Maybe. But the GOP “rebels” didn’t really want anything substantial from McCarthy and they don’t threaten capitalism in the slightest. On the other hand, the few left-wing Congressmembers playing hardball would get crucified by the mainstream media and by the Dem primary voters. Remember, when a pollster asks a Dem primary voter about good policy, the Dem primary voter will generally be in favor of it - first because they want to look like a good person to the pollster and because they want the Dem party to look good in “Dem primary voters polls” that get published everywhere in mainstream media. But when it comes down to it, they will vote for the Iraq war-supporting neoliberal candidate. And they will do it multiple times in a row!
A lot of Warren voters I’ve met seemed to think she supported M4A. People really belive that the neoliberals have their back. It’s not about looking like a good person, it’s about misjudging the neoliberal warmongers.
Not reading the article, but this is something I don’t think is true. For the “far-right Trumpists” or what ever you call these hold outs, showing that they are dissatisfied with the party mainstream and are rebels that will stand up to the Republicans is the point. They don’t have a positive, coherent agenda they are advancing beyond this grift. For the squad or whoever to do this to force a vote on M4A or something else, it would likely backfire. Because the party could easily give in to it and then, rather than showing who is actually for or against “progressive good thing”, like M4A, they could let several non-squad members vote for it and just make sure there are enough votes against it that it has no chance of passing. Then the party can say “look, these socialists are ideological and unrealistic. The Democrats want good things, we just never have quite enough votes/power to get it” and advance the moderate’s own rhetoric. Muddying the waters and accomplishing the opposite of what “force the vote” was supposed to be about. It is a stupid strategy if you are advancing an agenda, rather than a grifter that is advancing their own career by showing their dissatisfaction with the mainstream party. And even concessions McCarthy gave were due to Republicans trying to appeal to the most extreme part of their base, were Democrat’s base are conditioned to accept that “we are the best possible, the people more progressive than us are helping the Right by being unreasonable”.
Yes, it means until we have an organized mass base and some forms of dual power progressive politicians are useless. But I am saying that I thing that the disruption and media ruckus would have the opposite effect. Because of the media’s right wing bias and the Democrats messaging (as opposed to the Republican’s) is based around “we want good progressive things, but the only real way to attain it is through incremental moderate reform” means that that media backlash will harm left/progressives in a way that it doesn’t for the far-right. It wont really be that much of a mask-off moment, because they can even let party mainstreamers vote for it if there is still no hope of it passing. Same Manchin/Lieberman/Sinema type bullshit.
idk if this is a vindication of FTV, but I think for the left to make something of this strategy it would have to be tied to some movement demands and it probably wouldn’t result in them actually coming to fruition, but it would galvanize the movement. If a major union were to come up with demands for instance it might work.
Forcing the vote on M4A wasn’t really a good idea, it wouldn’t have done much. But the using their marginal power part absolutely was. What they should have done is oust Pelosi or at least get rid of PAYGO.
Did they have the proportions to oust Pelosi? I was under the impression that they didn’t. Getting rid of PAYGO would have been good though.
They had enough to block the speakership vote the way these Republicans did. A marginally better speaker (Barbara Lee maybe) would have been a good demand.
lol it was a great idea. detrators at the time said we would be far closer to getting m4a if we didn’t. Feels close now, doesn’t it? /s
Honestly whether it would’ve worked or not doesn’t really matter to me, we need actual left wing politicianswho are willing to fight the establishment tooth and nail regardless of the odds
Even if they can’t win, I don’t want to see them go down without a fight
I hate this stupid vein of “left-wing” media discourse that pretends like the main thing preventing socialism or whatever is that left-wingers aren’t “strategic” enough with the power they have, despite the fact that they have no power.
But as usual, the headline is far worse than the article.
If we on the Left really want to build a popular alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties and the Freedom Caucus, we need to create as much daylight between us and them as possible. Using high-profile leadership fights to draw out the lines of division between us and Democratic leaders is one very appealing tactic for doing so.
Not bad advice, too bad every “left-wing” person in Congress sucks, because they wouldn’t have made it there if they didn’t.
