the political party most of your constituents align with, most definitely for reasons outside workersā€™ rights, is one definition. Signalling support for the for the party thatā€™ll actually help your constituents? Thatā€™s another.

          Teamsters is perfectly within their right to withhold their endorsement in service of pushing for labor commitments from democrats

          What committments?? This is exactly what I was asking you 2 replies ago, and even before that. And youā€™ve so far dodged the question. I still donā€™t understand the actual substantive things you want the Democratic party to do.

          Democrats really need support from union households in the swing states where Teamsters is reporting a trump advantage in their membership. They canā€™t afford to be throwing punches at them (even if you think itā€™s not punching left).

          You make it sound like sheā€™s punching at all Teamsters, when sheā€™s not. Sheā€™s just criticizing their leader.

          What drives me crazy is that democrats have been willing to bend to a bunch of conservative issues in order to gain moderate republican support - this one issue that is objectively a leftist issue *and* involves a crucial block of voters in swing states is, whatā€¦? too radical?

          Youā€™re saying they bend to the right on a lot of things but you also want them to bend to the rightā€¦onā€¦what exactly? On workersā€™ rights??

          I honestly donā€™t know anymore. dDmocratic politics have just lost all coherence as a left-wing political party. Maybe this is just a temporary change in messaging, but it really feels like theyā€™re abandoning all pretense as a progressive party.

          Idk man, I feel like thereā€™s some aspect of your personal political ideology thatā€™s so different from mine (and Iā€™ll assert, from most people) that thereā€™s some coreĀ assumption you and I might be obliviously disagreeing on, like ā€œthe left is more politically aligned with supporting workersā€™ rightsā€ or something.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            Ā·
            2 months ago

            but threatening to endorse the GOP would be like choosing to go work for an even more exploitative company in retaliation.

            How? Maybe itā€™s more like making a public statement about private negotiations that damages the reputation of the partner company, but ā€˜going to work for another companyā€™ doesnā€™t track. Theyā€™re threatening to harm the democratic campaign by publicly shaming them, not self-immolating.

            But the immediate question I asked was ā€œcan we agree it was a poorly worded and/or insufficiently brief critiqueā€ aka the kind of statement that itā€™s easy to get lost in pointless pendantry over?

            I already answered this - no, i do not agree, and I especially donā€™t think itā€™s ā€˜pointless pendantryā€™. AOC is a dem soc, she should know that itā€™s the job of the union to negotiate via collective bargaining and that democrats are not owed an endorsement.

            What committments?? This is exactly what I was asking you 2 replies ago, and even before that. And youā€™ve so far dodged the question. I still donā€™t understand the actual substantive things you want the Democratic party to do.

            Because iā€™m not privy to what the teamsters are asking for, but Iā€™m personally frustrated that democrats keep burying their labor offerings in capital funding and investments. Democrats assume that they can make up for any loss of industry growth in one segment of the economy by promoting growth in another, but thatā€™s not comforting to unions or unaffiliated industry workers in the rust belt, where thereā€™s usually only one or two major job producers in their towns. Even if those jobs were being created in exactly the same place, loosing a job and having to change industry is incredibly destabilizing. Most Americans donā€™t have more than a couple thousand in savings, let alone a few months of expenses. Bragging about jobs created with the CHIPS act or other legislation isnā€™t comforting to people who live in towns that arenā€™t a recipient of that investment.

            I think democrats need to expand social programs and remove pointless means-testing that excludes a lot of working families from benefits (and pits them against working class families in urban centers). The more socialized benefits available to small town workers, the less pressure there will be to remain employed in a dying industry. That includes childcare, healthcare, housing, food; basically everything theyā€™re afraid to campaign on because republicans will accuse them of being radical socialists. And they really need to stop responding to fears about job losses in small town industries by bragging about job creation in other industries.

            The alternativeā€™s are all less appealing to a socialist - a lot of unions are pushing tarrifs on foreign goods, cutting environmental regulation, ect. You canā€™t win those voters by creating jobs elsewhere - you really need to convince those voters that they arenā€™t going to be left behind if/when their townā€™s industry goes belly-up, and saying ā€˜tough luck, move and change industriesā€™ is only going to radicalize them further. Especially when unemployment benefits are covered in all kinds red tape and are exceedingly difficult to apply for and stay on.

            As far as legislation specific to labor protections: they need to campaign on the legislation theyā€™ve already put forward. The PRO act is an excellent bill, but iā€™ve not heard Harris or any top democratic leadership actually campaign on it or push it in public.

            You make it sound like sheā€™s punching at all Teamsters, when sheā€™s not. Sheā€™s just criticizing their leader.

            He represents their interests, itā€™s his literal fucking job. Be grateful he didnā€™t follow the popular opinion of his members and endorse trump. I would also mention that their support of trump is pretty heavily represented in PA, WI, and MI - all states that democrats really need to win. They shouldnā€™t be burning bridges with Teamsters.

            Youā€™re saying they bend to the right on a lot of things but you also want them to bend to the rightā€¦onā€¦what exactly? On workersā€™ rights??

            Labor protections are a definitionally-left issue. I want democrats to bend left

            Idk man, I feel like thereā€™s some aspect of your personal political ideology thatā€™s so different from mine (and Iā€™ll assert, from most people) that thereā€™s some core assumption you and I might be obliviously disagreeing on, like ā€œthe left is more politically aligned with supporting workersā€™ rightsā€ or something.

            There absolutely is a difference in political ideology, but our disagreement isnā€™t over whether ā€˜the left is more aligned with workerā€™s rightsā€™ or not. We disagree about whether or not direct action ought to be targeted at the democrats at all, and thatā€™s something I donā€™t think weā€™ll see eye-to-eye on.

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              2 months ago

              How? Maybe itā€™s more like making a public statement about private negotiations that damages the reputation of the partner company, but ā€˜going to work for another companyā€™ doesnā€™t track. Theyā€™re threatening to harm the democratic campaign by publicly shaming them, not self-immolating

              I reject your analogue. There have been no ā€œpublic statements about private negotiationsā€ with the GOP. We donā€™t know the GOP toā€™ve made ANY negotiations.

              Donā€™t like my original analogue? Fine, replace ā€œchoosing toā€ with ā€œthreatening toā€. The part youā€™re dancing around is the ā€œmore exploitativeā€ part -the part where the side Oā€™Brien is threatening to support isnā€™t a not-Dem-but-pro-union party, itā€™s a not-Dem-but-anti-union party. And I suspect heā€™s playing ball with them IN SPITE OF not having any appreciable consolidations made by republicans in favor of his union. Donā€™t bother suggesting ā€œwe donā€™t know there werenā€™t consolidationsā€, neither of us know. Though thereā€™s plenty of indirect evidence that the modern GOP just doesnā€™t care - case in point, every party-line PRO Act vote in the past 5 years.

              I already answered this - no, i do not agree, and I especially donā€™t think itā€™s ā€˜pointless pendantryā€™. AOC is a dem soc, she should know that itā€™s the job of the union to negotiate via collective bargaining and that democrats are not owed an endorsement.

              You make it sound like AOC is only frustrated with Oā€™Brien for not endorsing Harris. From my very first comment in this thread: thatā€™s not \all heā€™s done*.

              Your next 4 paragraphsā€¦Iā€™ll get back to those.

              He represents their interests, itā€™s his literal fucking job

              Then he should act like it and not help the leopards thatā€™ll eat his face.

              There absolutelyĀ isĀ a difference in political ideology, but our disagreement isnā€™t over whether ā€˜the left is more aligned with workerā€™s rightsā€™ or not. We disagree about whether or not direct action ought to be targeted at the democratsĀ at all, and thatā€™s something I donā€™t think weā€™ll see eye-to-eye on.

              I wasnā€™t saying that was the disagreement, I was saying thereā€™s some core disagreement we probably have, thatā€™s probably flying under both our radars. And no, you havenā€™t magically identified what that is. I never said ā€œunions shouldnā€™t target democrats at all with direct actionā€, Iā€™m saying actions that directly aid another party, where that other party is the modern GOP, are fucking stupid.


              Back to those 4 paragraphsā€¦finally, a little actual substance.

              And you know what I have to say about it? I have to say that I actually feel even MORE strongly that Oā€™Brien is a bad leader.

              You went on about issues that rust belt union members are having. But the Democrats donā€™t control the rust beltā€¦the GOP does. And they are fucking over their own union constituents. Trumpā€™s last term saw him hire an anti-union Reagan-era lawyer to the NLRB, stacked the courts with anti-union judges, took various other anti-union actions, and neither him nor any Republicans proposed a single page of legislation. They didnā€™t even support the PRO Act, legislation that helps unions everywhere, rust belt included, and was introduced even before Dems took back the WH (meaning Democrats didnā€™t stand to look good if it got passed). And the GOP still voted heavily against it, and have done so ever since.

              Biden might not be perfect in your eyes, but he immediately fired Trumpā€™s NLRB appointee and the similarly minded deputy replacing them them with a pro-union labor lawyer who took on captive audience meetings, non-compete clauses, and consequential damages. And like I already said, it was DEMOCRATS whoā€™ve been pushing for the PRO Act this whole timeā€¦and yes, Harris has campaigned on signing the PRO Act, fyi.

              Why arenā€™t the teamstersā€¦openly mad at the GOP? The party of people who, in your own words, would ā€œaccuse [democrats] of being radical socialistsā€ for proposing action that helps working class people? Denying Trump an endorsement doesnā€™t go far enough - Oā€™Brien either shouldnā€™tā€™ve gone to the RNC, or shouldā€™ve flipped the bird at everybody there. Donā€™t just leave an endorsement out of your speech - actually say ā€œI wanna endorse you, but you fuckers are letting us downā€. I could see that acknowledging their incompetence to their faces MAYBE moving the needle on the GOP, or at least, itā€™d be a respectable attempt.

              I get you feel like unions need bipartisan support to make a permanent, lasting difference. And yā€™know what? I think I agree with you on that. But that doesnā€™t mean I agree that itā€™s worth giving the modern GOP anything, so much as an RNC speech, now. They should work for it. BY ACTUALLY VOTING ON PRO-UNION POLICIES AND ACTIONS. Then, it makes sense to play both sides. Until then, let them know that theyā€™re not getting an ounce of support.

              • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                Ā·
                2 months ago

                I reject your analogue. There have been no ā€œpublic statements about private negotiationsā€ with the GOP. We donā€™t know the GOP toā€™ve made ANY negotiations.

                That was the hypothetical side of the analogue. Them announcing that they wonā€™t be endorsing is similar to a union announcing negotiations have failed and they going on strike - an action that materially damages their companyā€™s income and is (in some ways) a violent means to escalating the issue. The union is definitionally an appendage of its parent company; them ā€˜leaving to work for a different companyā€™ just doesnā€™t make sense, itā€™d be like an arm cutting itself off at the shoulder.

                I never said ā€œunions shouldnā€™t target democrats at all with direct actionā€, Iā€™m saying actions that directly aid another party, where that other party is the modern GOP, are fucking stupid.

                ā€œNonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.ā€

                If any action that hurts a democratic campaign is outside the bounds of acceptable direct action to you, then this is precisely where our disagreement is. Electing not to endorse the democratic ticket is the lightest possible criticism one could possibly make.

                You went on about issues that rust belt union members are having. But the Democrats donā€™t control the rust beltā€¦the GOP does. And they are fucking over their own union constituents.

                Look, I already told you I had no interest in having this debate with you. We are clearly not seeing eye to eye.

                Rust belt unions are less concerned with expanding union protections than they are concerned with their industry going bankrupt. A coal mining union isnā€™t concerned with having better legal protection for going on strike, theyā€™re concerned that the entire coal industry is getting replaced elsewhere by renewables and wont have anyone to negotiate with.

                I already said that the PRO act is an excellent bill, and that dems should be campaigning on it, but thatā€™s simply not why theyā€™re losing union support in the rust belt. Millions of americans are afraid that theyā€™re going to loose their livelihoods to changing economic priorities, and democrats are allergic to taking any action that addresses that fundamental apprehension because theyā€™re terrified of being called socialist.

                Why arenā€™t the teamstersā€¦openly mad at the GOP? The party of people who, in your own words, would ā€œaccuse [democrats] of being radical socialistsā€ for proposing action that helps working class people?

                Because the democrats havenā€™t proposed anything that actually addresses their concerns, and theyā€™re frustrated that the things democrats have proposed are targeted in other places of the economy and callously ignores their material interests. Theyā€™re convinced that democrats will never solve their problems - but the GOP is promising to preserve their industries by passing tarrifs, removing environmental protections, stopping the growth of renewables and tech that threaten to put them out of businessā€¦ And those are simple, believable solutions to their problems. You and I understand that those are problematic in a million different ways, but from their perspective everyone else seems to be fucking over everyone else to get their bag, so why not them? Democrats simply donā€™t have a response to that, especially when theyā€™re insistent on stopping short of breaking with neoliberal economic policy.

                Iā€™m exhausted by having this same conversion over-and-over again. Moderate democrats have this way of middling their way out of grasping the underlying issues voters are experiencing and instead try to bandaid over huge gaping wounds, then cry bloody murder when voters donā€™t act as grateful as they think they should. Liberals are never going to understand why theyā€™re losing support if they arenā€™t able to even conceptualize the concerns of the working class in small-town economies.

                • aalvare2@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  Ā·
                  2 months ago

                  To address your first 3 paragraphsā€¦youā€™re acting like all I care about is Oā€™Brienā€™s non endorsement. I guess Iā€™ll spell out the thing Iā€™ve said in every single comment on this thread: Not endorsing democrats = fine. Not endorsing democrats + speaking at the RNC and NOT directly calling them out on their bs = fucking stupid. You keep treating the non-endorsement like itā€™s in a vacuum. And you can disagree with my math, but if you continue to pretend that this isnā€™t what Iā€™m saying, then youā€™re just straw-manning me.

                  Rust belt unions are less concerned with expanding union protections than they are concerned withĀ their industry going bankrupt. A coal mining union isnā€™t concerned with having better legal protection for going on strike, theyā€™re concerned that the entire coal industry is getting replaced elsewhere by renewables and wont have anyone to negotiateĀ with.

                  Yes, itā€™s understandable that workers feel like they wonā€™t survive if their industry diesā€¦but in the specific case of coal, the solution isnā€™t to bolster that industry. Much of the solution is to create new jobs in growing industries that coal workers could transfer into, and to set guarantees that those new jobs arenā€™t exploitative. Democrats have fought, withĀ real action,Ā to do both the former, and the latter (I wonā€™t source the latter again, read any of my pro-union sources).

                  I already said that the PRO act is an excellent bill, and that dems should be campaigning on it,

                  Yes, and not only do they campaign on it - they consistently vote in favor of it. But go on.

                  but thatā€™s simply not why theyā€™re losing union support in the rust belt. Millions of americans are afraid that theyā€™re going to loose their livelihoods to changing economic priorities, and democrats are allergic to taking any action that addresses that fundamental apprehension because theyā€™re terrified of being called socialist.

                  Yes, I get their fear. And thatā€™s why the liberal solution to those fears is making it easier to switch jobs and to provide better childcare, healthcare, housing, food, unemployment, all on top of pro-worker reformā€¦all LEFT-LEANING policies that the modern GOP will NEVER ENDORSE.

                  It sounds like youā€™re just trying to explain what many workers see as the solution. They think the tried-and-true solution is to bolster their industries, instead of all the stuff I just listed. But thatā€™s a conservative solution to the problem.

                  It sounds like you want the democrats to have liberal policies in general, which is what I want too. But what, in your head, does Oā€™Brien want? If he wants conservative industry-first policies, then AOC isnā€™t punching left at the guy, end of story. And if heĀ actuallyĀ wants liberal, boosting-quality-of-life-policies (the kinds of policies I want and you seem to want), then heā€™s an idiot or a coward, or both, for not getting mad at the modern GOP for spinning all of that negatively as socialism.

                  Because the democrats havenā€™t proposed anything that actually addresses their concerns, and theyā€™re frustrated that the things democratsĀ haveĀ proposed are targeted in other places of the economy and callously ignores their material interests. Theyā€™re convinced that democrats will never solve their problems - but the GOP is promising to preserve their industries by passing tarrifs, removing environmental protections, stopping the growth of renewables and tech that threaten to put them out of businessā€¦And those are simple, believable solutions toĀ theirĀ problems. You and I understand that those are problematic in a million different ways, but from their perspective everyone else seems to be fucking over everyone else to getĀ theirĀ bag, so why not them? Democrats simply donā€™t have a response to that, especially when theyā€™re insistent on stopping short of breaking with neoliberal economic policy.

                  Youā€™re not addressing the subtlety that whileĀ theyĀ feel democrats arenā€™t proposing good solutions, and whileĀ youĀ seem to feel democrats arenā€™t proposing good solutionsā€¦your solutions and their solutions are different. Youā€™ve said you want more of the kinds of solutions theyā€™d call ā€œradical socialismā€. (I want those solutions too, but imo Democrats are already working on it, they just have an uphill battle against conservatives.) (And sure, many conservative workers probably just donā€™t realize that theyā€™d love those solutions, too, but in the meantime theyā€™re duped into supporting the GOP and their worse, pro-some-industries, anti-other-industries solution.) Are you under the impression that the reason Oā€™Brien isnā€™t capitulating to democrats is theyā€™re not embracing those solutions? Do you think that when Oā€™Brien cozies to the GOP, that heā€™s secretly trying to get the GOP on board with those solutions? When thereā€™s negative evidence of that?

                  Iā€™m exhausted by having this same conversion over-and-over again. Moderate democrats have this way of middling their way out of grasping the underlying issues voters are experiencing and instead try to bandaid overĀ hugeĀ gaping wounds, then cry bloody murder when voters donā€™t act as grateful as they think they should. Liberals are never going to understand why theyā€™re losing support if they arenā€™t able to even conceptualize the concerns of the working class in small-town economies.

                  If youā€™re trying to say that pro-worker policy is the bandaid, and widespread policies that provide better childcare, healthcare, housing, food, and unemployment areĀ yourĀ solution, then I donā€™t disagree, other than that pro-worker policy isnā€™t as much a band-aid at it is part of that solution. But if thatā€™s Oā€™Brienā€™s solution, then heā€™s a bad leader for helping the republicans who reject that solution. If thatā€™s not Oā€™Brienā€™s solutionā€¦then attacking his leadership isnā€™t ā€œpunching leftā€.

                  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    Ā·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Iā€™m not engaging with this anymore, youā€™ve obviously not understood my perspectives here (intentionally or not).

                    Iā€™m speaking to a very specific set of material conditions that a particular subset of the electorate is experiencing and liberal policies fail to address, and youā€™ve dismissed them yet again. Itā€™s extremely calloused to ignore the economic hardships experienced by these workers when the industry that supports them and their community is broken into pieces and replaced by another, and I donā€™t think youā€™re in the right place to see or acknowledge those. Maybe thatā€™s just a function of where we are in the election cycle. A part of the way capitalism works is by holding the means of survival hostage to coerce labor to protect it, and when democrats turn a blind eye to the trap those people are stuck in it solidifies reactionary political perspectives.

                    I donā€™t give a shit what Oā€™Brianā€™s personal politics are or what Teamsters endorsement or platforming at the RNC means to the democratic campaign. He represents a segment of the population that is experiencing conditions not addressed by current or proposed democratic policies, and heā€™s using his platform to put pressure on both parties to address them by dangling Teamsterā€™s influence, and I think thatā€™s a fine (good, even) strategy.