1251
One party deserves criticism for being insufficient. One party deserves nothing but scorn and opposition.
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
1251 points (96.9% liked)
Political Memes
7873 readers
2985 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I still don't think your definition is valid or good and I didn't really see any argument that said otherwise. Immediately after the part you quoted I did say "(but we're kinda fucked with that right now)" which was in reference to our 2 party system, so yes I understand that part.
Statements like these reveal why the definition I stated is more accurate. That there's a party line that politicians in that party are expected to follow. You use those statements to argue that we should be trying to change what that party line is, which I take no issue with and seems to be a goal of AOC and some others. But we're talking about who is a better example of a Democrat which has zero meaning without the democratic party. And Pelosi is an excellent example of what the party is while AOC is an example of what you would like the party to be. You do need to recognize where the party is before you can figure out how to steer it in the direction you're hoping for.
And you're right about this being a different conversation but I still want to say a little something about
Because this seems like a pretty naive sentiment. First because a large percentage of the public simply doesn't vote. Also the current tribalism of our 2 party system is the most important thing for many if not most of those that do vote. But most importantly, having good and popular ideas or even saying good and popular things is not what gets you elected in this country. Our political system relies on the advertising model. If you package it right and put it in front of enough people, it doesn't actually matter what is being said. That's how someone like Trump gets elected. Which I guess is a form of being popular, but I don't think that's what you meant by it.
Here's an incongruity that applies to both conversations. A supermajority of democratic voters support government run healthcare, but it's nowhere to be seen in the DNC platform.
My argument for why either definition works is that "true Democrat" is a value judgement and different individuals will have different values. MAGA calls McConnell a RINO because he doesn't align with their values of perceiving Trump as infallible. Now they might be wrong in their belief but they have the right to define who they want as a RINO just as constituents of the Democrat party have the right to label who they please as a DINO if they don't meet their criteria of a "true Democrat".
There is no such thing as a "true Democrat" or "true Republican" since both of these are contrived things.
So when you are arguing over what is the correct definition, it's a waste of time because there is no true definition.
You can support your argument with what you believe are good supportive evidence but again there is no such thing as an empirical "true -insert-party-here-".
I may respond to the rest of your post later but I'm in the middle of my workday so please excuse me at least until this afternoon for a more in depth response.
My point is that calling anyone a Democrat doesn't make sense without the relation to the democratic party, it's not an ideology. Whether or not they align with your values is irrelevant. Being a Democrat at all means being a member of the party, and a good member is one who defends the party platform. By your logic you might call Bernie a good Democrat even though he is, by his own admission, not a Democrat.
He sometimes considers himself a Democrat. You are correct that being a Democrat means being a member of the party but the party platform can and has changed, usually to meet the views of its constituents. And even so, Democrats like Nancy are notoriously bad at defending the party platform. That's one of the problems. They promise certain things they don't always deliver. By your definition that makes her a bad democrat.
When it's impossible to make whatever happen while being an independent because of the choke hold the 2 party system has. And yes I brought up changing the platform, what about the incongruity I brought up in that comment? And I didn't say they have to defend the platform well. Though that weak defense is more due to the secret platform of appeasing the biggest donors to the party. That's why I bring up understanding what the party is vs what you want it to be. Right now all the voting members of the democratic party are upper class serving the interests of the even wealthier class.