Answering Congresswoman Gabbard's call (and my answer is "no.")

[AspieAlly613]

Retired Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii recently announced that she is leaving the Democratic party, and called for others to do the same.

 

Here's my explanation as to why I'm not leaving, and instead remaining a registered Democrat.

 

In Congresswoman Gabbard's address to the public (available here) she begins by stating that the Democratic party is under the control of "an elitist cabal of warmongers," and later asserts that the Democrats are weaponizing institutions of national security to persecute political opponents.  I'm generally hesitant to prescribe to any conspiracy theories that any cabals control anything in the United States.  I do not believe that Congress is in the pockets of big business, I do not believe in widespread bribery or corruption among legislators, I do not believe that the most recent presidential election was rigged.  I would need to see convincing evidence, which Congresswoman Gabbard has not provided.  Additionally, on the topic of militarism, while I am skeptical that our military budget needs to be as high as it is, I've heard more criticism of American militarism from Democrats than from Republicans.

 

She goes on to assert that the Democratic party is racializing every issue, stoking anti-White racism, is hostile to religious people, and automatically side with criminals over police and law abiding residents.  Given the two-party nature of our government, both major parties are forced to include many different voices and opinions.  I agree that there is a faction within the Democratic party that asserts that any policy with a negative impact on underprivileged races is inherently racist and immoral, and that this faction has grown considerably over the past ten years.  However, they are not in control of the Democratic party.  The combined voices of the classically liberal, social liberal, and neoliberal factions of the party outnumber those who would ignore the principles of social welfare and prioritize equal outcomes over fair processes.  Under a two-party system, only accepting alliances with those who share a narrow set of views would lead to an unacceptably small group of allies, and this smaller faction is not in control of the Democratic party.

 

In her concluding remarks, Congresswoman Gabbard asserts that the Democratic party wants a government "of, by, and for the powerful elite," and calls on her fellow "common sense, independent-minded Democrats" to leave the Democratic party.  I'd like to think that common sense means second-guessing conspiracy theories that some elite group controls the government.  

 

For the reasons mentioned above, I'm answering Congresswoman Gabbard's call with a definitive "No, the Democratic party still has my support."

 

 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

There's corruption and bias on both sides. It doesn't mean it's all about businesses

[rebis]

Gabbard was barely a Dem to begin with. Somebody like Bernie defecting and urging his supporters to do the same would be news. Gabbard isn't. She is not a loss to the Democratic party.

[Sally]

She has been a DINO for a long time.  It's possible that the Republicans offered her something she wanted if she would leave the Democratic Party, make nasty comments about it, and slam the door on her way out.  Good riddance.  

[Fraggle Underdark]

Yeah I didn't even know this person (though the name feels vaguely familiar) but as I'm reading about her comments I'm thinking "oh how strange, there was a MAGA person in the Democratic party". (And that claim about weaponizing institutions against political opponents just blatantly overlooks that so many MAGAists actually broke a lot of serious laws. "Not being immune from laws" is not the same as "the institutions are weaponized against you".)

[TormentDubz]

Both parties want the same thing but decorated in their own color, they only care about profit and control. And yeah government kind of is in collusion with globalist corporations, at least in the form of lobbying

[Fraggle Underdark]

1 hour ago, TormentDubz said:

Both parties want the same thing but decorated in their own color, they only care about profit and control. And yeah government kind of is in collusion with globalist corporations, at least in the form of lobbying

In the current climate I feel like this is saying that both the Allies and the Axis in WW2 wanted the same thing, to control how things were done in as much territory as they could. Which isn't incorrect but ...

[nanogretchen4]

There's a lot to unpack here.

 

First, the words "globalist" and "cabal" are usually antisemitic dog whistles.

 

Second, legislators' campaigns do receive very large donations from large corporations and PACs. This is the case for legislators from all political parties. I don't know if you would call this bribery and corruption since this information can be accessed by the public and it appears to be legal. However, I do not think it should be legal and I think campaign finance reform is desperately needed.

 

Third, it would be wonderful if at least one party would be genuinely anti-racist. I don't think the Democrats rise to that level very often, but at least they aren't proudly waving Confederate flags like the Republicans. No political party is "too" anti-racist or in the slightest danger of becoming "too" anti-racist. But yeah, if you think anti-racism is a bad thing or, let's get real, you think racism is a good thing, the Republican party is probably more reliably on the same page as you.

 

Fourth, anti-white racism is not a real thing. The term and entire concept is a racist dog whistle.

 

Fifth, good riddance to Tulsi Gabbard. Too bad she spent her whole career impersonating a Democrat, keeping an actual Democrat from getting the party's nomination for that seat.

[TormentDubz]

1 minute ago, nanogretchen4 said:

First, the words "globalist" and "cabal" are usually antisemitic dog whistles.

Yeah a lot of unpleasant people blame Jews for the world's problems

[TormentDubz]

When I say globalism I mean what the WEF is trying to implement, for example (from their own Twitter page):

 

 

 

Of course the neocons will jump at it and scream "communism" cause that's a common boogeyman.

 

As someone of Jewish heritage I find it senseless to repeat a certain rhetoric from the 1930s about an entire religious and ethnic group claiming they seek world domination, the only group of people interested in anything remotely close to that would be the crony capitalist executives of multibillion/trillion dollar corporations. 

 

Returning to the main point of the thread, I wish fewer people would see the Democrat party as "infallible" and start holding them accountable. Ideally political parties would be abolished but that seems unrealistic as of now

[Still]

lol, from reading posts by American leftists they saw this coming a mile away. Way to tick off all the shits chuds eat up too: "wokeness", "anti-white" and a nod to QAnon with "cabal" too.

 

I'd say the US government is definitely in the pockets of big business, though, and that's inevitable after 40 years of neoliberalism and the privatization of everything.

 

24 minutes ago, TormentDubz said:

When I say globalism I mean what the WEF is trying to implement, for example (from their own Twitter page)

Yeah, I would just not use the word "globalism" at all. It's been tainted to the point where I just assume everyone who uses it is a Nazi. Come to think of it, I'd literally never even seen that word used before finding out about Nazi conspiracy theories (they didn't invent it or anything, just that it's not exactly a very commonly-used word).

 

Think of it like wearing a shirt with an ancient Buddhist symbol on it: sure, you can explain to everyone that you're not a Nazi, but it's much easier to just not wear the shirt.

[Autumn ace]

Tulsi gabbard had never really been a democrat. She only ran as one because she knew it might give her a chance to be president. 
She’s not really that important. She barely makes news, and she decided to show up but not vote to impeach trump. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1104301 
She’s not important, and her leaving the party isn’t a loss. It’s also not really a gain for whoever she chooses to support now. 
 

I have a lot of problems with the Democratic Party, but I will continue to support them because there where my values most align. Tulsi Gabbard isn’t going to change that 

 

 

[JimmyJazz]

I have no dog in this fight but I think it's a little pathetic that the YouTube video of her full address to the public has been monetised. If you're going to do this, okay, but in monetising the video she's just sending the message that this is a publicity stunt and is all about personal gain.

[Still]

7 hours ago, AspieAlly613 said:

The combined voices of the classically liberal, social liberal, and neoliberal factions of the party outnumber those who would ignore the principles of social welfare and prioritize equal outcomes over fair processes.  Under a two-party system, only accepting alliances with those who share a narrow set of views would lead to an unacceptably small group of allies, and this smaller faction is not in control of the Democratic party.

Are you sure you know what neoliberalism actually is?  Because neoliberalism is an inherently racist and classist ideology designed to funnel money into the pockets of the wealthiest, and saying neoliberals care about social welfare or fair processes is just absurd. Just look at the policies implemented by the likes of Carter, Reagan and Clinton.

 

37 minutes ago, JimmyJazz said:

I have no dog in this fight but I think it's a little pathetic that the YouTube video of her full address to the public has been monetised. If you're going to do this, okay, but in monetising the video she's just sending the message that this is a publicity stunt and is all about personal gain.

Maybe she or whoever runs her YouTube forgot to turn off the monetization. Then again, lmao, the grift is real, of course she's going to cash in on everything.

[nanogretchen4]

Processes that have consistently, over multiple centuries, resulted in unequal outcomes are obviously not fair processes. What are your grounds for believing that these processes are fair? Are the processes fair because they favor you? Are the processes fair because your white friends say they are fair? It's as if I flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on heads every single time, yet I insist that it is a fair coin so you have to allow me to keep gambling with that same coin.

 

Also, a policy that has a negative impact on underprivileged races is in fact inherently racist. That's what systemic racism means. Not that systemic racism is limited to official policies that have a racist impact. It also includes de facto practices that have a racist impact. But policies with a racist impact are 100% part of systemic racism. And racism is inherently immoral. I can't imagine any valid argument to the contrary. If decent people with common sense are not in charge of the Democratic party, that's unfortunate. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

I'm not an American and my view of the American system is that any two-party system is bad in itself (because it's simply not enough to cover the spectrum of political views and, as a result, it forces both voters and politicians to make compromises they might find unacceptable and yet the only possible solution). But I wonder, what was she looking for in the Democratic Party? Her views in that statement look so Republican...

[ElloryJaye]

1 hour ago, everywhere and nowhere said:

But I wonder, what was she looking for in the Democratic Party? Her views in that statement look so Republican...

Well, the conspiracy theory version would be that she was playing a long game that was intended to end in exactly this way, with a very public flounce-out and door slamming to "shame" the Democrats.  But it's more likely that her choice of party was purely based on whom she thought she could get a nomination from, or she may have started as center-right (for US values of "center") and drifted further right over time.  (Can you tell that I haven't been paying much attention?  We have enough crazy politicians up here that I don't need to be worrying about those belonging to Our Neightbour To The South.)

 

[Tetus]

Tulsi Gabbard is a very strange individual.

 

The Democratic Party in the US is not great for a lot of reasons. None of these reasons are that they are pursuing an anti-white agenda. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has embraced a nihilistic theory of politics in which dog whistles are used to cover for naked corruption, and has been fostering the idea that trying to prevent corruption or enact social good is both impossible and in fact undesirable or even malicious.

 

We have a conservative party fighting to maintain a deeply flawed and exploitative status quo and a party who is so far removed from rational action that it frankly boggles the mind. 

[Still]

2 hours ago, ElloryJaye said:

Can you tell that I haven't been paying much attention?  We have enough crazy politicians up here that I don't need to be worrying about those belonging to Our Neightbour To The South.

She isn't even a politician anymore. She hasn't been in office for almost two years; I'm almost 100% sure today was the first time anyone in this thread has paid attention to Tulsi Gabbard in months if not years.

[R_1]

Well, I could do without reading about her again. Good riddance.

[daveb]

I don't know anyone who thinks the Democratic party is infallible. I know plenty of people who aren't always happy with it, but feel it still aligns with their views better than the GOP does, and also feel like those are often the only viable options. Third parties rarely accomplish much in this country (although there have been times they have managed to displace one of the 2 major parties it really just amounts to 2 major parties,, whatever you call them).

 

As for TG, meh.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

[Euna]

The act of leaving is not all that groundbreaking... the big question is, what's next for her? Andrew Yang made a similar move by going independent, and I admire him for trying to forge his own path... but alas, we seem very close-minded in America about 3rd parties or democratic reform in general. Lately I've been feeling national politics is a hopeless case and we should probably just try to focus on our local communities.

[nanogretchen4]

Tulsi Gabbard is not an Independent. She's literally just a Republican who ran as a Democrat and filled a seat that ought to have been held by a genuine Democrat and then voted with the Republicans. Sinema and Manchin are also Republicans who impersonated Democrats to take seats that should have gone to actual Democrats. Anyone who consistently votes with the Republicans is a Republican. 

 

Andrew Yang is an actual Independent. He started his own platform with specific positions that are substantially different from both the Democratic party platform and the Republican party platform. However, it is unlikely that any member of his party will ever hold public office.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

We've got two mainstream political parties: unashamed fascists and ashamed fascists. Fuck 'em both.

[R_1]

4 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

We've got two mainstream political parties: unashamed fascists and ashamed fascists. Fuck 'em both.

Mah both sides! This is ridiculous and there's no case for both side anyway.