• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    214
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 days ago

    FDR was much closer to being a Social Democrat than a Democratic Socialist. They sound similar but are quite different. Hell I think Bernie is closer to a Social Democrat, too. He praises the Nordic model and they’re textbook social democracies.

    • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      I’ve always felt that’s just pragmatism from Bernie, and in truth he’s ideologically a democratic socialist. If it makes any difference this is coming from a democratic socialist who’s a member of a social Democrat party.

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        I’ve always felt that’s just pragmatism from Bernie,

        If you read his book “It’s Okay to Be Angry About Capitalism” it becomes very very obvious that this is the case. From quoting very radical anti-capitalists to tongue and cheek (somewhat) insider jokes such as naming the chapter on his time in mayoral politics “Socialism in one City”, it shows he’s definitely way more ideologically aligned with socialism than people give him credit for.

        • aski3252@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          21 days ago

          As an European, I have never understood why so many American leftists don’t see that, even by simply listening to what he is saying or looking at what he is doing. I mean he literally has a picture of Eugene Debs on his desk and mentions how he is this political role model and hero any chance he gets, that alone should tell you where he stands on an ideological or philosophical level…

          And of course, he has been involved in various socialist groups his whole life and literally still calls himself a democratic socialist. Why would he do that if it wasn’t true? To gain a political advantage, in America of all places, where calling yourself a socialist would have generally been political suicide?

          And then are his policies, where many will focus on healthcare and say “he just wants healthcare” and ignore anything else. But of course, healthcare is a major issue because it makes the working class even more dependend on their employers because they lose tgeir healthcare if they get fired, so it makes sense for him to focus on tgat first. And of course, he also had other policy in his program, like transfering 20% of ownership over major corporations to their employees and having workers electing half of the board of directors.

          You can call him a reformer, you can call his participation ineffective, but why deny his political believes?

          • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            21 days ago

            Completely agree with everything you said.

            The same has also started to be done with Bernie’s “successor’s” like AOC and Jamaal Bowman, I’m not sure how exactly they can stop that other than regularly virtue signaling how radical they are and potentially alienating any moderates.

            The oddest part to me is the people who downplay Bernie’s radicallness. I’ve only ever heard it done by left wingers who think he’s not actually left wing enough, thereby distancing themselves from their best option, and by right wingers looking for an easy gotcha against lefties by going “He just wants Denmark that’s not socialism”. Literally the only people downplaying Bernie’s radicalism are the ones who would seemingly have a vested interest to do the opposite.

            • aski3252@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              21 days ago

              The same has also started to be done with Bernie’s “successor’s” like AOC and Jamaal Bowman

              Don’t know too much about Jamaal Bowman, but AOC also seems like a genuine leftist activist that happened, mostly because of a glitch in the system and pure luck, to slide into somewhat of a political position.

              And of course, there will always be severe limits to what that path can bring. Which is why they mostly focus on rhetoric and making their ideas more mainstream viable and popular. I think at the moment, that’s probably the best they can do. They cannot solve our problems for us, and even if they could, that shouldn’t be the goal. The goal should be that we get into a position where we can solve our own problems.

              The oddest part to me is the people who downplay Bernie’s radicallness. I’ve only ever heard it done by left wingers who think he’s not actually left wing enough

              In my view, it’s mostly done by “radical online Marxists” and edgy radicals, who I suspect aren’t actually doing much except for complaining about it on twitter, which is probably why they get uncomfortable with people actually doing real world stuff? And not gonna lie, sometimes I get my tinfoil hat on and start to question if those are actual misinformation bots.

              I also have seen it a lot on the right and with other anti-socialists, who just want to paint Bernie as a hypocrite. Same people who say “But Bernie is a millionaire, what a hypocrite”…

    • aski3252@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      He wasn’t even a social democrat. At the time, social democrats were democratic socialists, the shift away from reformist socialism happened around the 80s (some social democratic parties still hang onto reformist socialism, at least in theory).

      He was a smart liberal who realized that in order to save capitalism from collapsing again, some regulations are necessary. In Europe, similar policy was often pushed by social democrats, which sometimes leads to confusion. But actual social democrats at the time went (or at least wanted to go) further, like nationalization and socialization of major industry, worker representation at companies, and increasing worker and union power in general.

      Social democrats stated endgoal was a socialist society. FDR’s endgoal was to protect and maintain capitalism.

      Edit: Also, Bernie is definitely a reformist socialist, I will never understand why people think otherwise. He literally mentions Eugen Debbs, one of the most influencial socialists in American history, as his role model and hero every chance he can… And he praises the nordic model because the nordic model was literally pushed by reformist democratic socialists… Here is Olaf Palme, one of the most important figures when it comes to the nordic model and prime minister of Sweden (until he was murdered), explaining why he is a democratic socialist:

      https://youtube.com/watch?v=7i2Ws1X5DSA

      Just imagine a conservative politican, calling themselves a fascist, keeping a picture of Mussolini on their desk, saying he is their political role model. Would you claim that he isn’t really a fascist? It’s not even as if Bernie Sanders was dog whistling, he couldn’t be any clearer about his believes… Yet somehow, so many American leftists seem to sonehow doubt his intentions? Why? Because he isn’t radical enough? Because he isn’t throwing molotov coctails at the police? What does he have to gain from falsely calling himself a socialist??

      The man’s presidental campaign was giving 20% of major corporations to it’s employees and having about half of the board of directors be elected by workers, among other stuff…

      if you don’t even want to acknowledge his values and his ideology simply because he is playing the politics game and is a reformist, send him to Europe, we would love a genuine leftist like him with so much charisma. I don’t think you appreciate him…

      Imagine dedicating your life to fight for a better life, involve yourself in the civil rights movement, work in various socialist groups, calling yourself a socialist and calling for major industry to be socialised, being constantly attacked by right wingers for your socialist believes, etc, only for fellow leftists denying that you are a “real socialist”…

        • aski3252@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 days ago

          I appreciate the positive response, if my tone might have been a bit aggressive, that was not my intention. I understand why people were mislead about Bernie, there was a ton of media reports about how Bernie “isn’t a real socialist” and it’s not like Bernie is god or anything, there are obvious limits to his approach. It forces people to make compromises and water down their believes. But I do believe he is genuine, or at least the most genuine seeming politician I have seen.

          Also, AOC seems to be very similar, although she doesn’t have the same knowhow yet about politics and mostly focuses on rethoric. But she is basically a leftist activist who, with a shit ton of luck, managed to get into politics.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        I really appreciate this write up. As when I saw this post I started questioning my own understanding of FDR. Which aligns with yours. That his intention was to find a middle ground between the working class and the capitalists. Whereas Bernie is much more about reforming capitalism.

        • aski3252@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          I appreciate the positive response, if my tone might have been a bit aggressive, that was not my intention. I understand why people were mislead about Bernie, there was a ton of media reports about how Bernie “isn’t a real socialist” and it’s not like Bernie is god or anything, there are obvious limits to his approach. It forces people to make compromises and water down their believes. But I do believe he is genuine, or at least the most genuine seeming politician I have seen.

          Also, AOC seems to be very similar, although she doesn’t have the same knowhow yet about politics and mostly focuses on rethoric. But she is basically a leftist activist who, with a shit ton of luck, managed to get into politics.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            20 days ago

            Yeah I love Bernie and AOC both. And I understand their pragmatism too.

            I think it’s that pragmatism that more militant leftists latch onto and say oh they’re not left enough.

            But if you just look at Bernie’s life, the guy’s the real deal it’s obvious.

      • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 days ago
        1. When people in the modern day call someone a social democrat, they generally refer to the modern definition. The modern social democrat aims to reform capitalism to be more fair, as opposed to democratic socialists, who want to achieve socialism.
        2. Social liberals like FDR are rather similar to modern social democrats. They have a different lineage, but in terms of policy the main distinguishing factor is a distaste for state-owned enterprises.
        3. While I do not discount the possibility that he is intentionally moderating the positions he espouses publicly, he does not want to do away with private ownership, which is the goal of socialism. That being said, he goes much further than most social democrats in how much he wants to nationalize, how much he wants to incentivize coops, and how he wants 20% of major companies to be owned by the employees.
      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        Socialists want the workers to own the means of production.

        Capitalism/liberalism wants capitalists to own it (though the workers can be the capitalists in question). Social democracy is a form of liberalism that seeks to improve quality of life and economic outputs through the creation of a well regulated welfare state (typically).

        Other than that, it depends. The two groups mostly agree that poor people shouldn’t starve, that living wages should be a thing, and democracy and human rights matter, and one of the best ways to accomplish this all is the empowerment of worker unions. Everything else gets complicated.

        FDR was definitely not a democratic socialist. He also wasn’t what modern views would consider a social democrat, but if it wasn’t for America still being segregated he probably would have counted as one easily enough. For the time? Probably. Some Greek Social Democrats wanted to conquer Turkey and expel the Muslims…

    • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Not to be agist, but bernie is rapidly approaching his UBD. Closest we have to him in a viable position is AOC

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        Hey, nothing wrong with being agist in this situation, let’s be honest. Nobody - not Biden, not Bernie, not Trump - will be as cognitively-sharp when they are 80 as they were when they were 50, 40, 30. We wouldn’t want an 80-year-old lifeguard or firefighter, right?

        And until an 18-year-old can be president, we’re already agist in one direction.

        That we think putting geriatrics in the White House to run one of the most stressful jobs that is on-call 24/7 is a good idea… I mean it’s absurd. Just look how much Obama aged in 8 years. Forget the fact that the general risk of all-cause mortality is far greater, that’s just another risk-factor for running the country.

        So yeah unfortunately I agree… Bernie’s opportunity was missed. When AOC runs one day, I will campaign as hard as possible for her victory.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 days ago

          I would happily see an elderly Bernie in office. Why? Because he would fill the system with younger, capable individuals, and trust their opinions. He would leave the system a better place.

          • WldFyre@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            That’s actually the main reason I didn’t want Bernie as president. His campaign staff were terrible for both of his runs.

      • justaderp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        22 days ago

        She’s a Democrat. If she doesn’t fall in line she doesn’t keep her job. You’ve been conned.

    • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      It’s almost like supporting progressives down ballot provides greater success than crucifying the Democratic Party up ballot especially during a presidential race.

      It’s almost like Bernie working with Biden was better than “Bernie or Biden but fuck the possibility of both”. I mean just ask Bernie what he did…

      Like we are living the benefit of compromise while folks keep saying any possible compromise is the end times…

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    We have to face that loads of high ranking “moderate” Dems would prefer a Republican to a progressive.

    If a Republican gets in office, it makes it easier to get people vote lesser of two evils.

    If a progressive gets in office, it’s really hard to unseat them. They can barely manage to get House Reps out for moderates even with AIPAC money.

    If Bernie had won 2016, he’d have gotten to name the DNC chair, he could of solidly ended in the failed neo liberal experiment.

    We were really fucking close to fixing things, but after NH got their delegates stolen, I don’t think itll happen.

    I honestly think if a real progressive wins a presidential party primary, the standing party might disregard it.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        22 days ago

        presidential party primary

        There was an autocorrect there, but if that doesn’t clear it up:

        A primary isn’t binding.

        That was the DNCs legal argument for why if they rigged it, that would be legal.

        The entire primary process is merely a survey.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          22 days ago

          This is really a good argument for nonpartisan blanket primaries, which in other countries would be known as the first round of a two-round system. And it really should be advertised that way so people don’t just write it off as “just a primary”.

          California adopts this system. You vote for one candidate in the primary. The top two candidates appear on the second round ballot. Most votes in the second round wins.

          However, the fact that parties choose the candidates is really not unusual at all. In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process. In most countries, interested candidates apply for the party’s nomination, and then the party’s central leadership or local party committee vets the applications and nominates their favourite candidate. Only the chosen candidate gets to stand with the party’s rosette.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            22 days ago

            In fact, the US is pretty unique in terms of how much influence voters have over the process.

            How?

            The primaries are non binding and can be legally rigged because of that…

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              22 days ago

              Two things:

              • It being legally permissable doesn’t mean that it happens. Just like how the DNC’s argument that if the elections are rigged, it wouldn’t be illegal is not an admission that they rigged it. This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.
              • Influence is not the same as control.
              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                22 days ago

                It being legally permissable doesn’t mean that it happens

                Have you ever thought about what a great investment a bridge is?

                There’s one a Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing.

                • NateNate60@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  22 days ago

                  Why do you suppose I included this sentence at the end of that bullet point?

                  This statement is made without implying anything, it is a statement about formal logic.

                  …and why did you, having read that, assume I made that implication anyway?

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    21 days ago

    This is all Hillary and the DNC’s fault and I will never fucking forgive them.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        You can think of it like nepotism in the DNC. Bernie was the more electable candidate. The candidate the liberals and the left preferred. They went with Hillary anyway and they underestimated Trump’s electability in the actual presidential race. Essentially giving Trump the presidency in 2016.

        You can watch all of their surprised Pikachu faces during Hillary’s concession speech. They had a huge glass ceiling they were going to shatter all of this stuff. And it all fizzled out.

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          21 days ago

          From what I understand, the DNC made a Faustian deal with the Clinton Foundation. They were in debt up to their eyeballs during the Obama Administration and the Clinton Foundation offered to pay off their debts in exchange for making Hillary the nominee and replacing key DNC staff with Clinton Foundation personnel.

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          21 days ago

          You can tell they’re telling the truth because they didn’t mention how the vote tallies have Hillary beating Bernie by an even wider margin than she beat Trump by in the popular vote.

          Figures the people still moaning about Bernie losing twice now would think other people voting is the DNC putting in a fix, these loons have actually said that votes shouldn’t count and we should have counted individual donations instead. Because if anything says democratic process, it’s a literal donor class literally buying the candidate they want over the candidate who got more votes.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 days ago

            Honestly I was in jail when all of that happened so the news I got about it was the misinformation that was originally leaked by the media. Misinformation that came from somebody that worked at the DNC and was backed up by Elizabeth Warren…

            And you could have corrected the narrative without being a total fucking dick about it like you just did.

            Instead I looked it up and educated myself. And you came out looking like an asshole.

            • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              20 days ago

              Yeah how dare I be an ass about a fight I’ve been having with fucking children since 2016 over their shock and awe that having other plans on primary day doesn’t win your preferred candidate the nomination.

              You aren’t owed being corrected gently when you step into a fight that’s been going on for almost a decade now.

              • treefrog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                20 days ago

                You didn’t try to correct me at all.

                You shamed me and acted like I wasn’t even there.

                Go read your comment.

                I’m talking to you now. You tried to publicly shame me because I didn’t know something?

                Because I was misinformed by the media?

                Because I’ve been in jail and didn’t have the same access to information that you did?

                I was speaking in good faith based on information that as far as I knew was true. You’re the first person that has ever pointed that out to me and if you would have done it in a gentler manner you would have won somebody to your side and made a friend instead of somebody that’s going to tell you to go fuck yourself

      • maniii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        20 days ago

        Not-an-American, but what I heard was that BOTH DNC and RNC do not choose the more “popular” candidate. The parties choose the candidate that their “donors” actually want. In RNC I think they straight-up just rig the process and push their choice.

        But in the case of the DNC I believe the DNC “promises” to choose the candidate that is the most popular. BUT DNC “donors” have what is known as “super-delegates” or some bullshit ( Extra Votes for Money ? ) Soooooo Hillary went around ALL the states “buying” up all the super-delegate votes… so in-effect Bernie lost even before the voting had even started! And on top of all that I think that so many candidates ran at the same time that it split most of Bernies votes down the middle which might have been the strategy engineered by DWS and the DNC.

        Those are not the only problems with the DNC… I believe that Hillary and DWS and DNC ran political ads PROMOTING Drumpf because he would be “easier” for Hillary to beat. So effectively the DNC and Hillary were campaigning for Drumpf! !!!

        I think 'Murica has a lot more serious problems and a lot more roadblocks but breaking the fundamentals of democracy by rigging votes and installing puppets seems almost comical and farcical if it wasnt so damaging and dangerous.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      21 days ago

      Yeah how dare Hillary and the DNC respect that more people voted for her instead of applying EC logic to make Bernie win despite him losing by a wider margin than Trump lost the popular vote, and how dare the moderates still be more popular than Bernie to the point that all it took was there being only one in the primary field for Bernie’s chances to be “sabotaged”.

      Harry Potter and the magical thinking of Bernie bros who still can’t get over other people not voting the same way they wanted them to while also not voting themselves.

      Bernie deserved better than fucking all of you.

      • generichate1546@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        Not going to argue with you, but super deligates are why Hillary was the candidate and super deligates are bullshit and the definition of everyone is = but some are more = than others.

        • sirboozebum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          Millions more people voted for Hillary Clinton.

          If it wasn’t for the undemocratic caucuses, Bernie would have lost earlier in his primary run.

          I’m not a big fan of centrist democrats but Lemmy (and most of internet) is not representative of the broader electorate.

        • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          20 days ago

          That why the delegate counts actually tilt the scales in Bernie’s favor?

          In any case, any argument you could make about the superdelegates basically amounts to “look what you made me do!” for not going to vote against this supposed she devil everyone had a violent hatred for. Y’all didn’t vote. You just didn’t. I’m saying this as a guy who did vote for Bernie, there was no fix, you all just abandoned Bernie at the one place it matters and have been trying to shift blame for your own slackoff asses since.

          Bernie deserved better than every last fucking one of you!

  • Brickardo@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 days ago

    Have you ever seen the man in the high castle? Well, we’re definitely not in the worst timeline, but missing out on pals like Bernie shows that we’re definitely not in the best either…

    • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      “Things could be worse” is always such a depressing reflection.

      You’re not wrong…but it sure is bleak isn’t it!

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        I always found it a comforting/uplifting thought. Like it proves humanity has taken some of the good forks in the path and so is capable of doing so now and in the future, too

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    22 days ago

    He also put Japanese Americans into internment camps, his New Deal policy led to institutional racism (red lining), and he ordered the FBI & IRS to investigate someone further left than him because he was worried they posed a political threat.

    (Source on that last one: https://www.history.com/topics/crime/huey-long )

    His left wing credentials are a bit lacking.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        22 days ago

        Absolutely. I just don’t think we should use him as a symbol of social democracy, because we can do much better. We need better than FDR, not just for leftwing politics, but leftwing social issues.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 days ago

          What I like about this conversation is the parallels to today.

          Edit: To be clear, I mean FDR did some bad things, just like Biden. But we still remember all the good that came from him, of which there was arguably more.

          • bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            That comes from an incredible point of privilege.

            If you were one of the people who were thrown in an internment camp, you probably wouldn’t remember all the good. You would only remember years of your life, wasted, having been thrown in prison camps due to the circumstances of your birth. Fuck, if you were the child or grandchild of a survivor of it, you would remember the stories of your grandparents thrown in a camp, discarded from society by a xenophobic government who clearly sees them as a second class citizen. You might remember hearing about them selling their homes for a fraction of their worth in order to get anything from them at all. When they were finally free, they were homeless too.

            If you were a Palestinian American, you probably are stressed out of your mind, waiting on the uncommon phone call from your family, hoping for a confirmation that they are alive, and hoping you don’t hear that your cousin was gunned down by a gun drone when looking for food, or your aunts, uncles, and their children were blown up at a refugee camp, or executed in a hospital.

            You might not have heard anything for six months, and you feel like absolute shit, having gone to protests, and even direct actions to try and put a stop to it only to be ignored, called antisemites, or otherwise degraded by a government and press lying through their teeth to justify a “war” wholeheartedly supported by the president. You might be looking at your paystub, seeing almost a hundred bucks, maybe more, being taken by the government to fund the extermination of your family.

            To say “FDR did some bad things, just like Biden. But we still remember all the good that came from him, of which there was arguably more” is not a pragmatic calculation. It is valuing the good done to you, as a person who wasn’t systemically attacked by the government during that time, over the suffering of a marginalized group who felt the force of a white supremacist government coming down on them. Being a social democrat doesn’t excuse anything bad FDR did, and it certainly doesn’t make up for any of the bad things either.

            • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              20 days ago

              Hi, Palestinian American here, I think securing Gaza’s natural resource rights and being the point of negotiation that secured a bunch of people getting to see their families again is good actually.

              I also see all the white kids raising stink about my people’s struggle and feel fetishized and used by people who couldn’t even begin to understand what my people’s struggle is like and who need to BTFO using it as their excuse to be petulant little twits about doing the bare minimum duty to defend their democracy from the guy who’ll make our struggle exponentially worse.

              • bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 days ago

                I thought about it and realized that you missed the point of what I’m saying.

                I’m arguing that the only way you can view them (both biden and FDR) as someone who did more good than harm is if you abstract the harms and goods from the perspective of someone who is not being harmed while being a person who is benefited.

                FDR sentenced a single ethnicity to prison for the crime of being japanese. This destroyed generational wealth, and ruined the upward mobility of a generation. It’s easier to say “he did more good than harm” if you are both the one being harmed.

                Biden is not just allowing genocide, but funding it, and attacking those who prevent it from continuing. If you are isolated from the suffering he is causing, it’s super easy to say he is doing more good than harm.

                Sure, there are parallels that can be drawn, but that’s not what I’m arguing against. To say I’m proving this point would be true, but completely dishonest since it blatantly ignores the argument I made against that point you madr in the edit.

                • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  20 days ago

                  Yup, understood and agree with all that the first time.

                  But since the “royal we” spread these memes like wildfire, then “we still remember all the good that came from him, of which there was arguably (to all the people you describe) more.”