Maybe the problem isn’t so much liberalism specifically
And you took that to mean I was defending liberalism. I’m not. I was positing that maybe the problem was deeper than liberalism. I never said that liberalism was a “necessary evil,” but I get why you thought that. In the US, liberalism is the status quo, and American experts will tell you that facts and evidence support liberalism. But, contrary to what liberals think, they don’t have a monopoly on facts and evidence. Some economic experts who have analyzed the facts and evidence and have to come to different conclusions than the liberal experts would be the economists Ha-Joon Chang and Yanis Varoufakis. Even here in the US there are experts who are critical liberalism, like the economist Richard Wolff. Wolff is a democratic socialist economist. Even the economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, while not a socialist, is critical of neoliberalism.
Fair enough. I would work on how you phrase your argument, cause I don’t think I’m the only one who thought you were defending neoliberalism and liberalism.
But the Dems need to use the data and facts or non-corporate economists then, and message it so the average American understands this will mean more money for them, better benefits, protections, and comfort.
They’re not going to research the positions and research of economists they’ve never heard of. They don’t have the time, and many don’t care, they just want to know if the end result will actually benefit them or not.
Not saying that’s how it should be, but that it is how it is. Hence why I was saying a political machine with decades of ivy league education between them and millions of dollars at their disposal need to figure out how to get the 60% of Americans who don’t vote, to vote.
And ignoring the human factor of politics while doubling down on data and facts that the average American couldn’t relate to was a huge contributing factor for Harris losing.
You’re confused. It’s my fault. I said:
And you took that to mean I was defending liberalism. I’m not. I was positing that maybe the problem was deeper than liberalism. I never said that liberalism was a “necessary evil,” but I get why you thought that. In the US, liberalism is the status quo, and American experts will tell you that facts and evidence support liberalism. But, contrary to what liberals think, they don’t have a monopoly on facts and evidence. Some economic experts who have analyzed the facts and evidence and have to come to different conclusions than the liberal experts would be the economists Ha-Joon Chang and Yanis Varoufakis. Even here in the US there are experts who are critical liberalism, like the economist Richard Wolff. Wolff is a democratic socialist economist. Even the economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, while not a socialist, is critical of neoliberalism.
Fair enough. I would work on how you phrase your argument, cause I don’t think I’m the only one who thought you were defending neoliberalism and liberalism.
But the Dems need to use the data and facts or non-corporate economists then, and message it so the average American understands this will mean more money for them, better benefits, protections, and comfort.
They’re not going to research the positions and research of economists they’ve never heard of. They don’t have the time, and many don’t care, they just want to know if the end result will actually benefit them or not.
Not saying that’s how it should be, but that it is how it is. Hence why I was saying a political machine with decades of ivy league education between them and millions of dollars at their disposal need to figure out how to get the 60% of Americans who don’t vote, to vote.
And ignoring the human factor of politics while doubling down on data and facts that the average American couldn’t relate to was a huge contributing factor for Harris losing.