I will reserve judgement until I see precisely who he intends to replace them with.
His adoption by a lot of centrist Dems, and his absorption and placement as DNC Vice Chair makes me wonder if he’s just the Centrist Dems’ vehicle to remain the top influence in the party by replacing old Centrists with young Centrists.
Edit: To clarify for anyone else who is confused, I really hope he does what he says he will! We need lots more young progressives.
Makes perfect sense. After all:
- We can’t support the Democrats until they get better on Gaza
- We can’t support the people who want to improve the Democrats until they don’t have the support of “centrist” Democrats and thus demonstrate their cred <- You are here
- We can’t support the independents like Bernie Sanders until they stop being “sheepdogs” or whatever
- We can’t support the et cetera you get the idea
Bottom line, we can’t support anything on the left. It’s better to just let the right wing (or the conservative/corporate wing of the Democrats or et cetera) win whatever contests, until we all go to El Salvador.
Got it. I completely agree with you. This is totally sensible.
/s
Centrist Dems are half the reason we have Trump. Don’t try to frame this as some anti-Left thing, this is about milquetoast, feckless neolibs who have and still do spend enormous effort preventing the party from actually aligning with its voting base.
If he’s not that, I support him fully! But until I see that, I’m not going to celebrate just because he’s young.
But go off with your ad hominems! They sure worked this past election to cajole support. /s
Centrist Dems are half the reason we have Trump.
More than half, I’d say. That’s precisely one reason I think it’s weird that you’re coming out against someone who wants to get rid of them.
Don’t try to frame this as some anti-Left thing
I mean, this guy’s left, and you’re anti- him. Sounds like it is an anti-left thing. Again, that’s actually what irritated me about your message.
this is about milquetoast, feckless neolibs who have and still do spend enormous effort preventing the party from actually aligning with its voting base.
Absolutely.
If he’s not that, I support him fully!
Yeah. If he’s not a child molester, then I support him fully too! Isn’t that a weird way to frame things?
this guy’s left, and you’re anti- him
What part of “reserve judgement” do you not understand?
If he’s not a child molester, then I support him fully too! Isn’t that a weird way to frame things?
It wouldn’t be if he was the Vice Chair of an org that had historically been run by child molesters, as the DNC has and is run by Centrist Neolibs.
If he is not a neolib, he would be the exception to a very longstanding precedent of DNC leadership, so I think it’s a very fair question to pose, especially right when Sanders and AOC are making news as they are.
The DNC leadership is not going to go down without swinging, and I fully expect them to try to co-opt Progressivism as a label and redefine it rightwards. Like I said, if he’s not that, and throws his weight behind established Progressives or better, awesome!
But I will heavily scrutinize anyone that any DNC leader is backing; we don’t need any more Fettermans or Sinemas, even if it’s just a post-election “conversion” to the Center.
I mean it’s just weird. I won’t say you’re in any way wrong to be suspicious of anything DNC-related. But it just seems weirdly and pointlessly extra in this case. And this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test (or even, as in this case, maybe doesn’t pass some weird purity test, just based on no knowledge at all) does a lot of damage. It’s a good way to splinter and diffuse progress and put up obstacles to people who are trying to accomplish something.
Put it this way: If one mid-level priest said he wanted to do something about pedophilia in the Catholic Church, that would be good. It wouldn’t really make me decide to be Catholic, but it seems like a good indication about them. If someone said “Yeah but he’s CATHOLIC CHURCH so how do we know he’s not a pedophile himself!” then that’s weird. Even if maybe the person has a point to be cautious, it’s just a weird point to decide to make.
this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test… does a lot of damage. It’s a good way to splinter and diffuse progress and put up obstacles to people who are trying to accomplish something.
Right now, Sanders and AOC are making a lot of progress, and they’re the ones I trust to be pushing for the changes to the party that we need. If anyone is splintering or diffusing progress, it would be someone other than them popping up and trying to do their own thing. If Sanders or AOC endorse Hogg, I would trust their opinion.
Put it this way: If one mid-level priest said he wanted to do something about pedophilia in the Catholic Church, that would be good.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to downplay Hogg’s position in the DNC; he’s literally the second-highest ranked person. And like I said, if he does push for progressives, that would be good.
If anyone is splintering or diffusing progress, it would be someone other than them popping up and trying to do their own thing.
So no one is allowed to “pop up” and start to try to make progress. Otherwise, they’re “splintering.” Got it.
And like I said, if he does push for progressives, that would be good.
Quick question: What is he doing, as the main topic of the article you’re posting under?
I heard an interview with this guy on NPR. He seems to understand what it means to be a progressive in America and how you can actually advocate for your agenda in a meaningful way.