...I'm always reminded of other influential legislators who replaced icons in our history.

Like Charlie Rangel replacing Adam Clayton Powell decades ago.

and I hope the left engages tactically, prudently, and effectively with the mainstream Democratic center to get things done, because that is how we will be measured at the polls in subsequent elections.

want a left version of the Freedom Caucus?

don't get to see their proposals enacted into law. They have to compromise with the majority in the center, or the other party. We'd have to see 1932 magnitude Congressional shift to pass legislation that is far left, and while I'm hoping Trump is the new Alf Landon, i doubt the Senate, with a slim Democratic majority - if we win one - will go along. At some point practicality must be considered.

But radicalism destrous unity & gets little done.

....it's essential to have a solid left wing at the back pushing the center to be more progressive.

It exerts influence, pressure and a model of the world that makes the ultimate compromise, when it comes, be more in favor of working people over corporations.

We need a center-left. Not a center-right. Especially now.

We need the full spectrum of voices, and a place for all Democrats in the tent.

The eagle can't fly with two right wings.

when there is a stronger left. There is also a substantial difference between left and radical. In the context of today’s social and economic structures, left is not radical. It is balanced. We need a center-left Congress, not a center left party to fully achieve balance, again, in today’s context.

seems like the Tea Party paved the way for the trump party. What happened to the main stream Republicans?
I want to believe that compromise with the other side of the aisle was the prudent thing to do, but these trump years have jaded that prospect for me. We know what this country needs and doesn't need, and frankly I will support anyone who stands up for everyone.

or there will be a day of reckoning. Like the Tea Party and Trump are, hopefully, about to experience.

Thank you for a thoughtful conversation.

For me, the question is, "does this person reflect the constituency they serve or are they just an idealogue?"

If the answer to that is yes, they do serve their constituents, then the follow ups are, "How responsive are they to their constituents? Are they somehow beholden to big lobbies, or are they relatively free of that corruption? Do they advocate sensible things that would actually make life better for their constituents and their families?"

Things like expanded Social Security and Medicare, healthcare, infrastructure improvements, more affordable college, reversing the destructive and short-sighted Republican tax cuts, and so on.

What we really need is a government that responds to us, and implements laws and policies that make our lives materially better, as opposed to towing the line for billionaires and corporations.

It has always bothered me, as an economist, that just a few decades ago, corporations paid in around 35 cents of every income tax dollar the government collected, while individuals like you and me paid in around 45 cents. Now, thanks to feckless Republican tax policy, individuals like us pay 86 cents of every dollar our government collects while corporations only pay 6 cents. That is unsustainable, and reflects the right-wing neocon/neolib agenda of deregulation, privatization, and gutting of all government programs but defense so we can build an American empire.

That ideology was the whole purpose behind the grossly negligent 2017 tax cut for billionaire parasites and corporations. And look what has happened because of it - Trump cut the pandemic response team. There was a paper out, written for Republicans in Congress, about how expensive unemployment is. Think about that for a minute in light of what's going on now.

But we have a shiny new space force, and a really well funded 'defense' program, complete with increases that call for government spending in the red.

This is my gripe - if we truly have a government that is 'of, by and for' the American people, then that government needs to use our tax dollars that we pay in for programs that materially benefit us, including some massive social justice initiatives.

What was it that O said? There's a 'fierce urgency in now?' There is. As MLK Jr. said in his letter from Birmingham Jail, often 'later means never' and justice delayed is justice denied.

I make this point because this deal about 'radicals' unseating moderates in primaries is media blather. They do love to divide us. In fact, if you read your Zinn, the powers that be have been using 'divide and conquer' strategies for centuries. Race, ethnicity, immigrants, Islam, unions, government workers - all under the gun. I get such a kick (not really) about when Republicans rip off pensions of government workers, and then right-wingers spew out talking points that say, "Good! Now those government people will have it like we do!"

Man, that's EXACTLY where they want us to be. Envying and mistrusting one another. Because what all workers ought to be saying is, "Wait a minute. There can be no profits without us. We want better pay and defined benefit pensions. We want the shareholder primacy doctrine diluted so that the interests of workers, communities and the environment are held equal to those of shareholders."

Alas, we've been dumbed down. We really have. Most Americans can't name even ten African countries, and some are so ignorant they cannot even pick out our own country. And THAT is also EXACTLY where the oligarchs want us to be. Dumb, docile and fearful of each other - easy to intimidate into wage slavery while the oligarchs proceed, as they have been, in stripping our treasury bare.

So, this doesn't seem to me to be a battle between radicals and moderates, but rather the pendulum swinging back a bit in our favor from these corporations and billionaires. AOC says that every billionaire is a failure in policy, and she is quite right.

If not the year.

Thanks for a wonderful post. Truly.

Thank you for taking the time to make an important and often missed point so such a cogently and completely.

One additional observation I might humbly add if I may: “the oligarchs are“ also “proceed[ing], as they have been, in stripping our” environment “bare”.

making this very planet uninhabitable for humanity. Thanks for the add!

presume to improve on your post. It was absolutely perfect as it was. I only used quotations to credit you for your words. It was a wonderfully spot on post.

Thanks. Again and again.

The way that Biden has added and used ideas from more progressive politicians like Sanders and Warren with his advisory boards, has really convinced me that progressives have a voice in this party.

Well, It's good to have hope...

crossover voting in Congress.

And also the stunning election victories from 2010-2016, and the rock solid 40+% support Twitler retains despite the mess he has made.

Omar could very well lose (the primary). I don't know if that will happen lots of cross-currents here. I just have no real feel for it ad that is very unusual for me.

Talked to a canvasser for the State Senate here in what should be Ilhan county. His first name is Omar and she told me that she is making sure to emphasize his full name to make sure people will take the literature.

They also voted for medicaid extension!

district for 20 years not putting in any extra effort. Complacency is doing these older members in. A seismic shift would be Bush winning a red district.

Thank you.

from his district , was having problems raising money and what money he did raise wasn't used effectively on ads etc. These incumbents need to start taking their challengers seriously. The squad is still small , though and won't be able to get anything through the Senate. They're not taking over anything.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

There is almost no difference between them on issues/policy . Kennedy has an advantage mostly because he is Kennedy and has a certain young energy that most of the later Kennedy generations did not have. But he isn't any better on issues than MArkey .

And the end result will be the same .

is a seismic shift - a younger generation with direct ties to the BLM movement defeats a 20-year incumbent.

Give credit where credit is due. Running and winning is a brave act for any young woman of color in this toxic national climate. Too many Democrats have been hesitant to support a truly progressive agenda, to the detriment of conditions in a city like St. Louis.

an effective campaign. As far as the progressive agenda, Lacy was a member of the Progressive Caucus. He took his seat for granted and lost.

Missouri Republicans on their gerrymandering plan which guaranteed him a safe seat but screwed over other Missouri Democrats. Votes have consequences.

I speculated here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213857598

that he didn't get money for his sell out but probably got a GE agreement.

Favorable redistricting would do that.

Your comment on that thread would be useful

Thanks for the info

I'm actually more than a little surprised that Clay's fellow progressives endorsed his competitor. Just seems like something you don't do to a political ally.

Replaced one of the most liberal/progressive members of Congress with another Liberal/progressive. New blood. New ideas, sort of yes, but no real ideological shift in the voting make up of the Congress.

and then Tiperneni sticking it to her by deciding that it would be easier for her in 2020 to win in Malik's district where Malik has lived her entire life, and Tiperneni never even moved into the district. That win was pretty bitter for me.

was a minor price to pay.

Did the people in the district know she isn't from there ?

district she represents. Go figure.

He opposed Obama's fiduciary rule that would require financial professionals to sell their clients products that are best for their clients as opposed to what gives them the best commission.

This is the first question you are asked in any state licensing exam and it basically means you shouldn't cheat your clients.

It is universally held as the basic tenet of professional ethics for financial professionals but state enforcement is non existent. Making it a federal rule would have a dramatic impact.

Clay joined Republicans in opposing it and stunned all his "allies", it allowed the Republicans to say that their opposition was "bipartisan".

How basic is this rule to good business? When I heard my "boss" (we are actually independent) say that he couldn't survive in the business if the rule was enforced I immediately ended my 14 year association and lost 4 months of income to find an alternative network. I don't want to be in the same room with anyone who can't support this basic rule, its hardly radical.

I don't know how but Clay clearly got some kind of a pay off for this move and all of the Progressive Caucus knew it for what it was. Not a big fan of the "Squad" but happy for them to have one more and get rid of scum like Clay.


How good was this rule for the good guys and how bad was it for the bad guys? When Trump became President it was the very first Executive Order he signed after his Inauguration.

This wasn't a victory of a Progressive over a Progressive but a Progressive over a crook.

"display of progressive might."

I'm frankly disappointed to find Cori Bush was a supporter of Sanders' anti-democratic populist tactics during the 2016 Democratic primary, including accepting being used by Russia to elect Trump. I was hoping she would be another John Lewis and Katie Hill-type Democrat. (Could have been; dissident groups have learned to endorse people who aren't really one of them in order to be able to claim wins.)

Obviously not. But, oh well. The voters have spoken.

We currently have 235 Democrats out of 435 in the house, and the big issue is if our majority over the Republicans will remain strong enough in 2021. Our Democratic House Progressive Caucus will of course still be very large part of our whole. And despite 2016, it's possible Ms. Bush will be joining it instead of the Trid once she's a member of congress, as Ayanna Pressley did.

the Democratic House Progressive Caucus.

Link to tweet

She may experience a great enlightenment as she sees what she's become part of, certainly no resemblance to the propaganda of some of her endorsers, and become a devoted protector of her constituents' sovereignty.

To have good government, we have to elect good people. As basic as it gets.

well rounded policies.

the Dem party has been getting a bit old and calcified. We need new blood. Bush sounds like a bright, dedicated woman.

They've brought much-needed energy and ideas to the Democratic Caucus, and like it or not, they are the future of the party. But constant condescension on a lot of these DU threads.

It’s sort of a lightning rod.

They need to be present and working, like Lauren Underwood. She is more the person I see as the future of the party.

Who/what are you talking about?