NATO isn't seeking to take over countries. Countries seek to be part of NATO for defense and have to qualify (which can take some years). — jorndoe

Given their history, it's hard to find fault with Russia for not believing that. We didn't when Russia moved it's military into Cuba. Heck, I don't even believe it. It's a political attack on Russia backed up by a massive armed force.

For a country the size and geography of Russia it might be easy enough to list all kinds of "hostile countries" in the vicinity. — jorndoe

As I noted, Russia is historically paranoid about invasion, but as they say, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. This is from Wikipedia - Invasion of Russia.

• Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' (1237–1242), a series of invasions that resulted in the Rus' states becoming vassals of the Golden Horde.
• Livonian campaign against Rus' (1240–1242), an unsuccessful Teutonic invasion of the Novgorod and Pskov Republics, in order to convert them to Catholicism.
• Russo-Crimean Wars (1570–1572), an Ottoman invasion that penetrated Russia and destroyed Moscow.
• Polish–Muscovite War (1609–1618), Poland gained Severia and Smolensk.
• Ingrian War (1610–1617), a Swedish invasion which captured Novgorod and Pskov.
• Swedish invasion of Russia (1708–1709), an unsuccessful Swedish invasion, as part of the Great Northern War (1700–1721).
• French invasion of Russia (1812), an unsuccessful invasion by Napoleon's French Empire and its allies, as part of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).
• Crimean War (1853–1856), a series of conflicts between the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, Sardinia, and the Russian Empire, including an Allied invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.
• Japanese invasion of Sakhalin (1905), an invasion and annexation by the Japanese, as part of the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905).
• Eastern Front (World War I) (1914–1918), Russia was forced to cede Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states to Germany as the Russian Empire collapsed.
• Caucasus campaign (1914–1918), a series of conflicts between the Russian Empire, its various successor states, and the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
• Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918–1925) and the contemporaneous Polish–Soviet War (1918/9–1921), the Polish occupation of Belarus and West Ukraine.
• Japanese intervention in Siberia (1918–1922), an occupation of the Russian Far East by Japanese soldiers during the Russian Civil War (1917–1923).
• Operation Barbarossa (1941), an unsuccessful invasion of the Soviet Union led by Nazi Germany that started the Eastern Front (World War II) of 1941–1945.
• Continuation War (1941–1944), an unsuccessful German-Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union, as part of World War II.
• Kantokuen (1941), an aborted plan for a major Japanese invasion of the Russian Far East during World War II.
• Operation Unthinkable (1945), a proposed contingency plan for an Anglo-American invasion of the Soviet Union developed by the British Chiefs of Staff during the later stages of World War II.
• War in Dagestan (1999), a repulsed Chechen invasion of Dagestan.
• Kursk Oblast incursion (2024), an ongoing August invasion of Russia's Kursk Oblast by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU).

I can look at this from a different angle as my summer cottage is very close to the Russian border. — ssu

Do you live in the Baltics?

Please understand that the US isn't almighty, it's just one actor in Europe. The World doesn't circle around the US. Russia itself is the really big actor here. The Soviet leadership avoided the largest wars when the USSR collapsed, but the problem was that Russia knew just one thing, that it was an Empire. It has all these minorities, — ssu

Living where you do, you may know more about this than I do. I remember back in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton and the rest of NATO started expanding NATO. Even back then I thought it was a graceless response to a world changing action.

If there was a theoretical window of opportunity to link Russia into Europe, it would have been immediately when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yet that would have needed larger than life politicians both in Moscow and Washington DC, but those political Houdini's didn't exist. — ssu

I don't necessarily think we should have "linked Russia into Europe." I just think it was a big mistake to move NATO right up to Russia's borders. We reacted very aggressively to Russian weapons in Cuba back in the 1960s. Why would we expect to Russia to feel differently? What benefit did the west get out of it?

NATO enlargement is one of Putin's lines, but so is the artificiality of the state of Ukraine and it being natural of Ukraine being part of Russia. — ssu

It always seemed to me that was just a rationalization for political and propaganda purposes. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also please understand that key players in the NATO enlargement were the new countries themselves. — ssu

I'm sure that's true, but that's not a good enough, or even very good, reason for us to agree to let them in. For us to tie up our military into riskier entangling alliances made it more likely that we would end up in a war with Russia. That would be a very bad thing. A very, very bad thing.

Hence it was for the "near abroad" countries this brief opportunity to get out of Russia's stranglehold. — ssu

Again, that's not a good enough reason for us to act. We need to look after our own interests. Expansion of the EU allows for greater cohesion in Europe without getting the military involved.

Bob Ross likely wanted to stir up a heated debate, luckily didn't get banned. — ssu

I found his logic disturbing. Stronger than disturbing. But I don't see that he violated any of the guidelines. Just espousing unpopular opinions shouldn't be a good enough reason for moderator action.

The last true excess were the neocons, who didn't themselves believe at first they got the power. — ssu

There are a lot of hawks still around. I kept expecting Israel to attack Iran with strong US military support.

A Dolchstoss given to Ukraine with Europe just watching from the side just what the hell happened is the worst outcome. But that hasn't happened. — ssu

I have a fantasy that Europe will step up to take a bigger military and political role in the world, especially in Europe.

What issue? — kudos

My personal understanding of morality.

you are conveying my point better than I could have done myself. — kudos

We use different language, so I guess I misunderstood.

Any reasonable person can see that it is impossible and pointless to avoid the universal determinations of evil and bad 'in-themselves.' However, if one subscribes to a less respectable sort of moral subjectivity, it is easy to avoid. — kudos

I have a different take on morality than others I have discussed it with here on the forum. Please believe I am not joking or being sarcastic when I say I do not accept "universal determinations of evil and bad 'in-themselves.'" For me, morality is the set of rules I use for my own behavior. I don't apply those rules to others. Rules that apply to people in general, myself and others, I call social control. They are the rules society at all scales applies to promote acceptable behavior and prevent disruptive or harmful behavior.

I don't think a more detailed discussion of this issue is appropriate here.

If it's how we handle that conflict that matters, then you must agree that the two have something to do with one another. Otherwise, how could it matter at all? — kudos

"Moral indecency" and "darker side" are not terms, or the kinds of terms, I use to describe human behavior. That's what I mean when I say you and I have a different understanding of human nature.

In the richest country on earth, it’s scandalous that we don’t have the same healthcare as Britain or Canada. — Mikie

And they all do it for about half what it costs here.

But at some point works like that became closer to how I see the world, in terms of worldview and metaphysics, than the everyday pretheoretical intuitions I live in. If whenever I open my mouth fairytales fall out, I may as well learn as many as possible. — fdrake

As I noted, if something this unusual catches your attention, I'm interested to see what it has to say.

You would agree that being in actuality is not always positive. Sometimes we must acknowledge that harm must come to others as a formal cost of being, some things must be taken away from others, and some things that another may not want must occur — in addition to their opposites. It is recalcitrant to deny this in hopes of defending the right not to bear it or be responsible for it. — kudos

You wrote:

If you are alive and breathing, chances are you have some moral indecency in you, one should be reminded of this from time to time. Whoever you are, you probably have a darker side of your personality and it needs to be fed regularly or else it will begin to hurt you from within. — kudos

I responded:

Your opinion of human nature is different from mine. — T Clark

The fact that living life unavoidably brings us into conflict with other people has nothing to do with "moral indecency" or a "darker side." It's how we handle that conflict that matters.

A really good, comprehensive summary. Discouraging. I can't think of much to say. I don't have anything near an answer. How can we go through Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and all the chaos and catastrophe associated with them and still think there is value in these types of policies?

One thing I have thought about a lot, starting in the early 1990s - Gorbachev gave us the gift of a new eastern Europe and western Asia. How did we handle it? Even knowing Russia's historical paranoia about being surrounded and invaded, we immediately started expanding NATO right up to it's borders. Now it's enclosed by hostile countries backed by the US and western European militaries. No wonder Putin is furious. We blew it. We were naive and thoughtless, but then, as your summary shows, we always seem to be.

The OP brings to mind the ongoing discussion here on the forum - "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism." That thread displays the US's superpower mania at a scale that dwarfs even our past adventures. The fact that that kind of fantasy still holds power always confounds me. The worst part is that the desire for military solutions to political problems is still strong in mainstream political leadership.

I've been on a Cybernetic Culture Research Institute kick the last few months. — fdrake

I had never heard of the Institute, so I looked it up. I also downloaded "Alien Theory." I can't imagine I'll read it all, but I at least wanted to check it out, not so much out of specific interest, but more because I wanted to see what a mild-mannered statistician saw in such a goofy unusual subject.

You and I don't have enough common ground to discuss this. As I noted, I'll look for non-political discussions that we can both participate in.

It seems like you don't really want to have a productive dialogue; — Bob Ross

You and I will never have a productive political dialogue. You propose invading India to force our way of life on them. You support a man you acknowledge tried to overthrow the government of the US. I'll look for ways to have better conversations with you in more philosophical discussions.

I think the Democratic Party would find this essentially impossible. First, because the primary system in the US, where candidates are selected by relatively quite small numbers of older/wealthier/more radical voters invariably pushes both parties away from the views of the median voter and towards the fringes.

But also because the Democrats core wealthy urban constituency, who make up most of its leadership class, have come to frame almost all of its core issues as continuations of the US Civil Rights movement (similarly, in Europe decolonization is the mold). There is no compromise here. Opponents are simply on the wrong side of history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is truth in what you say and maybe you're right. That doesn't change my prescription, even if it turns out to be unrealistic. I just get so furious listening to my liberal friends spewing their contempt on people we have to figure out a way to get along with.

The problem is that it isn't clear that issues like migration fit this mold, at least not in the wider public's view. Increasing migration currently polls worse for the US as a whole then Harris fared in many rural, overwhelmingly white Southern counties... yet elite opinion is at total variance here, and this is the common thread of success for the far-right across the Western world. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is something I left off my list that I should have included. I think Democrats have to figure out a way to walk the line on immigration. Biden tried to do this over the past year, but the Republicans put the kibosh on that.

We’re talking about Trump, not anti-gay, anti-abortion zealots. — Joshs

I think Trump is the glue that holds Republicans, who hate each other, together.

I'll be interested to see what happens when Trump is finally gone - whether the Republican party can hold on or whether it will fall apart.

If you believe that, do you realize you’re making the same claim about the basis of MAGA that they make about the basis of your support for liberal candidates? Trump supporters like to argue that a small cabal of progressive zealots (Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Bill Gates) and the liberal press under their control manipulate Democratic voters for their own ends, that support for Trumpism is vastly wider than the liberal press claims it to be because of tampering with the vote by Democratic operatives. — Joshs

That's the whole point of my OP - to stop treating our political opponents with disrespect. Whatever I think of the political realities of where Republican support comes from, there's no need to put that on the table when we talk with them.

How do you expect to convince people of your Democratic views if you are incapable of defending them? — Bob Ross

This thread was not aimed at convincing people of my Democratic views. See the OP.

Policies doesn't really matter, it's how the politics are communicated to the people. Democrats don't understand how to do that and get lost in how to talk to people. — Christoffer

As I noted, I like Sanders. I think he'd make an... interesting president. I'd certainly vote for him. I still think centrist candidates have a better chance of winning.

The fundamental problem in the US is that no center or right wing policies will fix the actual problems that the US is facing. — Christoffer

I'm not sure any policies can solve the problems we've got coming up over the period of my children's lifetimes. As I've said, I think Biden and his policies were the best choice for the US.

It isn't. — AmadeusD

A discussion for a different thread.

They are historical grievances. They literally not in issue. — AmadeusD

There's no sense in arguing about this in this thread. I have a hard time dealing with people who think that minorities, especially black people, somehow now have a level playing field in our society. It's not that is was historical, it's that it continues.

What do you think he would do in a second term? — Mr Bee

More support for American workers and industry.

I am not ultra-nationalist; but I am a nationalist. I think you are conflating the two, but maybe I am wrong. — Bob Ross

Your recent thread "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism" makes it clear this is not true.

Says a supporter of the party that tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election for president in 2020

Trump did try to do that, and I do not approve of that. — Bob Ross

I can't think of a response to that. You live in a different moral world than I do.

The party that refused to consider a Democratic Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons.

I am fine with that: — Bob Ross

Ditto.

The only one that makes historical and contextual sense is banning ownership for certain convicted criminals (like violent felons): the constitution was written in terms of what reasonably law-abiding citizens would have as protections. — Bob Ross

As I noted, not all conservatives feel that way.

I am saying that there are situations where countries have a duty to subject other countries to their values—e.g., North Korea, Talibanian Afghanistan, etc. — Bob Ross

Yes, I heard what you said. It could not be further from pragmatism.

Your opinion of my attitude is not really of interest to me.

The biggest problem with democrats is that they are unable to market and speak to the working class. They aren't creating a political core that can be gathered around, there are no slogans or easily summed policies and democrats openly fight among themselves about policies that mean nothing to the regular voter. — Christoffer

Agreed. Part of the point of my OP is that there are extraneous issues, which I described, which are preventing creating such a political core.

I think the opposite is true, the problem is actually that democrats need to get away from the center because it doesn't offer anything. The working class have problems or feel that they have problems that need some solutions and the center liberal position will mostly just perpetuate things as they've always been. — Christoffer

I don't agree with this. I think Biden's domestic policies have been the right ones, but they have been overshadowed by the social and political issues I described in my OP. Even if you're right, I don't think that undermines the value of what I proposed.

The people want support in their life. The politics Sanders stand for is basically to install basic living conditions found in Scandinavia, or at least half way to it. If the democrats actually took a step to the left rather than waddling around in the center (as they've already have been for long now), then they would actually show people solutions. — Christoffer

I like Sanders and I like a lot of his policies. You and I just disagree about what policy approach is the right one given political conditions in the US now.

Of course Biden was exactly the right candidate for you. You’re a liberal. I’m saying a liberal like you or Biden or Harris can’t win unless they move far enough to the right that they become an old line conservative in the mold of G.W.Bush or Mitt Romney. — Joshs

The whole point of my OP is that this isn't true, so, clearly, you and I disagree.

I think you’re making a colossal mistake in judgement. American right wing populism isnt driven from the top down, but from the bottom up. It’s a grass roots movement driven by your neighbors outside of your urban bubble. — Joshs

The majority of Americans, including in conservative states, support same sex marriage. Electorates in Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, Kansas - conservative states - voted to remove abortion restrictions or prevent changes in current law. The Republican party is not driven from the bottom up. It has been taken over by a relatively small group of rabid ideologues whose policies don't match those of their constituents.

I focused on working people, but the heart of the issue isn’t workers, it’s a socially traditionalist value system shared by workers and wealthy people, those without college educations as well as those with advanced degrees, who are mostly from lower population density regions, with occasional exceptions like Trump. The main issue is what I call social I.Q. — Joshs

Sure, social conservatism is an important aspect of the Republican electorate, but we don't need all Republican voters. A large percentage of Republicans don't support Trump because of traditional values.

the student loan forgiveness program. I personally never liked it, and I understand why working class people would resent it. — Relativist

I started out ambivalent about the program but came around to feeling it was a good idea. From what I can tell from the web, support for forgiveness was lukewarm at best. As you can see from my OP, I'm not so much worried about the Democrats policies as I am their non-policy actions.

Similarly with aid to Ukraine: many resent it. There's no apparent, immediate benefit to Americans. — Relativist

Most Americans support aid for Ukraine across the political spectrum. Whether or not there is resentment from some, I don't see it as an issue that is relevant to my concerns as described in the OP.

If only there were a candidate that focused on working class issues, had popular proposals, took no corporate money, and had an energized, diverse coalition. It would be an example they could emulate. Alas, no such candidate exists.

Oh wait… — Mikie

I'm not talking about candidates with good ideas, I'm talking about how to win. Sanders is too far left.

the Democrats need a more bold vision than what they have been doing which is offering essentially the status quo with some tweaks. — Mr Bee

I'll say it again, I think Biden's domestic policies have been the right ones. I had hoped to see what he could do in the second term.

Another suggestion would be to allow the Democrat voters the power to choose their own candidate. — Hanover

You're right that the way Harris was chosen had a negative impact on the results.

Given how they've treated him it seems more like they fear Bernie than simply disagree with him. — Mr Bee

I like Sanders a lot, but I don't think his kind of liberal can win. We need to be more in the center.

Biden was a mediocre politician — Mr Bee

You and I disagree on Biden.

I am a strong leaning conservative and you seem to be a strong leaning Democrat, — Bob Ross

I am a strong liberal on policy and value issues, but a moderate on process, governance, and compromise. I don't think that's comparable to your type of conservativism. From what I can see you are a jingoist ideologue. You toe the party line and don't seem particularly interested in how the US will be governed as opposed to ideology.

the reason the democrats lost is because they have lost the common sense constitutional values. — Bob Ross

Says a supporter of the party that tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election for president in 2020. The party that refused to consider a Democratic Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons. This is a joke.

Every time I discuss gun control with a liberal, they always end up using the phrase “reasonable gun control” to advocate for the infringement of our 2nd amendment rights; — Bob Ross

I attributed a willingness to accept reasonable gun control to conservatives I know and know of. It includes such things as registration, permitting, background checks, gun safety, and restrictions on ownership for certain groups, e.g. convicted criminals. Most people in the US would approve of that type of measure. I think they would be approved by even those in conservative states if they trusted it wouldn't lead to more restrictive measures.

provide funding to send transgender students to private schools where they will be more welcome

Who is funding this? It better not be my taxes. — Bob Ross

I envisioned it being paid for by private funds. Liberals should put their money where their mouth is. Just like conservatives should put their money where their anti-abortion mouths are and provide funding for all those children they want to see born.

The main difference I personally find between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tend to think all ideally and conservatives all pragmatically. — Bob Ross

This from the guy who wants to send US troops into other sovereign countries to force our ideological preferences down their throats. That's pragmatism?

People want a merit-based society, where race, gender, ethnicity, etc. do not matter. — Bob Ross

No. Republicans want to pretend the way black people have been treated historically is no longer an issue. It turns my stomach. The State of Florida has made it part of the school curricula that slaves benefitted from slavery. The government has to have a role in setting things right.

let’s stop with the identity politics—it’s nonsense. — Bob Ross

The Republican party is as guilty of this as the Democrats. That's why I want to get us out of that business.

My questions for you would be:

1. Why should the government meddle in gay monogamous marriage but not gay polygamous marriage?

2. If the idea is just to have the State recognize people who are promising their lives, intimately, to each other, then why not like a libertarian stance and get rid of institutionalized marriage altogether? People could still get married in the metaphorical sense. — Bob Ross

For me, marriage has always been about protecting children. If you don't plan to have children, you shouldn't get married. That would apply to both gay and straight people. But that would never work, so allowing gay marriage is the only practical approach. The great majority of Americans, even in conservative states, support this.

If everyone who thinks differently than you is forced to listen to lectures about how stupid they are, — Hanover

That's what the forum is for.

All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers
— T Clark

Really? In what sense? — javi2541997

American wages, adjusted for inflation, haven't gone up since the 1970s. Good paying industrial jobs have been replaced by service jobs. The economic distance between working people and management and technical people has gotten much bigger.

What if the donkey (I love the party logo) gives up on 'Indiana' or 'Oklahoma' and they put all the efforts in an industrialised working class like the one of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? — javi2541997

The Democrats put very little money in conservative states except sometimes for specific federal candidates. Most money is spent for "swing states", e.g. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan.

In my experience, Americans in general are open-minded and not against voting for a female or someone with ties outside their country, but they have to have proved themselves as competent in their own right. The whole thing seemed a little thrown together last minute, and it appeared like they didn't approach the fact that she was female with enough caution to make it seem genuine. — kudos

I don't think the manner in which Harris was chosen was the issue. My guess is that it was primarily that we let the Republicans set the agenda. My suggestions are meant to be a part of addressing that.

To be blunt, this trap is mostly made up of people who have done bad things in their past who now are forced to repress their violent feelings to live arbitrarily free. — kudos

This is exactly the attitude I am arguing against.

If you are alive and breathing, chances are you have some moral indecency in you, one should be reminded of this from time to time. Whoever you are, you probably have a darker side of your personality and it needs to be fed regularly or else it will begin to hurt you from within. — kudos

Your opinion of human nature is different from mine.

The problem is that I feel like party leadership understands the latter but they actively choose not to change in order to maintain their influence. — Mr Bee

I don't think influence is the primary issue, although they do have to deal with those further to the left. I think they do what they believe, both personally and ideologically.

The neoliberal status quo era is over and to be able to push back against the populist right the left needs a populist message of their own. It's clear what that message should be but that makes the elites in the party uncomfortable so they'll do everything they can to push out any potentially inspiring candidates with a bold vision even if it comes at the risk of putting up dull and pathetic figures like Biden. — Mr Bee

What would a populist Democrat look like? What issues would they promote?

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, I think Biden is the best president in my adult lifetime.

Yeah but it's hard to see most Jewish voters being mad simply for reining in Netanyahu from committing war crimes vs. Arabs who will be mad if you don't. Obama was able to stand up to Israel on issues like the Iran Nuclear Deal but his support from Jewish voters remained strong. — Mr Bee

Your probably right, I was wrong to focus on just Arabs vs. Jews. There are strong voices for Israel in both Republican and Democratic parties along with strong voices for Palestine with the Democrats. I think the general sense of chaos hurt Biden and Harris.

I disagree that Republicans destroy any more so than any other ideological movement destroys. Conserving by nature seeks to preserve the status quo, so destruction it would seem, is more useful to a liberal than a conservative. Liberals by nature seek to overthrow (destroy) existing institutions, mores and customs. — Fire Ologist

This is a characterization of the differences between the parties/political philosophies that might have had some truth in the past, but it no longer does. Republicans no longer care about governing, they only care about winning and their strategy for achieving that is to drive people apart. Republicans are not conservatives in any meaningful way anymore.

Save for reproductive rights being a good issue for liberals. It’s a loser issue for both sides. The sides have hardened as ‘protecting the baby by destroying the mother’ versus ‘protecting the mother by destroying the baby.’ Losers all around. Both parties should figure out a way to start that conversation over. — Fire Ologist

I agree with this approach from a policy perspective, but I was only talking from a present day political viewpoint - what will win elections. The majority of Americans, including in conservative states, support reproductive rights, including abortion, with differences in details between regions. The vast majority support birth control.

Hating guns and gun owners - another loser like abortion. Guns and gun owners, like unwanted pregnancy and abortions, are here to stay. Figure it out, regulate it, set limits, argue to change minds, but do not ban. — Fire Ologist

Agreed, but that will take changes in attitude on both sides. In this discussion, I'm only looking at what Democrats can do without Republican support.

Our politicians, leaders, and media, and most of all, you and me, do this all of the time. We ignore the individual by seeing only some stereotype. — Fire Ologist

Yes. This is the main point I'm trying to make. Why can't we all just get along. I think most Americans still share more values, and more foundational issues, than they disagree on. Again, there are things Democrats can do without Republican participation.

We all need to remember the people in our lives that we know and love who also happen to vote for the other party. We have to humbly accept that our own opinions may be the wrong ones and listen. — Fire Ologist

When my family get together every year in February for my stepmother's birthday there are usually 15 of us and we're all strongly liberal. For the past few years my brother's parents-in-law have been coming. They're from South Carolina and are Trump supporters. We have to keep them at the far end of the table away from my sister, who is vociferous and uncompromising in here political positions. I'm surprised they keep coming. You can see it is hard for them to accept the members of the family with non-standard ways of life, but they are polite and keep it to themselves.

Everyone is looking to do good. — Fire Ologist

I don't think that's necessarily true. Both parties have significant groups who care more about winning than governing. In the Republican party, that group has become the majority of the base.

We should never think of our political party of choice as anything more than a convenience. — Fire Ologist

I don't agree. The Republicans have made themselves as a conscious political act the party who cares more about ideology than governing. It started in the 1970s.

But yes, you and I agree on most of this.

You know how I think the Democrats could have won this election? If they had nominated an old-style National Review-type Republican in the tradition of George H. Bush, Eisenhower, David Brooks, George Will , Charles Krauthammer, Liz Cheney and David Frum (strong on national defense, supportive of an anti-Russia policy, economically libertarian and socially moderate). Progressives would have held their noses and voted for such a candidate over Trump, while enough potential Trump voters would have changed sides to put the Democrats over the top. — Joshs

There used to be moderately liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Not anymore. The Democrats in Congress couldn't even work with moderates like Manchin and Sinema, so they're gone now. So, I think your idea is pie in the sky. For me, Biden was exactly the right candidate. As far as I'm concerned, he is the best president in my adult lifetime. My first election was in 1972. I voted for McGovern. What I'm looking for is a strategy so that candidates like him or Harris can win.

Second, and most important: what the large densely-populated urban centers (which is where most democrats are concentrated) need is very different from what rural voters and social conservatives need. 70% of economic productivity and wealth generation is located in Democrat-dominated urban centers, and Democrat views on everything from energy policy to healthcare and education are direct expressions of their understanding of what it takes to make that economic engine thrive.

Trump supporters know exactly how to make an economy of the 1950’s thrive, but that’s a recipe for failure in the 21st century. The urban dwellers are speaking a foreign language to the ears of Trump supporters, not just on social issues but also economic ones, so we progressives can’t expect the majority of the country who supports Trump, and a return to the economic thinking of a previous century, to fork over their money to support our causes. — Joshs

I'm not sure what to say to your characterization of the differences between Democrats and Republicans. It's certainly an oversimplification. I also think it's not accurate. I think on economic issues, Democratic policies are better for working class people, no matter where they live. That's the point of my post - we have to back off on primarily social policies that drive these voters away.

We need to find a way to use our own plentiful resources to further our way of life in the cities, which will only pull us father away from traditional America but is necessary for us to thrive on our own terms. — Joshs

I don't think internal isolationism will work. Many of those liberal cities are located in conservative states. It also isn't the way I'd like to see it go. I think the values represented in the Republican party these days are those of a fairly small group of exceedingly ideological politicians supported by corporate business. The issues I raised in the OP are those I think, hope, might bring moderates back into my party.

The Democratic coalition between intellectuals and blue collar workers which was successful for 50 years worked because the great majority of people in both the cities and small towns were less educated workers. That coalition can’t be put back together in an era when the thinking of educated urbanities has moved so far away from that of the rest of the country. There is no language in common anymore, not on science, ethics, faith or economics. — Joshs

I think you're overstating the case, but I don't necessarily disagree. I think the right description of what you call "less educated workers" is just working people. They're the people who the Democratic party needs to bring back. They belong with us. I just want to make sure they're not being kept out by issues and political strategies not central to our political philosophy.

Interesting proposals and points, but all of them are mainly focused on national issues and how to convince American working-class families.

I wonder if foreign policy is relevant to those eventual voters and motivates them to vote for one or the other. — javi2541997

That's a good point. I didn't mention it because I'm not sure any foreign policy position would have much impact on an election here.

Palestine's sovereignty. I guess Democrats are pro-Palestine, but I don't know if it is an important matter amongst the voters — javi2541997

I think Palestinian sovereignty is the right thing, but it is a fraught issue here in the US and it's not clear to me who it helps. Both Jewish and Arabic voters tend to vote Democratic. One or the other is going to be pissed off no matter what you do.

European Union. Democrats see us as friends or pals, at least. Republicans are clearly against us, and they flirt with Russia. Maybe it could motivate the voters that their leader prefers European values—we are not perfect. I know. I know.—rather than Putin's old-school hating style of everything and everyone. — javi2541997

I'm sure Putin is happy with the election. Trump has made his lack of support for Europe and NATO clear. Again, I don't think this would be a major factor in whom Americans would vote for.

UK. Republicans seem to flirt with Brexit and isolating them even more. This is a terrible idea, and the Western world should be united, not chopped into chunks. A person who believes in a united world should vote Democrat. — javi2541997

I think both Democrats and Republicans are moving in an isolationist direction, probably Trump more than Biden. An example - Biden's policy focusing on manufacturing jobs here in the US. All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers, but, again, I'm not sure who is helped or hurt politically.

But there would be a notable improvement in the quality of search results. — Banno

I certainly recognize that philosophers attempt to address everything and anything that was, is, will be, actually or potentially, in reality and in illusion, for all persons and other things, be they mindless or omniscient Gods or somethings else; and philosophy incorporates logic (math and language), poetry (aphorism), fiction (thought experiments), physical objects and theoretical impossibilities, and more in order to do its work. — Fire Ologist

This is a good summary. I think I’ll save it and use it in all the various future discussions of what philosophy is. Don’t worry I’ll give you credit when I do.

This would be a good OP idea. Philosophy as practice, and perhaps praxis. When I try to explain to friends why I do phil., I usually wind up talking in those terms, but not with much clarity. — J

I have put this idea out there in previous discussions. The way I phrased it is that philosophy is a way of becoming more self-aware about how we think, how our minds work. I've never gotten much of a response to the idea. I'd be interested in a discussion, but I doubt many people would participate constructively. I think it would just devolve into another "what is philosophy" thread.

But philosophy, as also zen, is a practiced discipline, a way of looking, more than a theory in a book. — unenlightened

Funny you should mention that. After I wrote the post you responded to, I realized that what philosophy is for me is a practice, like meditation or exercise. — T Clark

I'm surprised how hard thinking about philosophy as a practice, my practice, has struck me. I've been dancing around the idea for a while, but I never put it in those words. It changes things, makes it more three dimensional.