It says Democratic Socialist. Isn't that how they identify?Bernie isn't a Democrat, and a lot of Bernie Bros don't identify with the center party.
He is an independent that caucuses with the Democratic Party. But he has never joined, even when he was running for the party nomination.It says Democratic Socialist. Isn't that how they identify?
I'd a vague idea that Bernie had called himself a Democratic Socialist at same point, so I looked at his Wikipedia page (not that I necessarily like getting my information from there). While there I learned: Bernie has had a strategy of running in the Democratic primary, winning it, then not actually running as a Democrat in the general election. I saw that on Wiki, then followed the footnote to Washington Post. I think what is linked, at the Post, is an opinion piece, so I'm not sure if that information is accurate or not.He is an independent that caucuses with the Democratic Party. But he has never joined, even when he was running for the party nomination.
Bernie Sanders is still borrowing the Democratic Party - The Washington PostTo be clear, Sanders has done this before. He ran unopposed in the 2012 Democratic primary, and in 2006, he took 94.3 percent of the vote against three unknown opponents. Each time, he passed on actually running as a Democrat.
So, democratic-socialist is a political leaning, not a party, at least in the US [on the federal level.I'd a vague idea that Bernie had called himself a Democratic Socialist at same point, so I looked at his Wikipedia page (not that I necessarily like getting my information from there). While there I learned: Bernie has had a strategy of running in the Democratic primary, winning it, then not actually running as a Democrat in the general election. I saw that on Wiki, then followed the footnote to Washington Post. I think what is linked, at the Post, is an opinion piece, so I'm not sure if that information is accurate or not.
Oh, and Wiki did not list Democratic Socialist as a party he has been a member of, though he has called himself that.
Bernie Sanders is still borrowing the Democratic Party - The Washington Post
Its an organization - non-profit by the look of it. I can't ever think of seeing any on a ballot, so, again, not really a viable national level political party.Democratic Socialists of America - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
According to the Wikipedia article Argent referenced,Its an organization - non-profit by the look of it. I can't ever think of seeing any on a ballot, so, again, not really a viable national level political party.
It seems to me not so much a socialist or social-democratic political party as an organisation for people who support what they think would be the policies of a Socialist Party if such a thing existed as a viable political party in the US but, since no such organisation exists at present, they support candidates whose views and policies are most aligned with their own.The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a socialist and labor-oriented nonprofit organization in the United States, whose members' ideological views range from social democracy to democratic socialism. [....]
The DSA does not run candidates on its own ballot line in elections, but instead "fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people." The organization has at times endorsed Democratic presidential candidates, including Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, as well as Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.
Seeing "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" back to back, I couldn't help but think ofAccording to the Wikipedia article Argent referenced,
It seems to me not so much a socialist or social-democratic political party as an organisation for people who support what they think would be the policies of a Socialist Party if such a thing existed as a viable political party in the US but, since no such organisation exists at present, they support candidates whose views and policies are most aligned with their own.
I'm not sure how to draw the dividing line between social democratic and socialist parties. There is the formal distinction between members and non-members of the Socialist International, which comprises a broad alliance of more or less mainstream socialist, social-democratic and labour parties (the UK Labour Party is affiliated, as are most other large mainstream European left-wing parties (the DSA apparently disaffiliated in 2017:Seeing "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" back to back, I couldn't help but think of
Broadly speaking, I would say that socialists and social democrats by and large agree on the kind of things governments should and shouldn't be doing, but they differ in their analysis of the economic and other power relations in society.The delegates voted to sever relations with the Socialist International, a conglomeration of parties that have embraced and in some cases implemented neoliberal policies around the world (ie., the German SPD, Hollande’s Socialist Party in France, Peña Nieto’s PRI in Mexico, the Indian Congress Party, and the Greek PASOK).
The ideological purity people drive me crazy. Whichever side they're on. That circles back to the thread title, because the Calf and his worshippers have laid claim to the Republican party and anyone who wants to get back to any level of reasonableness the party ever had is labeled a RINO.I'm very much a Labour supporter, which is one reason I distrust Bernie Sanders so much, though I have a great of time for "the squad," from what I've read of them) for reasons I won't bore people with here, other than to say that I'm primarily interested in achieving the kind of social reforms that the more left-wing socialists also want, but I'm also interested in what can actually be delivered, and how, and what compromises must be made to deliver them, than I am in ideological purity for its own sake.
You mean they didn't want to try to ride to power on 8% of the vote in a first past the post system?Dad was a Democratic Socialist, but in Oregon in the 70s they were organized as a group within the Democratic Party because they were interested in achieving results and were willing to work with the established party that embraced a number of their goals.
I'm afraid I don't like the idea of Medicare4All at all, because that simply addresses the question of who pays the bills and ignores the question of how you ensure that the full range of high-quality, medical care is available to all, based only on their medical need, and how you ensure they can readily access it.The ideological purity people drive me crazy. Whichever side they're on. That circles back to the thread title, because the Calf and his worshippers have laid claim to the Republican party and anyone who wants to get back to any level of reasonableness the party ever had is labeled a RINO.
On the left wing side, the problem is not as much the politicians as some who rally behind them, specifically, the ones who feel their agenda should be rammed through whether people like it or not. Their ideas may be the most wonderful ever, but forcing people into then just doesn't sound like it will end well.
I love the idea of Medicare4All, for example.
What I don't love is the idea of anyone like the Calf getting control again, and this time maybe keeping it.
The problem is, the moment Bernie used the phrase, not supporting it means you aren't a real progressive, but there are plenty of ways to make the system better, and progressively, too.I'm afraid I don't like the idea of Medicare4All at all, because that simply addresses the question of who pays the bills and ignores the question of how you ensure that the full range of high-quality, medical care is available to all, based only on their medical need, and how you ensure they can readily access it.
That, it seems to me, can be achieved only by the state owning, or at least having overall control of, health care provision, because they're the only people who can deliver a national health care service, whose only concern is providing quality healthcare within a national framework, rather than providing a piecemeal service that's ultimately concerned with providing individual services for fees, with the profits of insurance companies and a whole panoply of individual for-profit health-care providers, rather than treating patients and trying to cure their condition, and promoting public health in general.
If the only priority is to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare in the US as it currently exists, then ensuring that Medicare is available to everyone who wants it, but if they're content with their existing cover and if it offers benefits at least equivalent to those offered by Medicare they can keep that if they want to, then if that's the less expensive option, then it seems preferable.
Both prop up a failing system, but one costs less than the other, so why not choose that one?
Yeah, but there's a reason why they say, "Never take the jawbone of an ass to a gunfight."
What if you're the ass?Yeah, but there's a reason why they say, "Don't take the jawbone of an ass to a gunfight."
The minimum wage was not intended to be a living wage, where the latter means supporting a family decently. It was intended to be a minimum, hence the name. It was suitable for people just starting out, like mailroom clerks or busboys (the people who clean up restaurant tables). Typically they would still be living with family or sharing living quarters. In college (a long time ago) I got 20% *below* minimum wage at a "work-study" job - part time school job on campus. We were part-time and students, so they felt we didn't deserve a "real" salary.Its sort of like 15$ minimum. That's no longer anywhere close to a living wage anywhere on the state level.