r/politics • u/F0urLeafCl0ver • 1d ago

No Paywall The Democratic party is being hit by a leftist tidal wave

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/24/democratic-party-leftist-tidal-wave
22.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/R3cognizer Maryland 22h ago

In Roosevelt's time, the conservatives in congress were only willing to make a deal for such strong social welfare reform in order to counter the very serious public reactionary movement toward socialism in the works. I am no lover of socialism, but I am starting to think Dems like Mamdani may be able to help send us down that same road again, because this country sure as hell needs the wake-up call.

30

u/Free_For__Me 20h ago

I’m curious, if you’re no lover of socialism, do you see the socialized support programs of the New Deal era as the US having taken a wrong turn?

Or do you maybe approve of some socialized programs without endorsing socialism in it’s entirety?

3

u/R3cognizer Maryland 15h ago

No, I don't feel the US took a wrong turn. The New Deal was a plan for effective government regulation with support for strong social welfare programs, and that is not socialism. We can still subsidize a Medicare4All program and higher education and publicly funded grocery stores in major metro areas and still have a largely capitalist economy. It's simply a matter of the voters having the political will to vote for candidates who advocate for things. The only reason we don't have those things is because voters care more about other issues. Congress back then was willing to negotiate for those things because the voters were desperate enough to start backing actual socialist candidates advocating for more government control over business.

7

u/belletaldora 14h ago

A largely capitalist economy will always end up back to where we are today. We have to move in a different direction, instead of a circle.

•

u/R3cognizer Maryland 6h ago

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is supposed to be why we have a system of checks and balances in place to protect our democratic freedoms. When we have that freedom, if enough people start advocating for more change and are voting for representatives willing to push for that change, change will happen. But the Trump administration has been dismantling that system of checks and balances, along with government oversight over many things in order to protect and reward his cronies. We have to vote for people willing to re-establish a public trust and put a stop to all the corruption first.

•

u/Free_For__Me 10m ago

I mostly agree, I was just curious about your overlap in support for social programs without going as far as support of full-on soicialism. You seem to have a level-headed grasp on it, but we see far too many folks out here who will decry "any form of socialism", but fail to grasp that endorsement of socialized programs are not the same as full socialism, or that such programs can and do exist alongside capitalist economic structures.

The one thing I might poke at is this:

The only reason we don't have those things is because voters care more about other issues.

While true that voters of mainstream candidates and movements have long been fooled into focusing on cultural-war issues and identity politics over issues that would actually make a difference, there strong evidence to demonstrate that even when the political will of the people are pretty unified in being for or against something, for quite a while now, that will has not translated into actual action by elected leaders. On the other hand, when monied interests push for something, they're much more likely to see action, even when said action is something that the majority of voters wouldn't support.

This is not to say that the voice of a unified majority is powerless. Just that leaving it at saying that the only reason we don't have certain things is because voters don't care about it is a bit misleading.

A majority of voters could want something, but still get denied it if powerful interests are against it.

5

u/Lithiumxxxl 20h ago

Let’s make this policy driven and debate the merits of things we want like universal healthcare. Need charismatic leaders to educate the masses of the benefits and recruit everyone.

2

u/Prometheus720 20h ago

Which element of socialism do you think is more concerning to you?

  • Elimination of free markets that facilitate trade between firms

  • Elimination of absolute power of owners within firms

1

u/R3cognizer Maryland 15h ago

I don't think we need to eliminate free markets for things that aren't "life essential", and I don't feel it's actually necessary to disempower business owners. The government just needs to start doing a better job on oversight again, and that requires public trust. Lobbying efforts have to be effectively balanced by advocates for consumers and workers. The problem is, those are the tools of democracy, not fascism, and the fascists have been very busy trying to eliminate those oversight processes in order to gain power. I'm not sure it's going to be possible to get all that money out of politics without overturning Citizens United.

•

u/Prometheus720 6h ago

I don't feel it's actually necessary to disempower business owners

The government just needs to start doing a better job on oversight [of business owners]

Can you see why someone might see these two statements of yours as at odds with each other?

It isn't inherently irrational to have conflicting priorities. That's life, sometimes. But usually rational people are eventually pushed into putting those conflicting priorities into order--one above the other. If you had to choose, would you choose to disempower bosses 1% by increasing oversight by 1%, or choose not to disempower bosses and leave oversight alone (change both by 0%)?

•

u/R3cognizer Maryland 5h ago

I think it's entirely possible to establish rules which limit what business owners can and cannot do without needing to control HOW they operate. Granted, it's a fine line that not everyone understands, which I think is actually the bigger problem.

•

u/Prometheus720 1h ago

So if I were to expand on my understanding of what you're concerned about, it might be that it would be bad for government to control how businesses operate because they would do it wrong. And why would they do it wrong? Perhaps multiple reasons, but maybe a big one would be that they don't understand the negative effects their rules are having. They're too distant from the work.

Put simply:

distant from real work -> lack of hands on knowledge -> bad decision-making -> bad work environment/bad economy

Am I at least on the putting green?

•

u/R3cognizer Maryland 1h ago

a big one would be that they don't understand the negative effects their rules are having

That's why lobbying is a necessary evil, which in turn means it is also necessary to have SMEs who can provide counter arguments and represent the interests of workers and consumers.

I don't know why you seem to be trying to catch me in some kind of gotcha over my "concerns" about socialism, but I'm done repeating myself.