You are spot on in your evaluation here, but I'm going to summarize it thusly: idealists like deBoer want revolution, not evolution. When AOC got to Congress, she imagined radical change like deBoer wants here, but came face-to-face with the reality that the founding fathers purposely designed the government structure to only enable slow and methodical change. You can get some small things done, or you can get absolutely nothing done (but virtue signal your impotence by standing in the path of the Congressional process). So as much as he generally condemns virtue signaling in his writing, he desperately wants her to be the shibboleth for his Democratic Socialist cause, naively believing that if just one person had the balls, miraculous change could overcome the literal structure of our government.
Pelosi no doubt explained all this to AOC after her early antics, and AOC decided to be a grown up instead of throwing more temper tantrums (mostly.) But like a lot of lefties, DeBoer is waiting for a Marvel superhero to run for Congress and work their magic. (Remember the "Save us, Bernie!" campaign t-shirts in 2016?). My Sanders supporter friends imagined all this amazing stuff he would get done if he became President, and I had to explain that without a few hundred congresspeople who would ALSO vote for that shit, then Sanders would get absolutely nothing done.
I, too, want to burn the fucking system to the ground. Everyone with half a brain cell and half a heart valve should too. But in real life, most revolutions turn out badly for almost everyone and useful incremental change is generally a better goal.
Agree with your analysis. Reminds me of my Ron Paul 2012 days. Everyone wants a superhero to swoop in and save the day. Ideally, we eventually grow up and learn to work together to save each other and ourselves.
You know what would have made me think better of Freddie? If he (or someone else on the left) would actually examine the failures of unions in a constructive way so we could properly understand why rail unions got stuck between a rock and a hard place just asking for reasonable medical leave. That would really help out a lot of unionizing efforts, as well as allow people to understand the complexity and entrenchment of existing labor relations right now.
I guess that goes against what he's about though. Doing that kind of stuff requires one to reach out frequently to talk to people, make connections with people that KNOW, and deliver meaningful help to existing groups that are in decades long power struggles. It's much easier and lucrative to be a paid troll to fling mud at whoever tops the Future Leftist Leader Power Rankings, somehow convinced bits and bytes online that earn him a paycheck "hold power accountable" in some way.
I am sympathetic to the general argument here, but not sure it applies to AOC. Is she really moving towards neoliberalism or is she just doing a kind of performative leftism that allows her to keep her internet socialist cred while simultaneously moving comfortably through the halls of power?
It's probably too early to say definitively, but I suppose the future will tell.
Not a summary of Dems, but where does this come from
"While Republicans pass shit that only appeals to the fringiest fringe"
Republicans haven't passed anything in Congress since the first two Trump years, and before that you have to go back to pre-2006 GWB years. So, what in those first two Trump years did Republicans pass that only appealed to the fringiest fringe?
I see. I suppose I was head faked by the AOC stuff. There have been plenty of state level "Republican" laws that have wide appeal within that state, just like there are plenty of state level Democrat laws that have wide appeal in Democrat states. There's also a bunch of fringiest of fringe things they all do. That's how government works.
Unpopular with whom? The laws are popular or at least way more than just a fringe in the state in which they are passed. California laws encouraging transing kids or unlimited abortion are not popular in Idaho, anymore than bans on abortion and transing kids are popular in California.
You are spot on in your evaluation here, but I'm going to summarize it thusly: idealists like deBoer want revolution, not evolution. When AOC got to Congress, she imagined radical change like deBoer wants here, but came face-to-face with the reality that the founding fathers purposely designed the government structure to only enable slow and methodical change. You can get some small things done, or you can get absolutely nothing done (but virtue signal your impotence by standing in the path of the Congressional process). So as much as he generally condemns virtue signaling in his writing, he desperately wants her to be the shibboleth for his Democratic Socialist cause, naively believing that if just one person had the balls, miraculous change could overcome the literal structure of our government.
Pelosi no doubt explained all this to AOC after her early antics, and AOC decided to be a grown up instead of throwing more temper tantrums (mostly.) But like a lot of lefties, DeBoer is waiting for a Marvel superhero to run for Congress and work their magic. (Remember the "Save us, Bernie!" campaign t-shirts in 2016?). My Sanders supporter friends imagined all this amazing stuff he would get done if he became President, and I had to explain that without a few hundred congresspeople who would ALSO vote for that shit, then Sanders would get absolutely nothing done.
I, too, want to burn the fucking system to the ground. Everyone with half a brain cell and half a heart valve should too. But in real life, most revolutions turn out badly for almost everyone and useful incremental change is generally a better goal.
Agree with your analysis. Reminds me of my Ron Paul 2012 days. Everyone wants a superhero to swoop in and save the day. Ideally, we eventually grow up and learn to work together to save each other and ourselves.
Pour-over progressivism. Keep it comin', Cathy.
1. Do other politicians get weirdo hagiographic images like that one you've included of AOC?
2. What does it tell you about how people feel about her that such images exist?]
3. Could it not be the case that this sycophantic celebrity-worship impedes your ability to assess her AS A LEGISLATOR?
I used midjourney to create the image ;)
You know what would have made me think better of Freddie? If he (or someone else on the left) would actually examine the failures of unions in a constructive way so we could properly understand why rail unions got stuck between a rock and a hard place just asking for reasonable medical leave. That would really help out a lot of unionizing efforts, as well as allow people to understand the complexity and entrenchment of existing labor relations right now.
I guess that goes against what he's about though. Doing that kind of stuff requires one to reach out frequently to talk to people, make connections with people that KNOW, and deliver meaningful help to existing groups that are in decades long power struggles. It's much easier and lucrative to be a paid troll to fling mud at whoever tops the Future Leftist Leader Power Rankings, somehow convinced bits and bytes online that earn him a paycheck "hold power accountable" in some way.
I am sympathetic to the general argument here, but not sure it applies to AOC. Is she really moving towards neoliberalism or is she just doing a kind of performative leftism that allows her to keep her internet socialist cred while simultaneously moving comfortably through the halls of power?
It's probably too early to say definitively, but I suppose the future will tell.
Not a summary of Dems, but where does this come from
"While Republicans pass shit that only appeals to the fringiest fringe"
Republicans haven't passed anything in Congress since the first two Trump years, and before that you have to go back to pre-2006 GWB years. So, what in those first two Trump years did Republicans pass that only appealed to the fringiest fringe?
I’m thinking at the state level
I see. I suppose I was head faked by the AOC stuff. There have been plenty of state level "Republican" laws that have wide appeal within that state, just like there are plenty of state level Democrat laws that have wide appeal in Democrat states. There's also a bunch of fringiest of fringe things they all do. That's how government works.
What have democrat states passed that’s as unpopular as total abortion bans or anti-trans legislation
Unpopular with whom? The laws are popular or at least way more than just a fringe in the state in which they are passed. California laws encouraging transing kids or unlimited abortion are not popular in Idaho, anymore than bans on abortion and transing kids are popular in California.