More accurately, Social Democrats and other progressives. Establishment Democrats are corporate-owned bootlickers that act against their constituents’ interests in favor of their donors, much like Republicans but without the blatant -isms and -phobias.
I think that’s overly simplistic. Power does attract people who want to abuse it, but it also attracts people who want to change their world for the better.
The latter group view power more as a weighty responsibility than a privilege, but the power still exists.
Although that latter group is also more likely to spread their power around, thus reducing the opportunities for abuse by the former group, and… I kind of see your point. But I view it a bit more systemically.
Many politicians have stated that they got into the game to make a difference but all the back room deals, concessions and quid pro quo needed to get into a position of power meant they had their hands tied once they were in power.
I think a lot of the people who want to make a difference look at the quagmire that is modern politics and decide they can do more from elsewhere in the community. People who are willing to wade into that tar pit and aren’t interested in the power or the extra money that can be made on the side are few and far between.
Social democrats isn’t a party (at least, not one they’re members of). It’s an idiology. They are elected as members of the Democratic party. You’re right, but I’m just pointing out that they are Democrats, along with being social democrats (no capital letters), progressives, or whatever else.
More accurately, Social Democrats and other progressives. Establishment Democrats are corporate-owned bootlickers that act against their constituents’ interests in favor of their donors, much like Republicans but without the blatant -isms and -phobias.
…i agree whole-heartedly…the people who should be in charge don’t want to be and the people who want to be in charge shouldn’t…
It’s W.B. Yeats’ Second Coming all over again.
I disagree with this statement.
What? That is utter nonsense.
It’s not. Power attracts people who want to abuse it. The people most suited for being an actual good leader, aren’t seeking it out.
I think that’s overly simplistic. Power does attract people who want to abuse it, but it also attracts people who want to change their world for the better.
The latter group view power more as a weighty responsibility than a privilege, but the power still exists.
Although that latter group is also more likely to spread their power around, thus reducing the opportunities for abuse by the former group, and… I kind of see your point. But I view it a bit more systemically.
Many politicians have stated that they got into the game to make a difference but all the back room deals, concessions and quid pro quo needed to get into a position of power meant they had their hands tied once they were in power.
I think a lot of the people who want to make a difference look at the quagmire that is modern politics and decide they can do more from elsewhere in the community. People who are willing to wade into that tar pit and aren’t interested in the power or the extra money that can be made on the side are few and far between.
You ae bad at reading.
No.
There are countless people worthy of such positions and they fight every day to get in.
To say they don’t want to is to frame it as the left is lazy, when the reality is that the leftists are fucked over by the capitalists.
Every Dem candidate is pretty close to Jimmy Carter on the issues.
The GOP keeps moving further to the Right.
Letting the GOP win anything doesn’t do anyone any good, ever.
Social democrats isn’t a party (at least, not one they’re members of). It’s an idiology. They are elected as members of the Democratic party. You’re right, but I’m just pointing out that they are Democrats, along with being social democrats (no capital letters), progressives, or whatever else.