• Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m frustrated with the reflexive “both sides are equally bad” response that shuts down any meaningful analysis of what’s actually happening in our politics.

      I’m not naive about the Democratic Party’s problems. They struggle with internal divisions, sometimes cave to corporate pressure, and they’ve made compromises that disappointed their base. But when I look at voting records, policy proposals, and legislative priorities, I see meaningful differences that have real consequences for people’s lives.

      On issues I care about (healthcare access, climate action, voting rights, ext.) one party consistently proposes solutions and votes for them when they have the numbers. The other party doesn’t just oppose these policies, they fight tooth and nail to undermine them, delay them, or dismantle them entirely. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of public record.

      When Democrats fail to deliver, it’s often because they lack sufficient majorities or face procedural roadblocks. When they do have power, they’ve passed significant legislation on infrastructure, climate investment, and healthcare expansion. Meanwhile, when Republicans have unified control, their priorities have been tax cuts for the wealthy and rolling back environmental protections.

      I understand the appeal of cynicism. It can feel sophisticated to dismiss all politicians as equally corrupt. But that cynicism serves the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.

      If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to reform a broken system and someone actively working to keep it broken, you’re not offering insight. You’re providing cover for obstruction.

      Does this mean Democrats are perfect? Of course not. Should we hold them accountable when they fall short? Absolutely. But pretending there are no meaningful differences between the parties just because neither is perfect makes it harder to build the coalitions we need to create the change we actually want to see.

      • shads@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        From my detached non American (but still a citizen of the planet so likely to get fucked hard by the way Americans vote) point of view, seems like Americans are continually letting perfect be the enemy of least bad. “Well since Democrats are kinda bad in these instances maybe we should just go fully fascist theological doom cult. That will force the Democrats to improve, or kill us all.”

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The more accurate form of the comment to which you’re reacting would be:

        Can I have a free beer?

        Conservatives: No

        Liberals: Points to novelty sign on wall Free Beer Tomorrow winks “so you want a beer today? That’ll be $8.99”

        The results aren’t exactly the same, but the gulf is not meaningful is the problem. Realistically, most people don’t actually like either party, they just dislike the other party more. If one day we had a 7 random parties just appear and Rs and Ds vanish, for a solid 20 years, political discourse would be verdant and nuanced in a way rarely seen in the US.

      • salacious_coaster@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I agree with you that the parties are not the same. The GOP are outright evil puppets of the billionaire class. The Democrats are ineffectual cowards who’ve made careers out of paying lip service to the right thing, and every now and then doing something helpful if it’s convenient for them and doesn’t piss off their billionaire donors. A lot of the time that ends up translating to the same results for most people.

        I don’t buy the “sorry, our hands are tied” line we always get from the left. Dems throw up their hands even when they do have majorities. The first meaningful opportunity the Democrats had to obstruct Trump’s agenda, after the left base had been screaming for weeks for their representatives to do something, Schumer rolled over immediately. I can’t take this party seriously anymore.

        • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I won’t defend Schumer’s choice here. It was a bad call, and the anger from House Democrats and the base was completely justified. You’re right that the party leadership sometimes folds when they should fight. They make strategic decisions that feel disconnected from the urgency the moment demands. And yes, Democrats have corporate-aligned figures who blunt the force of reform, but that is also a reality of our current system that we have to work within.

          But, sticking to your example, there is a key difference: when Democrats cave, it’s often to avoid causing harm, like a shutdown that would devastate working people. When Republicans cave, it’s to secure more tax cuts, more deregulation, and more authoritarian power. The intent and the outcome are not the same, even if the compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

          It also matters that Democrats have factions pushing from within. The anger from House Dems, from AOC, from the base, that’s real pressure that can move things. Republicans don’t have that kind of internal accountability. Their party punishes dissent and rewards obstruction.

          And while it’s easy to say “they always have excuses,” the reality is that even when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021, their margin in the Senate was literally 50-50. One or two bad actors (like Manchin or Sinema) could tank an entire agenda, and did. That’s not an excuse. That’s a math problem, and the only way around it is bigger, more engaged progressive coalitions.

          So yes, Schumer failed in that moment (and many others). Yes, we should be furious. But walking away or writing off the party entirely means handing power back to a movement that’s not just flawed. It’s actively hostile to democracy, human rights, and the planet. That’s not moral purity. That’s surrender.

          • schema@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I agree with you and like to emphasis on one point you already mentioned. The demcrats encompass everything to the left of the GOP. Because the GOP is far right, everything to the left of it includes center right, conservatives, centrist and liberal opinions, as well as a lot, or most of the left wing depending on definitions.

            In my opinion this is one of the major reasons why the democrats seem so undecicive, because there already are so many different world views of people that are forced to be in the same party, because effectively, there only are two of them, and the alternative is straight up fascism.

            If the democrats ever regain power, changing the voting system to allow for a 3rd or 4th party to actually emerge would be a saving grace, but unfortunately, the above mentioned composition will likely prevent them from it, even when in power. And on top of that they will have their hands full with the debt crisis.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        shitty children petulantly whining they never get their way.

        mind you, “their way” would alienate more than 60% of voters

        no party is perfect, but they are wholly deluded and will lash out like spurned tweens denied their crocks. they know conservatives don’t give two flying fucks about them, so they have to lash out at dems / liberals / anyone not sufficiently ML to stand up to their purity tests.

        it would be hilarious academically, but their bullshit does real world harm.

        edit: aw look the shitty petulant children whined and rallied to downvote this! Poor crybabies.

        You did this to yourselves, chumps.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Conservatives: "No. Kill the trans people and put gays in jail. Women belong in the kitchen. "

      Liberals: "No 😘 🌈 "

      Lemmy: both said no, so they’re the same!

      • Wolf@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I feel like this shouldn’t have to be explained, but “Both sides bad” does not equal “Both sides equally bad” or “Both sides the same”

        There’s not a leftist on Lemmy who wouldn’t rather be patronized while being stomped on than being cussed at while being murdered.

        And yes, I voted. No, it didn’t help. It was moderates who didn’t vote, not leftists. Leftists believe in harm reduction while advocating for harm elimination- the two goals aren’t contradictory. Trump stole the election so it’s all pretty much moot anyway.

        By focusing on the fact that Democrats version of bad is better than the Republican version of bad, it only helps to ensure that the Democrats are the best we can hope to achieve. There is nothing wrong in wanting actual good and instead of ‘least bad’.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t live in the US so I don’t have first hand experience but both on lemmy and on reddit it was mostly leftists who were spamming “genocide Biden (without mentioning that trump was even worse)”, something about inflation (like it wasn’t a global issue) and other issues where gop is clearly worse. All as a reason to not vote Democrat.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Calling a genocide a genocide should not be a partisan issue, and if you think we need to temper our discussion of genocide so that your preferred genocider can win a fucking election then you are a genocide denier.

            The way for the dems to differentiate themselves on this issue was to stop doing a genocide. They couldn’t do that, and so they enabled the worse option because they were just too horny for killing brown kids.

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You’re angrier at leftists for correctly calling out the dems’ genocide than you are at the dems for their genocide.

                  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    If mentioning a genocide helped elect Trump, then doing the genocide helped Trump far more, so I don’t know why you’re not attacking the dems for that.

                    The genocide charge wouldn’t carry any weight if it wasn’t true.

                    Why is this genocide more important to you as a political football than as, you know, a genocide?

                    You’re a genocide denier. You’re not denying it’s happening, you’re just denying it’s worth talking about, which is maybe worse.

                  • piefood@feddit.online
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You mean the genocide that Harris said that she was going to support?

                    It’s always amazing to me that Democrats get mad at people who couldn’t stomach voting for genocide, instead of getting mad at the people who ran a pro-genocide campaign.

          • Wolf@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            How do you know they were leftists? I don’t know where you are from, but it’s been known that bots and foreign powers have been attempting to influence U.S. elections since at least Trumps first term, and let’s be honest it’s extremely likely that it has been going on for far longer than that.

            Biden IS pro genocide, So is Harris, So is Trump. I don’t think it’s bad to point that out. Using it as a reason to vote for a Fascist instead is loony tunes, and as someone who frequents Leftist spaces I can tell you not a single person on reddit or Lemmy proposed any such nonsense who was taken seriously and wasn’t’ immediately down-voted into oblivion.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Their talking points were the typical that are considered “leftist” in America (and centrist in Europe): universal Healthcare, free education/forgiving student debt, etc. Whether they were bots or not is impossible to say in this day and age.