How would this forum react if Kamala Harris won the presidency?

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

That is easy to say if you are financially comfortable enough to take that risk. Moving, especially to a city, is expensive. And the job prospects for an ex-ruralite with only a high school education (and often times, not even that) are abysmal. The "just move" argument works about as well as the "stop being poor" argument.

I very much agree with this. The "just move" argument is not only terrible and out of touch, but also makes 0 sense. If an area is failing economically, we should work to make it more successful, not abandon it to nature. It seems like Blairite wants to completely abandon rural areas and pack cities with a population too big for them to handle and it can't be justified.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?

But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.

Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.

With all due respect, what about the just move argument. Some parts of rural (and urban) do not serve a purpose in the modern economy. I moved from rural Oregon to Los Angeles, and I don't have patience for people who won't do the same to find success.

That is easy to say if you are financially comfortable enough to take that risk. Moving, especially to a city, is expensive. And the job prospects for an ex-ruralite with only a high school education (and often times, not even that) are abysmal. The "just move" argument works about as well as the "stop being poor" argument.

I very much agree with this. The "just move" argument is not only terrible and out of touch, but also makes 0 sense. If an area is failing economically, we should work to make it more successful, not abandon it to nature. It seems like Blairite wants to completely abandon rural areas and pack cities with a population too big for them to handle and it can't be justified.

That's not true, but there are a lot of places that don't serve a purpose. Also, I am an urbanist in favor of urban growth, but that doesn't mean I want to force my way of life on others (though I do think a lot of people are too attached to their hometowns.) Rural areas like California's Central Valley are very economically viable, and urban areas like Detroit are not. However, there are many places (more often rural than not) that don't contribute to the economy, and won't be able to sustainability in the future, and they must be abandoned. Honestly, I think this is more compassionate to the people who live there then a mix of populism and welfare that will never produce long-term benefits for anybody.

How can you "abandon" a place? Do you leave it for nature? Do you transfer all the people who live there to other areas? This is really not feasible. But regardless of how feasible it is, saying that you "have no patience for people who won't move to find success" remains a very out-of-touch statement of an elitist who doesn't understand what lack of money means. I'm not going to assume that this is what you are because it's not right, but this is what that statement sounds like.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that I might be one of the main suspects to be an upper-middle to upper class liberal, so I'm gonna answer this at length

I live in an industrialized city in Israel, and while I really don't feel like I can complain, seeing that I never lacked food or education or comfort, my family is still lower-middle class. Technically, I do live in an urban environment, but in Israel rural areas are mostly wealthy (as I know from many of my friends and former schoolmates, who do live in rural areas), while urban industrialized cities, usually full of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union (like my parents) or Arabic states and their children, are the real struggling areas.
Anyway, saying that living in such a place didn't affect my politics would be lying. I know, it's not even close to poverty and I'm grateful for that, but knowing, for example, just how important is the universal healthcare system in Israel for families like mine helped me full-heartedly support such systems elsewhere, including in America. But I still don't think that living in such an area means I need to hold socialist views. On the contrary. For example, my father works in a factory, and an alarming number of workers are being replaced because of both outsourcing and automation. And still, I strongly support free trade because I believe that we only lose a minimal amount of jobs because of it, and families like mine are helped by lower prices along with higher quality products. I believe that automation is an inevitable process we must embrace rather than try to postpone, and that instead of throwing money on poor areas to help struggling families directly we need to invest in new jobs in growing industried like high tech, alternative energy, tourism, and the ever-needed infrastructure, as well as free job training for these. I think that the state should try to offer help to poor populations, but we can't spoon-feed them. Things like subsidized higher education and job training help more in the long run than just giving them money.
I don't believe in the "personal responsibility" argument, though of course there are cases where it's right and there are some very specific populations (like the Haredi Jews in Israel) who are almost directly responsible for their bad economic situation by refusing to teach their children what they need to know to succeed in a modern economy. And I surely do not believe the silly "just relocate lelz" argument, because I know full well how unfeasible it is. So did I still have internalized right-wing rhetoric? Maybe, but I don't think so. These are just my views.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that I might be one of the main suspects to be an upper-middle to upper class liberal, so I'm gonna answer this at length

I live in an industrialized city in Israel, and while I really don't feel like I can complain, seeing that I never lacked food or education or comfort, my family is still lower-middle class. Technically, I do live in an urban environment, but in Israel rural areas are mostly wealthy (as I know from many of my friends and former schoolmates, who do live in rural areas), while urban industrialized cities, usually full of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union (like my parents) or Arabic states and their children, are the real struggling areas.
Anyway, saying that living in such a place didn't affect my politics would be lying. I know, it's not even close to poverty and I'm grateful for that, but knowing, for example, just how important is the universal healthcare system in Israel for families like mine helped me full-heartedly support such systems elsewhere, including in America. But I still don't think that living in such an area means I need to hold socialist views. On the contrary. For example, my father works in a factory, and an alarming number of workers are being replaced because of both outsourcing and automation. And still, I strongly support free trade because I believe that isolationism we only lose a minimal amount of jobs because of it, and families like mine are helped by lower prices along with higher quality products. I believe that automation is an inevitable process we must embrace rather than try to postpone, and that instead of throwing money on poor areas to help struggling families directly we need to invest in new jobs in growing industried like high tech, alternative energy, tourism, and the ever-needed infrastructure, as well as free job training for these. I think that the state should try to offer help to poor populations, but we can't spoon-feed them. Things like subsidized higher education and job training help more in the long run than just giving them money.
I don't believe in the "personal responsibility" argument, though of course there are cases where it's right and there are some very specific populations (like the Haredi Jews in Israel) who are almost directly responsible for their bad economic situation by refusing to teach their children what they need to know to succeed in a modern economy. And I surely do not believe the silly "just relocate lelz" argument, because I know full well how unfeasible it is. So did I still have internalized right-wing rhetoric? Maybe, but I don't think so. These are just my views.

Overall, we really don't disagree on most things, based on what you've written. I think the confusion arises in your understanding of Socialism, which is likely due to failure on the part of Socialists to convey their beliefs in a more coherent form. For example, on the issue of trade, it's not a Socialist position to support isolationism or protectionism. Sure, many labor unions and working-class groups agitate for protectionist policies, but protectionism ultimately isn't for the benefit for the workers or their class interests. The most important issue in Socialist politics is simply power and autonomy, by which I mean that the lower, working, and even middle classes seize greater power and are capable of expressing their interests through democratic action. On an issue such as trade, our criticism against present free-trade isn't the free exchange of goods across borders, but rather how it's organized around, focused on, and serve multinational corporate interests, such as how the free flow of capital serves the upper class's interests, whereas the free flow of labor is blocked. Another issue is such as what happened with TPP and TTIP, which would've empowered corporations to actually shape trade and domestic policies in participating countries by taking them to court over policies deemed harmful to their interests. These trade agreements also disregard the exploitation and rampant abuse of workers in foreign countries, the negative effects and downward pressure on wages and benefits in developed countries, and disregard for the environment by taking advantage of lax regulations and corruption in poorer countries.

I'm not, nor are Socialists, as far as I know, opposed to automation and investment. The ideal goal of Socialism is to reduce the amount people have to work, especially menial jobs, thereby freeing up time for other pursuits. That's why UBI is often popular among us. Another goal is to redistribute the profitability of automation away from concentrating wealth into fewer hands (automation enables fewer producers to produce more at greater ROI) towards society-at-large. To oppose automation would be absurd; but to oppose automation that displaces workers while concentrating greater wealth and power into fewer hands, along with enabling greater monopolization of markets, isn't good nor acceptable. As for investment, we should always strive to improve QOL through higher education, increasing skills, and access to means of self-improvement, such as high-speed internet, improved infrastructure, and tackling poverty. Universal access to healthcare, higher education, trade schools, and so on are incredibly important to ensure everyone has equal opportunity and equal access so that upward mobility is available to all who want it. However, most who live in poverty, at least in America, are not those who're full-time workers. It's typically children, the elderly, the disabled, those who help ill family members, and so on; essentially, those unable to fully participate in the labor market. Direct financial assistance from the government is, along with other social programs like paid leave, affordable childcare, improved elderly care, and so on, the only means of achieving elevation out of poverty for these folks.

Well, I think that most of my disagreement with socialists comes from the fact that I don't view the world from the lens of a class struggle. I do recognize the need to curb the influence of rich industries because of how terrible some of them are (the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries, as an example) and I support getting big money out of politics, but I don't believe that the government should explicitly work to drastically redistribute the wealth- I believe that this would be counterproductive, because we do need these corporations and in my opinion they're an important part of a modern society and economy. What I do support is working to increase competition between these corporations and prevent monopolization, sometimes by bringing that competition from abroad. Universal income, by the way, is something that I do support as an eventual outcome- I think that we should test it and feel the way, so to say, in places where it'll be easier and safer to do (like Finland), because eventually, it'll be inevitable. I guess you could say that I just see the need for change, but think that this change should be more subtle and gradual, and that big revolutions and drastic changes that disturb stability would be counterproductive and could cause harm. So while there are disagreements on many issues, I think most of my disagreement with socialists is on rhetoric and general view of the world.