Two decades of mostly uninterrupted neoliberal rule.

You’d have to ask the experts why they abandoned that paradigm in the 1970s, in favor of neoliberalism.

But ultimately I think you and I agree that the moderates shouldn’t be so adverse to left populism.

You should want them to be against the established paradigm if you want anything to change.

But simply being against the established paradigm isn’t enough to change things. You need to build a new paradigm, and that takes time, and it can’t be accomplished by just ignoring the existing experts and technocrats.

So why are you talking about Democrats doing that like it’s a good thing?

One of the characteristics of populism is being anti-establishment, even against the established academic and technocratic paradigm. So, when a populist candidate moderates once in office, they become less populist and come more inline with the established academic and technocratic paradigm when they seek the advice and guidance of experts. Not all populists moderate once in office, because they don’t all listen to experts. Trump is a great example, and I think right wing politicians who get elected by building a populist movement are less likely to moderate once in office because they are less likely to listen to experts.

Neoliberalism started taking over as the dominant paradigm in the 1970s, and had become firmly entrenched in academia and the political technocratic state by the 1980s. That has changed, and is continuing to change, but there was a time when the majority of experts and technocrats were neoliberals. Many still are, unfortunately, though, I think the influence of neoliberalism is declining, albeit slowly (at least too slow for my preference).

The Democrats need to embrace populism to get into office, like they did with Obama in 2008. Remember, Obama wasn’t the Democratic establishment’s first choice, but as Obama’s movement grew, they recognized that they could ride his wave back into power. Something similar happened in 2016 with Bernie Sanders, but in that case the Democratic establishment turned away from the candidate with the rapidly growing populist movement, because his language was much too explicitly and aggressively left populist for their comfort. This was a mistake. Had the Democratic establishment embraced Bernie’s movement, I don’t think Trump would have been elected in 2016.

I hope by now moderate Democrats realize a Bernie Sanders presidency would have been better than the Trump presidency. Many Democrats, apparently, didn’t think Bernie was a better option than Trump, that they were both equally bad options. Again, I hope moderate Democrats recognize now that that thinking was wrong. Bernie would have become more moderate once in office, just like Obama. Because Bernie, like Obama, would have listened to the experts.

That’s what the Democrats need to do: wait for a populist movement to form around a candidate, ride that populist wave into office, then the experts and technocrats can take over.

That all being said, Democrats also need to ensure that the experts and the technocrats are doing their jobs properly. Part of the reason these populist movements exist is because of the failures of technocrats and experts, failure to recognize the limitations or contradictions within their ideology. The technocrats must ensure that once they are back in power they are managing the country and the economy properly, so that the largest possible number of people can thrive, otherwise they will not be able to hold on to power.

I’m sure they matter to you.

They do. The question is: do they matter to you?

Particularly the concerns of charlie kirk

I don’t know why you keep bringing up Charlie Kirk. I know next to nothing about him, I don’t listen to him. I don’t know, or care what he thinks about, well, much of anything, really.

And your wing of the party has made it crystal clear that they are uninterested in helping anyone poorer than the “good billionaires” they toady up to.

It’s not my wing of the party. I don’t have a party, which is why I said I wanted to build a new Leftist movement: one that is interested in the concerns of the working class people. But, what folks like you don’t understand, is that most working class people are not concerned about whether or not trans women are allowed to participate in women’s sports. They are concerned about paying their rent, feeding their families, affording medical care, and other day-to-day, material issues. I choose to focus on those issues. You can focus on whatever you want, I don’t care. My new Leftist movement won’t include people like you, because you’re not helping anyone, and I don’t think you care to. You would accept widespread harm, so long as you could go on performing as a social justice advocate.

I have nothing more to say to you. I’m really not interested in reading another one of your vapid, banal responses about Charlie Kirk, or whatever other nonsense you might come up with. I’m going to go actually try to make the world a better place.

I’m not the one deflecting. You never answered my question: should the concerns of non-trans people also matter to the Left?

Yes, this thread is about trans issues, specifically the question of whether or not trans women should be allowed to participate in women’s sports. Do you realize how privileged you have to be for that to be a major concern? Poverty, destitution, illness, these are problems that millions of people face everyday, yet you won’t even acknowledge them because “that’s not what this thread is about.” You’re no Leftist.

I don’t side with charlie kirk regarding trans people, for one. Discussion’s about trans people.

When did I even once mention trans people?

If I dare to disagree with you and charlie kirk, I need to have a solution for every last one of the world’s ills?

When did I even once mention Charlie Kirk?

Is that all you think the Left is? Trans issues? There’s nothing more to the Left than matters pertaining to trans people? You do realize that there are many billions of people on the planet who are not trans, and that their concerns matter as well?

How do you know that you’re to my left? You don’t know me. What makes you so far left, anyway? Are you a Marxist, anarchist? What? You wanna gate keep the left, let’s do it. Give me your specific socioeconomic, sociopolitical ideal, and details about how you think it can be achieved. I’m dying to hear about your grand plan to change the world and usher in utopia. Come on, we’re all waiting for you. The future of humanity is in your hands, your plan had better be good.

No, dingus, I don’t.

That’s not true. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Stop. Just stop.

I say that to anyone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

It is a significant challenge. We absolutely do need to change the culture, and I think that is best achieved at the local level. I think it’s a dead end trying to change the culture from the top down, I think we will have much more success building from the bottom up. But, that will require being heavily involved in our communities. That is a tricky proposition for many of us, because some of us live in pretty conservative, even reactionary communities. There’s no easy answers here.

One possibility is for leftists to all move to the same state or states, to concentrate our power, to make us less diffuse and spread out. That’s a pretty drastic plan, and probably not feasible for a lot of people, but it’s one possibility, I suppose.

It’s asinine, and that’s why we need a new Left in the US: a Left of people who actually want to build a society in which the highest possible health and well being is achieved for the largest possible number of people, and who are willing and able to learn and adapt, to find the most effective methods for achieving said society, even if it means compromising and being pragmatic. A Left that is measured by results, rather than performative social justice advocacy.

such an obviously stupid hill to die on

The Left in the US would so much rather die on the hill of perceived moral superiority than achieve any of their goals. And, thus, here we are.

I recently played through New Order, Old Blood, and New Colossus again. God, I love those games.

Like it’ll matter.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 45 percent say they want their party to become more moderate, while 29 percent say they want the party to become more liberal, and 22 percent say they want the party to stay the same.

These words are meaningless. In many countries, to become more liberal is the same thing as becoming more moderate. It’s confusing to me because liberal and moderate mean one thing in the US and something else in the rest of the world. And I live in the US! After all these years, I still don’t quite understand what people mean by liberal, moderate, and conservative. Liberalism is an actual ideology with an actual definition, Conservativism is an actual ideology with an actual definition.

So, what do the American people want? If it’s some kind compromise between actual Liberalism and actual Conservativism, what would that look like, specifically? Which aspects of Liberalism do they want, and which aspects of Conservatism, and in what proportions? And what about ideologies other than Liberalism and Conservatism? Why are those two ideologies our only choices?

Oh wait, I already know the answer