I still don’t think your definition is valid or good and I didn’t really see any argument that said otherwise. Immediately after the part you quoted I did say “(but we’re kinda fucked with that right now)” which was in reference to our 2 party system, so yes I understand that part.
The other option is to slowly replace the members of the party in positions of power.
This isn’t changing unless one of the parties gains power and essentially gives it up to implement a new system.
in the positions of power in the DNC.
Statements like these reveal why the definition I stated is more accurate. That there’s a party line that politicians in that party are expected to follow. You use those statements to argue that we should be trying to change what that party line is, which I take no issue with and seems to be a goal of AOC and some others. But we’re talking about who is a better example of a Democrat which has zero meaning without the democratic party. And Pelosi is an excellent example of what the party is while AOC is an example of what you would like the party to be. You do need to recognize where the party is before you can figure out how to steer it in the direction you’re hoping for.
And you’re right about this being a different conversation but I still want to say a little something about
If they are running and not winning that is because they are not popular with the public
Because this seems like a pretty naive sentiment. First because a large percentage of the public simply doesn’t vote. Also the current tribalism of our 2 party system is the most important thing for many if not most of those that do vote. But most importantly, having good and popular ideas or even saying good and popular things is not what gets you elected in this country. Our political system relies on the advertising model. If you package it right and put it in front of enough people, it doesn’t actually matter what is being said. That’s how someone like Trump gets elected. Which I guess is a form of being popular, but I don’t think that’s what you meant by it.
My argument for why either definition works is that “true Democrat” is a value judgement and different individuals will have different values. MAGA calls McConnell a RINO because he doesn’t align with their values of perceiving Trump as infallible. Now they might be wrong in their belief but they have the right to define who they want as a RINO just as constituents of the Democrat party have the right to label who they please as a DINO if they don’t meet their criteria of a “true Democrat”.
There is no such thing as a “true Democrat” or “true Republican” since both of these are contrived things.
So when you are arguing over what is the correct definition, it’s a waste of time because there is no true definition.
You can support your argument with what you believe are good supportive evidence but again there is no such thing as an empirical “true -insert-party-here-”.
I may respond to the rest of your post later but I’m in the middle of my workday so please excuse me at least until this afternoon for a more in depth response.
My point is that calling anyone a Democrat doesn’t make sense without the relation to the democratic party, it’s not an ideology. Whether or not they align with your values is irrelevant. Being a Democrat at all means being a member of the party, and a good member is one who defends the party platform. By your logic you might call Bernie a good Democrat even though he is, by his own admission, not a Democrat.
Responding to Boxer’s criticism during that night’s town hall in New Hampshire, Sanders said, “Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination.”
He sometimes considers himself a Democrat. You are correct that being a Democrat means being a member of the party but the party platform can and has changed, usually to meet the views of its constituents. And even so, Democrats like Nancy are notoriously bad at defending the party platform. That’s one of the problems. They promise certain things they don’t always deliver. By your definition that makes her a bad democrat.
When it’s impossible to make whatever happen while being an independent because of the choke hold the 2 party system has. And yes I brought up changing the platform, what about the incongruity I brought up in that comment? And I didn’t say they have to defend the platform well. Though that weak defense is more due to the secret platform of appeasing the biggest donors to the party. That’s why I bring up understanding what the party is vs what you want it to be. Right now all the voting members of the democratic party are upper class serving the interests of the even wealthier class.
I still don’t think your definition is valid or good and I didn’t really see any argument that said otherwise. Immediately after the part you quoted I did say “(but we’re kinda fucked with that right now)” which was in reference to our 2 party system, so yes I understand that part.
Statements like these reveal why the definition I stated is more accurate. That there’s a party line that politicians in that party are expected to follow. You use those statements to argue that we should be trying to change what that party line is, which I take no issue with and seems to be a goal of AOC and some others. But we’re talking about who is a better example of a Democrat which has zero meaning without the democratic party. And Pelosi is an excellent example of what the party is while AOC is an example of what you would like the party to be. You do need to recognize where the party is before you can figure out how to steer it in the direction you’re hoping for.
And you’re right about this being a different conversation but I still want to say a little something about
Because this seems like a pretty naive sentiment. First because a large percentage of the public simply doesn’t vote. Also the current tribalism of our 2 party system is the most important thing for many if not most of those that do vote. But most importantly, having good and popular ideas or even saying good and popular things is not what gets you elected in this country. Our political system relies on the advertising model. If you package it right and put it in front of enough people, it doesn’t actually matter what is being said. That’s how someone like Trump gets elected. Which I guess is a form of being popular, but I don’t think that’s what you meant by it.
Here’s an incongruity that applies to both conversations. A supermajority of democratic voters support government run healthcare, but it’s nowhere to be seen in the DNC platform.
My argument for why either definition works is that “true Democrat” is a value judgement and different individuals will have different values. MAGA calls McConnell a RINO because he doesn’t align with their values of perceiving Trump as infallible. Now they might be wrong in their belief but they have the right to define who they want as a RINO just as constituents of the Democrat party have the right to label who they please as a DINO if they don’t meet their criteria of a “true Democrat”.
There is no such thing as a “true Democrat” or “true Republican” since both of these are contrived things.
So when you are arguing over what is the correct definition, it’s a waste of time because there is no true definition.
You can support your argument with what you believe are good supportive evidence but again there is no such thing as an empirical “true -insert-party-here-”.
I may respond to the rest of your post later but I’m in the middle of my workday so please excuse me at least until this afternoon for a more in depth response.
My point is that calling anyone a Democrat doesn’t make sense without the relation to the democratic party, it’s not an ideology. Whether or not they align with your values is irrelevant. Being a Democrat at all means being a member of the party, and a good member is one who defends the party platform. By your logic you might call Bernie a good Democrat even though he is, by his own admission, not a Democrat.
He sometimes considers himself a Democrat. You are correct that being a Democrat means being a member of the party but the party platform can and has changed, usually to meet the views of its constituents. And even so, Democrats like Nancy are notoriously bad at defending the party platform. That’s one of the problems. They promise certain things they don’t always deliver. By your definition that makes her a bad democrat.
When it’s impossible to make whatever happen while being an independent because of the choke hold the 2 party system has. And yes I brought up changing the platform, what about the incongruity I brought up in that comment? And I didn’t say they have to defend the platform well. Though that weak defense is more due to the secret platform of appeasing the biggest donors to the party. That’s why I bring up understanding what the party is vs what you want it to be. Right now all the voting members of the democratic party are upper class serving the interests of the even wealthier class.