• Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Yeah , it’s almost as if you have to rally the troops and get out the vote in every single election.

    FDR’s New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Lmao, it’s literally all vibes

      “people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them” is a take that’s completely divorced from physical reality. You have to be completely blind to how people’s material and cultural reality relate to each other if you’re to believe this.

      FDR’s New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.

      If it wasn’t Reagan, it would have been another reactionary politician. Looking at history as if individual men/women dictate our reality as if in a decontextualized vacuum is maddeningly idiotic. Reagan represented a popular movement of reactionary conservatism - he didn’t invent it out of whole-cloth. There has never been a social-democratic government that hasn’t eventually been privatized or been subject to increasing austerity measures, and that pattern can be studied and rationalized as a dialectic.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        “people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them”

        Nice made up quote that has nothing to do with what I wrote. We lost progressive policies because believed Reagan’s lies, not because he ran as anti-labor.

        Reagan sleazed in by sabotaging Carter with a backdoor deal Reagan made with Iran.

        Reagan actually ran as a New Deal loving Union President.

        https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43368900/reagan-iran-hostages/

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            There’s you problem right there.

            I just double checked and re-read everything I posted in this thread.

            I didn’t use the word ‘reactionary’ once.

              • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I’m not sure we are working from the same definition of reactionary.

                That’s you using a word.

                A word I never used.

                Obviously, you’re confused and continuing would be a complete waste of time.

                I mean, if I haven’t seen your comments, what is the point?