this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024

374 points (93.9% liked)

News

23305 readers

3670 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

374

Progressives gear up for their first big fight if Harris wins: Protecting Lina Khan (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Progressives need to start finding a primary challenger for 2028 as soon as the polls close. Democrats will feel no leftward pressure otherwise and we'll be unprepared if we wait.

We were frankly cheated out of a primary this year. The last primary without a preordained winner was 2008. We cannot let this become any more normal than it already has.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (11 children)

Yeah, Hillary "the annointed" went over swell and the DNC has apparently learned exactly zip from the experience. They're never going to serve the interests of people, only of Capital.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

When are you guys going to start calling yourselves Marxists/Communists, instead of hiding behind some newspeak label?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Because different folks define those differently.

A democratic socialist is very different from what most people think of when they hear communist.

Also I'm very left leaning but still like some aspects of capitalism. It just needs to be regulated or else monopolies eat everything and turn capitalism into feudalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In the US, there are still a lot from McCarthy-era sentiment and "Communist" is a pejorative within the general population. For instance, The Communist Control Act of 1954 is still on the books. Though it has issues as a law for being really vague, and hasn't been used seriously against leftist organizing on account of that, it nonetheless remains and has never been outright challenged to the Supreme Court of the United States. Either way, it had a chilling effect, and was pretty successful as part of the US's broader campaign to demonize communism and communist organizing.

Because of the way "Communism" and "Marxism" are used within US press and mainstream politics (especially by the Republican party), the average voter is conditioned to view them as bad words accordingly. The Democratic party, trying to court "moderate" voters within the political landscape here, all but refuses to touch those words with a 10-foot pole. It's not part of their brand (and not part of their policy either, not by any stretch of the imagination).

Progressivism in my view is an umbrella term, but still pretty linked with liberalism as a movement in the sense that it's mostly reformist, and acts a subgroup within the Democratic party. Most "Progressive" candidates for US political office are SocDems at most.

You can call it newspeak, but political movements arise under new/different names as the situation dictates, and often refer to different things. I'd argue that the point of newspeak within 1984 was actually to limit the evolution of language and restrict the development of new words/ideas, but I do get where you're coming from on account of "progressive" being considered more politically correct.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 3 days ago

Lina Khan has probably been the best and most effective bureaucrat in my lifetime.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago

It's worth acknowledging that Kamala Harris' 12th largest campaign donor is Alphabet inc according to opensecrets.org

[–] [email protected] 54 points 4 days ago

If she ends up replacing Lina Khan I'll lose all hope for this administration.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"recent calls from some allies ..."

Who? What allies? Could this be any more vague. The article gives no hints as to who these mysterious unnamed "allies" are and no evidence of anyone, donor or not, calling for her removal. Nor has Harris or anyone from her campaign so much as hinted of any plans or feelings of wanting to oust Khan. Other than Mark Cuban, all the tech bro/oligarch types are Trump allies, not Harris donors.

Sounds like just another piece trying to stoke rumors and stir up division.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dems Rally to Save Lina Khan After Mark Cuban Puts Target on Her Back

https://newrepublic.com/post/186971/bernie-sanders-aoc-lina-khan-mark-cuban

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Thanks for the additional info. I'd call this "anticipatory worry/outrage" as a parallel to how the oligarchs ceding to Trump is called "anticipatory obedience".

Just because Cuban supports her and may expect obedience in return, I seriously doubt Harris would do it, especially as she is running as a previous DA/AG who went after lenders and others to protect the consumer, and has campaigned on going after 'price gougers' and others who harm the middle class. For her to turn around and get rid of Khan would fly in the face of all that and wreck her credibility right off the bat. I can't see why she would consider doing that.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Having seen her progressive voting record I wouldn't have expected her to campaign as a "moderate" and go back on every progressive stance she ever held either. In short, I don't trust her to be consistent.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

My impression has been that Harris is indicating that her economic policy will move in the opposite direction with her talk of "price-gouging". Is there a reason to think she will do what this article suggests, other than the fact that some donors are asking her to?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, to start, politicians will say anything to get elected, so their words mean absolutely nothing, regardless of party affiliation.

This article was the first I'd even heard about Harris potentially ousting Kahn, so that's potentially a good sign. However, Kahn and the FTC have been taking swings at the oligarchs via their Google monopoly lawsuits, going after Apple, etc.

Harris (and Walz) are centrist Democrats, they are not progressive. A progressive candidate would be calling for the minimum wage to match where it'd be if it was tied with inflation, around $26/hr, not bringing up the $15/hr debate that should've been done a decade ago. She hasn't signalled support for Medicare for All as far as I remember, she went back on her promise not to expand fracking, and she's made no mention of enshrining LGBTQ+ rights into law or stopping weapons sales to Israel (she has said their would be contingencies, so she still agrees to help the guy actively working against her with her opponent), all progressive ideas.

So, she likely doesn't support these things because her party, and more importantly, the donors who line their pockets, don't want her to. She's a career Democrat, she's not that much younger than Biden in comparison to someone considered progressive, like AOC, so her policies are going to closer align with the Status-Quo centrist Democrats versus the We-Need-Change-Now progressive Democrats.

Tl:dr: Harris is a centrist Democrat whose party (and by extension, her party's wealthy donors) do not want progress made, they want a return to the status quo, as their policies have shown (Palestine, M4A, Fracking, etc). Her donors likely don't like that the FTC chair actually has a backbone, and since the status quo is more important to the Democrat Party (look at how they treated Bernie) than progress. So, the donors are likely pressuring her behind the scenes to put a Garland-esque Chair in charge of the FTC: someone with no backbone.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

She is 21 years younger than Biden, and I'm not sure you have actually read her voting record. It's quite progressive for a us democrat

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 days ago (6 children)

The examples I gave have been from her campaign this year, I'm glad she's voted progressively compared to most US Democrats, but she is campaigning as a moderate.

As for her age, yeah, I'm glad we don't have someone who's an octogenarian running, but she's closer to Biden's age than she is AOC's, an actual progressive Democrat.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Worth noting that AOC is the youngest a president can be. Harris is 3 years younger than Obama.

Age also does not determine if someone is progressive, liberal, or conservative.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't get this. Y'all on Lemmy are constantly screaming about, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them," about people like Trump and the GOP, but you won't acknowledge the same about Democrats.

You're right, Bernie is older than Biden, and some of the Squad are in their 40s/50s. I never said otherwise. And AOC is the youngest a president can be.

Bernie ran on a progressive platform, Biden did not, and Harris is not, by her own admission. The Squad have progressive ideas they push and campaign on, Harris and Walz have not shown support for these same policies. She's showing all of us that is not a progressive candidate, which is all this discussion is about.

She's the far better candidate compared to Der Orange, no one should be voting for Trump. This isn't a "y'AlL nEeD tO vOtE tHiRd PaRtY" comment, or one telling anyone to stay home, or any of that.

Harris is just not a progressive candidate, and a 60 year old woman who's lived her entire life in the upper middle class has much less in common with the average person than someone like AOC.

That's what this whole comment chain was about: someone asked why Harris may have pressure behind the scenes to oust Kahn as FTC chair, and that would be the only reason I could think she'd do it: her wealthy donors want a less progressive FTC chair so they'll stop going after the oligarchs, and Harris's campaign seems to be very "return to the status quo" like the Democrats always seem to be doing.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Keep Khan and ditch Harris if it comes to that.

Shutup preemptively we'll make it work with the power of wanting it really bad

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Elect Kahn

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Harris is too far to the center right and too donored up by elites to be progressive

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

People said the same thing about Biden and he's the one who appointed her.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

Biden's move leftward has been glacial in pace, measurable not by observation but by geological record and only by massive external pressure.

Harris is much younger. We could see change from her.

load more comments