Asking as someone from the other side of the planet.

From the things I saw about the US election, the Dems were the side with plans for the economy - minimum wage adjustments, unions, taxing the rich, etc. The Republicans didn’t seem to have any concrete plans. At least, this is what I saw.

I don’t doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller. But what am I missing?

  • MerrySkeptic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think what Bernie is saying is that for decades Dems have paid lip service to working class concerns while not actually doing much. In reality Dems have been much more beholden to corporate interests.

    By the time these plans came out, too many working class folk were already disenfranchised. They saw a party that was vocal about social issues that frankly were not high on the list of priorities for most of them. They were more concerned that inflation was out of control and they could not afford basic expenses. Sure Trump was racist but at least prices were lower when he was in office, or so they would conclude. If he could bring prices down, they would go with him.

    Basically Dems were just out of touch with the most important part of their base until it was too late.

  • chetradley@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Think of this from his perspective: the Democrats put their faith in the idea that money wins elections, and if you can out-raise your opponent the votes will follow. Twice they conspired against Bernie in the primaries because of his platform: tackling wealth inequality, progressive tax reform, and overturning Citizens United v. FEC. They chose corporate interests over the working class because they valued money more than votes.

  • inv3r510n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The dems gaslit the public on inflation. They abandoned the working class decades ago. The economy only got better for the out to brunch professional managerial class liberals while the rest of us suffered.

    Most importantly, the democrats haven’t run a competitive primary since 2008, they anointed Harris as their candidate without a single vote being cast for her and then they’re shocked pikachu face when she lost. The fact that democrat operatives make so much money despite being so utterly incompetent that one wonders if it’s malicious it blows the mind.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The Democrats’ plans for the working class are tweaks. A little tax credit here, a little minimum wage bump there.

    But the working class in America have been experiencing long term systemic structural changes that permanently disadvantage them, globalization being one of them.

    Between shipping manufacturing jobs elsewhere, and allowing in immigrants who do menial work, people at the low end of the economy are pretty pinched for work. People will say “Americans don’t want to pick fruit” and there’s some truth to that. But there definitely are Americans who want to mow lawns for a living and they’re constantly undercut on price by guys from Mexico who sleep 10 to a room so they can send a few dollars back to family in the old country. I love and admire those guys, don’t get me wrong, but there’s no question that people at the low end of the economy feel pinched from both ends, and one side of that pinch is the commodification of unskilled labor due in part to an unbounded supply of immigrants.

    Trump voters see his policy on tariffs and they don’t think “hm economists say this could lead to a drop in GDP.” They see a structural policy shift aimed at bringing manufacturing back to the US. However ill-conceived it might be doesn’t matter. It’s big, it’s bold. It is a fundamental reordering. Economists flap their hands and Trump voters say “good - run scared, you Wall Street pimps.”

    If I sound like I’m defending Trump voters, I’m not. But I absolutely believe that the Democrats have to offer more than tweaks and handouts to address the working class.

    America spends huge amounts of money to project power abroad. We’re the richest nation by far. Why isn’t that benefitting the working class? These are real questions. Trump has all the wrong answers, but Democrats don’t have any answers. And frankly they are a bunch of moneyed elites, and I don’t throw that term around much. Look at the personal net worth and residential addresses of top Democrats and you’ll see rich people. They have a lot to lose in Bernie’s revolution and they don’t believe in it.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Why isn’t that benefitting the working class? These are real questions. Trump has all the wrong answers

      The existance of people like Trump and Musk are the answer.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        They are part of the problem, but not the answer. An answer would be how we can ensure that everyone supporting their enterprises shares in their wild wealth and success. There could be many answers to that. And Democrats need to pick one and drive it.

        It should be said that Musk is manufacturing cars in the US, which is more than a lot of manufactured goods companies can say.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Between shipping manufacturing jobs elsewhere, and allowing in immigrants who do menial work, people at the low end of the economy are pretty pinched for work.

      Isn’t the unemployment rate close to record low? I mean, a lot of people work 2 and more full-time jobs to make ends meet, but that seems like a different issue.

      • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        US is under going a demographic shift as boomers aging out and gen z is barely enough to replace them as wage slaves. Also, there is cultural shift in attitude to work with younger generations, who see no prosperity from their labour.

        This is causing pressure on wages that owners can’t handle emotionally or otherwise. Owners are disgusted at the idea of a labour market actually being a market. Migration pre covid since 2000 was steady at 1 million net inflow per year, it is now closer to 2-3m. These people are used to suppress wages of the indigenous workers.

        Manufacturing jobs did get shipped off but are also now getting reshored as part of a strategic reshuffle US did after covid. but a lot of these modern manufacturing is automated so we are not giving back to the glory days of millions of six pack joes living the “middle” class life style.

        Global capital is extracting ever more productivity and price gouging us on consumer end of existence. WIN WIN! And the state is letting them…

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    They’ve taken the side of corporations over unions and dangle popular policies like Medicare for all until the general election where they abandon it.

    But mostly it’s vibes. The Dems don’t say “it’s hard we’ll fix it” they say “it’s actually going really well we already fixed it”

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Absolutely this.

      This is going to sound awful coming from a person who voted for Kamala. But when Trump wanted something, he pushed forward and gave zero fucks who he burned. Trump wanted a wall, and then there’s a wall. Granted, it’s shitty, it’s expensive and an eyesore, and it does absolutely nothing and no Democrats voted for it (that I’m aware of). But to the stupids, they see it as a win.

      Democrats fight for a policy, and then carve it over and over to appease corporations, billionaires, conservatives, and anybody who might feel threatened by it. And to those who could really benefit, they suffer. So yeah, I can see why people would shrug at giving a vote for Kamala.

      Again, I voted for her. But in reality, I want a candidate who will go, “Listen motherfuckers. All kids in America will get fed. Suck my dick if you hate it. Every single kid will get a sandwich and if you speak again, will destroy you.”

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        LBJ was a monster. He sexually harassed and assaulted everyone. He killed so many people in Vietnam. He was pretty fucking racist. And I swear to shit we need more democrats who act like him in leadership (outside those aspects). He’d say slurs against people if it got them more civil rights. The Buck stopped there and he’d make shit happen. I swear, I’d kill for a democrat who could get republicans to vote for queer rights even if that requires them to call us every slur in the book. We need a great society. A country that can stand up for us working folks and for us minorities. An America of higher ideals forged by those attempting to live up to them.

        We need that or an FDR, someone who can offer up a new deal, a fairer and kinder America paid for by the prosperity it creates. Instead we’re getting a whole lot of Andrew Johnson at best and Hindenburg at worst.

  • Tramort@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I understood him to mean that Democrats were more interested in appealing to Liz Cheney as Republican lite, rather than advocating vigorously for the working class. They take money from corporate interests, and then pretend they don’t protect them. They didn’t do enough to address the problem of inflation, and American workers were angry.

    • Jordan117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I see this claim so much, and it’s bullshit. Harris didn’t make a single policy concession to get Cheney on board. And why would she? The entire point of having her endorse was to send the message of “Trump is so dangerous that even people who disagree with me are choosing to support me.”

      • B1naryB0t@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Harris needed to get progressives and instead they put their efforts into winning over moderate conservatives. Even if she didn’t make concessions, putting time and effort into promoting that meant she didn’t have time or effort to put into the progressive voter base

        • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Building a broad coalition without policy concessions was a waste of time? You’re going to have a tough time convincing me of that point.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t think he needs to convince you of that. The results of your election are plain for all to see.

          • Andy@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            What broad coalition?

            There was no coalition. It was a campaign by and for white college educated professional women in the suburbs.

            That’s not a coalition, that’s a book club.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not just the US, it’s been happening for years in other countries like the UK as well.

    Traditionally there has been one party that is for working people and another for capital and the owner class.

    The right has been getting further and further into far right authoritarianism. That posed a problem for the Dems going back to the Clinton Presidency: do they stick with being the party of working people or do they try to have their cake and eat it by tacking to the center and assuming that the working class will continue to vote for them no matter what?

    It largely worked for a time and gave Obama two terms but ever since then they have been susceptible to criticism that they’re out of touch, elitists, entitled, and that they look down their nose at working people whilst still assuming that they will get their vote, which opened the door to Republicans.

    You can’t serve two masters for very long, you can’t be the party of working people while being run by upper middle class graduates. You can’t claim to care about the people with the least while cozying up to CEOs and megadonors. Sooner or later it all falls apart, as it did with Hillary Clinton’s run, where working people disliked her elitism and she didn’t have enough support from elsewhere to make up the shortfall. That should’ve been a warning. Instead they doubled down.

    The problem in the US is that there are only two viable parties. The Dems won’t go back to being the party of working people because they wouldn’t know how to do that even if they wanted to. What happens when the Trump Presidency turns out to be a disaster?