What are the real actual goals of Glorious Centrism anyway?
Aside from lower taxes for companies and people who already pay practically nothing, or some complicated tax rebate scheme carefully crafted to give the Chamber of Commerce a hard on, it is impossible to imagine what the Coosian dream of glorious centrism actually delivers.
I mean, what is the goal of Coons style bipartisanship? Does he dream of an earth that is only modestly fucked up and inhabitable? Or an America that is only rabidly racist on Tuesday’s and Thursday’s? Does Coons favor Cops that only murder half of the black people they would have murdered in the absence of centrism? I guess I just don’t get it. There is no “moderate” platform I’ve ever heard Coons espouse. It’s just “LIBERALS are bad. Impolite. Rude. Pushy”
Ok. For the sake of argument. Liberals are bad, rude & pushy. What’s the moderate alternative?
Good question for which I have no answer. Other then to say “centrism” is a convenient label for Coons and not much more. The “Bipartisan” game is a running joke at this point as the Republicans long ago declared war on any who dare to oppose them, even within their own party. As noted what is his goal? Other then to stay in office for a few decades more.
Notice how Coons has tricked you into conceding the center. I think most liberal goals are solidly in the center of post WWII politics.
I don’t agree with Coons that the “center” has been moved by the new ultra-right. The bigots and insurrectionists have moved out of politics and into the traitorous and criminal side and aren’t even on the political spectrum anymore. Those aren’t the guys we should meet in the middle.
Coons wants to be a Democratic senator in a Republican world. He has no policy goals other than the status quo and maintaining the portfolios of himself and his wealthy “friends.” Status-quo centrists don’t engage in policy discussions with liberals.
Coons keeps trying to talk himself into a pundit roll on CNN. I hope he gets paid for as much free content he gives them.
Domestically, true centrism knows what battles are worth fighting and is willing to make bargains that advance long-term interests. Tying a hard line on immigration to air-tight voting reforms is a good example. Centrism promotes loudly private sector unions while making sure they don’t bleed our public coffers dry. Centrism understands that populism is endemic to the american people, and that its better to let a cultural issue like a bathroom bill die in committee than stoke a fascist fire. Above all centrism understands that domestic economic stability is fundamental to keeping the long term improvement of our democracy.
Coons may pay partial lip service to some of these ideas, but listening to him talk there is no underlying plan, just a day-to-day opportunism to appease the loudest voice in the room.
“Tying a hard line on immigration to air-tight voting reforms is a good example.”
What do you mean by “hard line,” and why would you be so willing to trade it away?
I would like a definition of “public coffers”. Where they are. How they function. And who or what “bleeds them dry”.
Cop unions would be #1 deunionize all public employment, or make all contract negotiations subject to a voter referendum.
OK, you’ve been a halfway decent troll up until now. But a troll nonetheless.
Get rid of teachers’ unions? Public employees?
Yes. Or no.
I realized I dropped a few words- “make sure public sector unions don’t bleed public coffers dry”
In Delaware, ‘true centrism’ means supporting the agenda of the Chamber of Commerce, and not deviating from it. Which is why centrism is antithetical to progressivism.
That’s a good point. What does Glorious Moderation look like in terms of enacted policy? Just look around. We are living in a centrists golden age I guess. Nothing changes. People on top stay on top. Gridlock reigns. A livable planet decays away year by year. But just look at that 401k!
El Som, you can’t finish off the cop unions without going after the others, including the teachers. The tail is wagging the dog,and the motivations for employment are deeply distorted when people accept crap pay for years just so they can get those bennies. All these lingering pension and benefit obligations are bleeding us dry.
no
That’s idiotic. Police unions protect cops from any liability for out-of-control behavior. That’s why cops are not held accountable for even their most egregious actions.
Quite a fucking difference from teachers and public employees.
BTW, we’re not exactly being bled dry in Delaware. Looking to secure your preferred pound of flesh from retired teachers and public employees is, well, despicable.
I’m not suggesting we break existing contracts,but at some point we have to stop digging that hole.
What fucking hole? Delaware is rolling in money, if you hadn’t noticed.
We also give all sorts of tax breaks to corporations, we essentially have a flat tax for Delaware’s wealthiest. Yet you would take your pound of flesh from our teachers. And our state employees who earned less-than-market value during their working years. WTF is wrong with you?
You golfing buds with Charles Irenee Bouvier des Flanders Copeland, by chance?
The notion that people become teachers for the benefits is — how to put this? — not consistent with the evidence. Almost 50% of new teachers leave the profession within the first five years.
The notion that the public sector differs from the private sector in this regard is a puzzling take. Most people want a job that includes health insurance; I turned down job offers from start-up companies because they would not insure my family. I’m sure millions of others do/have done the same.
Give health insurance to everyone regardless of employment status and many of those legacy costs go away. Seems to me like an easier, more effective and more fair solution than busting public-sector unions.
You don’t have to bust police unions to reform the police. A good first step to reform would be to ban outside “instructors” who basically teach cops to treat every interaction with the public as potentially lethal to the cop. Psychological testing to find out which ones have hair-trigger fingers, and pulling those people off the street, would be another step in the right direction.
I’m talking about a fundamental re-set of state and municipal employee/employer relationships. This isn’t about raiding existing retirement accounts. This is about paying employees a fair market rate (teachers much more, cops less) a 401k with 5% match, and and HSA with 1k deductible. Everyone is salaried and no overtime will be drawn. This is how much of the professional class lives are they can build wealth and get buy with no issue. In response to Alby’s point, I firmly believe in strong private sector unionization, but like FDR I recognize that a power imbalance develops when unions negotiate with the public’s money.
I think I’ve made it as clear as possible.As much as I don’t like concentrated wealth, seizing more of it does not solve the underlying issue. I think this has caused so much upset because you recognize that ideas like this do appeal centrists.
Well, no. Your “appeal to centrists” is actually an appeal to selfishness.
The conditions you want to impose on the public sector are those that were imposed by the private sector on its non-unionized employees, part of the race to the bottom of late-stage capitalism. This is not a viable solution. (Cops, by the way, are overpaid only in the sense that they can draw their pensions upon retirement. Again, fixable by far less intrusive — and more achievable — means than those you suggest.
“This is how much of the professional class lives are they can build wealth and get buy with no issue.”
You’re speaking for a lot of people who would disagree with you.
“As much as I don’t like concentrated wealth, seizing more of it does not solve the underlying issue. ”
It certainly doesn’t hurt the underlying issue. And your use of the word “seizing” is sort of a tell, unless it’s an inadvertent word choice.
As for strong private-sector unions, the laws work against it and the private sector works against it. IMO that ship has sailed and it isn’t coming back, and I’m perfectly OK with that — unions cause as many problems as they address.
In short, you seem to be arguing for pragmatic solutions — yet you propose a sort of centrist pie-in-the-sky solution that isn’t pragmatic at all. Unions aren’t going to get stronger just because you’d like them to, and the only people you will get to work towards your goal aren’t centrists, they’re libertarians.
I would also like to address your notion that “we” might have a problem with something that “appeals to centrists.” Get a clue. There are very few actual centrists, if by the word you mean people who are knowledgeable about the issues and choose a Coonsian course.
Most people who vote for centrists are relatively uninformed. They aren’t voting for policy, they’re voting for familiarity and safety, which is what centrism offers the public. By its very nature it never offers actual solutions, just tiny steps towards solutions. In my experience, people who understand the issues don’t call for tiny steps to address them, on either side.
Oh, one other thing. It’s not the unions who are negotiating with public money — it’s the politicians who are doing that, and they have been incentivized to pay little and give big retirement benefits, for the obvious reason that they won’t be there when the bills come due. So I believe you have might have misidentified the cause of the problem.