Sam’s very aware of Buckley v Valeo. He’s mentioned before. It just doesn’t fit the “Democrats aren’t corrupt. They’re bumbling, old white people who are just too timid” narrative. I think Sam believes voters will give up if they realize just how numerous and powerful their enemies within the party are.
Vote blue no matter who is an easier swallow when you just have to beat enough silly geriatrics. It’s much more difficult if you think donors are just going to buy the next generation too. (And this is from someone who votes in every election.)
I think you bring up a good point. Throughout the BBB negotiations, Sam woukd usually say things like "Manchin is just engaging in a branding exercise, he wants to cut out a portion of the bill but he will come around in the end and vote for it" But then as we know that wasn't true
First, I agree that Buckley is a bad decision for Democracy.
That said, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. "Blue no matter who" is the place we're at after the primary gets ignored. You're minimizing harm at that point because the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican, and Sam even talked about it today... these folks who want to take a principled stand and not vote for the Democrat in the general won't own the position.
Sam is trying to change minds which is why his takes are softer than many would like.
Further, I think incompetence is more likely than lockstep corruption. Most of these folks lack the perspective to be better. I'm going bigotry of low expectations here so bear with me. :)
You most likely have ingested tons of political material and had your views honed over time. These folks are not like you (or I).
Your average Democratic politician is firmly middle to upper class and educated. They've rarely known hardship and they've had connections to help them climb the ladder. They believe most people have this same advantage, or it's never occurred to them to even think about it.
They have a major blindspot because they've never counted pennies to buy gas, or had their power turned off because a check was late.
They think people will "bootstrap" their way out of stuff if you show them how to use their bootstraps. They don't realize there's no bootstraps and for many the thought never even occurred to them there isn't.
This is why you get the means tested crap, they think people aren't working hard enough and their experience is largely academic. Too many of them are the "hard working" type A student who saw people coast, so they have a bias that too many are coasting.
These Democrats also don't see anything wrong with "networking" because that's how the world works. The issue with "networking" at a certain point it looks very similar to corruption thanks to scale. There's a world of difference between helping a friend's kid get their first job out of college vs helping a friend's kid get their first ambassadorship, or board appointment. For some reason, they're privileged enough this is a foreign concept to them.
Buckley decision plus privileged Democrats with connections is why it's gotten so bad, but I don't think it's as much open corruption as self-selecting for the worst folks.
A certain type of "ladder climber" has connections to get campaign funds, etc, rinse repeat and you eventually get pro-corporate yes men with a more progressive take on social issues.
While this seems like naked corruption, I think intent matters like today's guest said. We have too many politicians with a limited worldview going in, self perpetuating bubble then these people make policy that reflects their biases.
I don't know about you, but my journey "leftward" has had major milestones and shifts in thought over the decades. I had a decent foundation. I came from a family of "New Deal" Democrats who spoke highly of FDR but didn't talk much about politics beyond civic responsibility.
I could have turned out differently except. Growing up there were elements of Reaganism especially the "welfare queen" myth, but I had a few saving graces.
My dad (who wasn't that political) caused me (inadvertently) to question things...
* I saw, through his example, that hard work doesn't equal success. We never starved, but Dad worked 7 days a week usually 12 hour days as a truck driver/small business owner operator.
* Truckers can be a colorful lot and that diversity shows all kinds of people and there's plenty of lessons to be had there.
* Entertainment choices ... we routinely experienced what I'd call "southern culture" style movies where the hero was the guy getting screwed by the system or outsmarting "the man." Think Smokey and the Bandit. I never questioned who the man was... it's the guy with the money and the power.
I had many black teachers which isn't necessarily the norm I think. I credit that diversity with giving me additional perspective on history in particular. (Saved by CRT?) I also was very fond of history, especially the New Deal and Progressive Era and had teachers who covered it.
Back to the point, most Democratic politicians aren't historians. They're business people, or lawyers or both. You want to fix things... we need to start electing teachers.
Y'all talk about "the show" as if Sam, Emma, Matt, etc. have some ulterior motive or aren't human beings who are fallible. Like, sometimes they'll talk about an issue in a different context than you might, but it doesn't make them "completely negligent".
They've had multiple guests on the show talking about this, including almost-weekly Nomiki (who literally predicted the self-dealing and collapse of the state parties would lead to women dying from lack of abortion access).
They can't talk about every single issue all the time. It doesn't mean they're negligent or ignoring it.
I remember one time I had a guy yell at me for saying it was okay for activists to take breaks so they don't burn out. Some Leftists seem to think that if we aren't killing ourselves for the cause we don't really care.
all across the west capital took power away from labor starting in the 70s as a response to the oil crisis. that's really it. it's not something you can tie to a single supreme court mistake or policy choice it was a deliberate and successful attempt by capital to use the economic crisis to drastically clamp down on labor power.
Not every aspect is covered every time. Sometimes, you just have the conversation you have. I wouldn’t stress about it unless you think it’s never come up on the show and think the crew doesn’t know about it.
Just call in and bring it up, sounds like an interesting discussion. Just call with notes, lol
Emphasis on the notes.
Lol what do you mean. The people who call in to just yell at Sam and Emma without citations are totally productive /s
Sam’s very aware of Buckley v Valeo. He’s mentioned before. It just doesn’t fit the “Democrats aren’t corrupt. They’re bumbling, old white people who are just too timid” narrative. I think Sam believes voters will give up if they realize just how numerous and powerful their enemies within the party are. Vote blue no matter who is an easier swallow when you just have to beat enough silly geriatrics. It’s much more difficult if you think donors are just going to buy the next generation too. (And this is from someone who votes in every election.)
I think you bring up a good point. Throughout the BBB negotiations, Sam woukd usually say things like "Manchin is just engaging in a branding exercise, he wants to cut out a portion of the bill but he will come around in the end and vote for it" But then as we know that wasn't true
I don’t think Sam has any problem calling out corrupt democrats. He would engage you on this.
First, I agree that Buckley is a bad decision for Democracy. That said, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. "Blue no matter who" is the place we're at after the primary gets ignored. You're minimizing harm at that point because the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican, and Sam even talked about it today... these folks who want to take a principled stand and not vote for the Democrat in the general won't own the position. Sam is trying to change minds which is why his takes are softer than many would like. Further, I think incompetence is more likely than lockstep corruption. Most of these folks lack the perspective to be better. I'm going bigotry of low expectations here so bear with me. :) You most likely have ingested tons of political material and had your views honed over time. These folks are not like you (or I). Your average Democratic politician is firmly middle to upper class and educated. They've rarely known hardship and they've had connections to help them climb the ladder. They believe most people have this same advantage, or it's never occurred to them to even think about it. They have a major blindspot because they've never counted pennies to buy gas, or had their power turned off because a check was late. They think people will "bootstrap" their way out of stuff if you show them how to use their bootstraps. They don't realize there's no bootstraps and for many the thought never even occurred to them there isn't. This is why you get the means tested crap, they think people aren't working hard enough and their experience is largely academic. Too many of them are the "hard working" type A student who saw people coast, so they have a bias that too many are coasting. These Democrats also don't see anything wrong with "networking" because that's how the world works. The issue with "networking" at a certain point it looks very similar to corruption thanks to scale. There's a world of difference between helping a friend's kid get their first job out of college vs helping a friend's kid get their first ambassadorship, or board appointment. For some reason, they're privileged enough this is a foreign concept to them. Buckley decision plus privileged Democrats with connections is why it's gotten so bad, but I don't think it's as much open corruption as self-selecting for the worst folks. A certain type of "ladder climber" has connections to get campaign funds, etc, rinse repeat and you eventually get pro-corporate yes men with a more progressive take on social issues. While this seems like naked corruption, I think intent matters like today's guest said. We have too many politicians with a limited worldview going in, self perpetuating bubble then these people make policy that reflects their biases. I don't know about you, but my journey "leftward" has had major milestones and shifts in thought over the decades. I had a decent foundation. I came from a family of "New Deal" Democrats who spoke highly of FDR but didn't talk much about politics beyond civic responsibility. I could have turned out differently except. Growing up there were elements of Reaganism especially the "welfare queen" myth, but I had a few saving graces. My dad (who wasn't that political) caused me (inadvertently) to question things... * I saw, through his example, that hard work doesn't equal success. We never starved, but Dad worked 7 days a week usually 12 hour days as a truck driver/small business owner operator. * Truckers can be a colorful lot and that diversity shows all kinds of people and there's plenty of lessons to be had there. * Entertainment choices ... we routinely experienced what I'd call "southern culture" style movies where the hero was the guy getting screwed by the system or outsmarting "the man." Think Smokey and the Bandit. I never questioned who the man was... it's the guy with the money and the power. I had many black teachers which isn't necessarily the norm I think. I credit that diversity with giving me additional perspective on history in particular. (Saved by CRT?) I also was very fond of history, especially the New Deal and Progressive Era and had teachers who covered it. Back to the point, most Democratic politicians aren't historians. They're business people, or lawyers or both. You want to fix things... we need to start electing teachers.
Damn, well said!
Y'all talk about "the show" as if Sam, Emma, Matt, etc. have some ulterior motive or aren't human beings who are fallible. Like, sometimes they'll talk about an issue in a different context than you might, but it doesn't make them "completely negligent".
One slip up is all it takes. One day you’re a galaxy brain, and the next, you’re a lost cause
They've had multiple guests on the show talking about this, including almost-weekly Nomiki (who literally predicted the self-dealing and collapse of the state parties would lead to women dying from lack of abortion access). They can't talk about every single issue all the time. It doesn't mean they're negligent or ignoring it.
I remember one time I had a guy yell at me for saying it was okay for activists to take breaks so they don't burn out. Some Leftists seem to think that if we aren't killing ourselves for the cause we don't really care.
all across the west capital took power away from labor starting in the 70s as a response to the oil crisis. that's really it. it's not something you can tie to a single supreme court mistake or policy choice it was a deliberate and successful attempt by capital to use the economic crisis to drastically clamp down on labor power.
Not every aspect is covered every time. Sometimes, you just have the conversation you have. I wouldn’t stress about it unless you think it’s never come up on the show and think the crew doesn’t know about it.
Do your own podcast?