FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
55% Positive
Analyzed from 1445 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#far#left#democrats#party#trump#going#leftists#power#bad#democratic
Discussion (7 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Two corrupt political parties that are owned by monied interests thanks to Citizens United, decades without campaign finance reform, and rampant "gifts" and extortion.
Neither party represents the people or their needs. They take money and make money. Laws are written by monied special interests. Members of both parties have been doing insider trading for decades, but now it is on naked display, bold and unashamed, as if it to say, "what are you going to do about it?"
Drastic systemic changes are needed on the order of a Constitutional Convention, but it is doubtful that it will happen without tremendous public outcry.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/19/citize...
As a far leftist myself, I can only wish that were true; it would be a great problem to have! No, the Democratic Party is a fundamentally non-democratic institution, run from the top down by an insiders' club who care about 1) their own careers, 2) the priorities of their millionaire donors, and 3) the results of opinion polls, strictly in that order. You may be hearing more leftist voices than you're used to, but they are appealing to the party - with little effect - and certainly not dominating it.
The only way far left policies are ever enacted is by a top-down insider's club of elites who think they know best for everyone else.
Of course, that's the same for the ultra-conservatives too. Extreme policies have never been popular with the American people.
In both cases, you have authoritarianism and statism differing only by sentiment and temperament.
But despite Trump's personality, he has a very broad appeal to ordinary people, speaks plainly, and for better or worse, does exactly what he says he'll do.
Conversely, Democrats seem to do nothing but back pedal and blame shift whenever their pie-in-the-sky policies fail miserably.
And of course, whenever the Democrats lose, their radical base takes to the streets, because obviously democracy has failed.
You may think of yourself as a far leftists, but if you really do embrace democracy, rule of law, and stand against authoritarianism, you're probably not nearly as far left as you imagine.
We certainly agree there! - those tendencies are not exclusive to either end of the political axis.
One of the fun truths about leftists is that we disagree with each other as vigorously as we do with folks from the other side of the aisle: there are many forms of leftism, and they are certainly not all authoritarian or statist. In some strains of leftism, there is no role for the state at all; in others, opposition to authoritarianism is a primary concern.
I am sure that from a conservative viewpoint the other side looks like one big undifferentiated mass of crazy people, but from where I sit, the Democratic party looks like a fundamentally centrist institution which mostly prefers business-as-usual, occasionally proposing small tweaks in the direction of slightly softening the rough edges of the system when that will make the big donors happy. Leftists describe this as "liberalism". Voters may call for radical change from time to time, but the party never gets around to doing anything about it.
> probably not nearly as far left as you imagine
I am not sure how you can get any further left than libertarian socialism.
I mean, Kamala Harris' pivot to the right is going to be studied in political science textbooks for years. And Biden was a pro-police DA who (contrary to Republican propaganda) was aggressively anti-immigrant and he betrayed labor unions during the rail workers' strike.
Not even Obama, the Great Marxist Antichrist (as far as Republicans were concerned) was that leftist.
In my experience the only people who use the term "far leftist" to describe the Democrats were never going to vote for them to begin with. No actual leftist thinks the Democrats are allies, they're just the lesser evil. If anything, more people are disillusioned with them because they aren't leftist enough.
For sane centrists and conservatives, despite all Trump's shortcomings, he's still the only real bulwark against the extremes of the (perceived) radical Left, which presently make up the Democrat's hard core base.
For a liberal to hear that is damn near blasphemy, I know, but believe it or not, there's a whole lot of us out there who are not onboard with what the Dems have been pedaling the last decade and longer.
But to answer the question more directly: for Democrats to have a "bigger lead", they'd have to appeal to the center, to moderates, to swing voters.
Are they doing that? No. Not even close. Quite the opposite in fact.
While the "sky is falling", "democracy at risk", "orange man bad" rhetoric worked to keep the public outraged for a long time, with help of the liberal msm, that messaging hasn't aged well.
Implying half the country are Nazis doesn't bring in the new recruits either.
But if Democrats are ever going to take the majority again, either the GOP/Trump will have to f'k up really bad, and that is certainly possible
- OR -
Democrats will have to stop pushing largely unpopular socialist-inspired policies and anti-American radical Left ideologies, all of which is off putting to the "everyman" of the political center.
Of course, the Democrat plan to radicalize the youth and import foreign bodies has been moving along at quite the pace, but people are catching on.
The fact is, the Center is what decides between Left and Right today, as each makes up roughly ~30% of the electorate. No side can win without winning the center.
So, we have a largely moderate-right party in power and a far-left party out of power.
Why?
Because Americans have historically been moderate by nature, which used to de facto mean "liberal", but increasingly that moniker comes with some very pernicious baggage, as eventually, people do get wise to the grift, especially when it hits them in the wallet, as it has in so many now quite "unlivable" blue states which people are leaving en masse.
Otoh, if Iran becomes a boondoggle, Dems may get their chance. And oh are they hoping it all goes completely sideways too. But it's going to be a very slim chance unless they get a clue, and start moving back to the center-left of the 80's and 90's.
You asked. You probably don't like the answer. But don't shoot the messenger, OK?
I'd say you -- mind you, I'm writing from the other side of the Atlantic, and even if I have lived in the US, that was a long time ago! -- have lunatic right-wingers in power and lunatic liberals who think they are entitled to running the show as the (weak but noisy) opposition.
Why does this happen? Because close to nobody votes in the primaries, and so it is mostly candidates who have rather extremist views that are chosen by the two parties. How to solve this? By getting more people to vote in the primaries, so that more middle-of-the-road candidates are chosen.
How would this be even possible? Only if expressing one's vote were much simpler. I pretty much subscribe to Bradley Tusk's view (see: Vote with your phone: Why Mobile Voting Is Our Final Shot at Saving Democracy) that allowing people to vote from their phones is the only way to save the US.
But I agree, poor turnouts in primaries is bad. Even worse in states with open primaries where liberals purposely try to sabotage Republican primaries.
Electronic voting isn't going to help us, not for a good long while. Nothing on the Internet is safe. And as soon as quantum computing hits the scene, things are going to get real cray cray.
Imo, we just need good old fashioned ballots, an enforced chain of custody, and proper ID checking (at some stage), no late mail-in ballots (drop off is fine), and ZERO computers.
And I say this as a very pro-technology person. But we haven't caught up to what the tech can do, not yet.