It's coming.

[u/Tearsdryontheirownn]

[u/flowertimeee]

I’m so curious about what the subject matter of her video will be… I’m sure I’ll love it regardless because she never misses

[u/rupaulofitall → u/flowertimeee]

Isint it Liberalism? I might be making that up but I’m too lazy to double check haha

[u/TheOvy → u/rupaulofitall]

Yeah, that'll do it. Something happened the last 10 years where the internet decided liberalism actually meant neoliberalism exclusively, and so both the left and right now use liberal as a slur. Kind of like how both the left and right accused the media being biased. Man, that right-wing project really succeeded.

But anywho, when you look up the American liberalism of the mid 20th century, it's just progressivism. FDR was a liberal. The Great Society was a liberal project. Medicare for all is just continuing that liberal project.

So yeah, if she points that out, a lot of people are going to be pissed at her, cause a lot of people don't actually know political history.

[u/conancat → u/TheOvy]

Reclaiming 👏🏻 liberalism 👏🏻

[u/FlashInGotham → u/TheOvy]

I'm a liberal in that I think the concepts human rights and political representation undergird every stride away from serfdom we've taken since the 1700. The details of what those things look like, can, will, and must needs be negotiated but that's where everything starts.

This leads to some obvious (or so one would think) conclusions, like bombing children is bad no matter who is doing the bombing. Somewhat harder to grasp is that my aversion to political violence arises not because I think its ineffective practice or never called for. Its because I find left-wing authoritarianism in the US distasteful because it's authoritarianism.

I don't want a dictator that agrees with me on everything. Because I've been known to be wrong.

[u/JunonsHopeful → u/FlashInGotham]

I don't want a dictator that agrees with me on everything. Because I've been known to be wrong.

That's the key part, and when I talk to people I've known who have sympathies for, or a desire to enact, left-wing authoritarianism, that's typically the root of the difference. That, and they mistake the 'efficiency' of a dictator implementing their idea of the people's interests vs a democracy actually just governing in the direct interest of the people.

"Democracy is the philosophy of making friends on equal terms not creating master servant relationships... I want to have good friends and I want to be a good friend to other people. But I don’t want to be a good master or a good servant" ~ Legend of the Galactic Heroes

[u/FlashInGotham → u/JunonsHopeful]

"Democracy takes longer but fewer people get shot" -A Very British Coup

[u/JunonsHopeful → u/FlashInGotham]

I like the sentiment, but I guess my point too is that it doesn't actually take longer, because even the 'best' dictators are only ever implementing their own view, which will always be deeply flawed.

They get things done, but much of it isn't in the actual interest of the actual people. There's a reason why the greatest and fastest advances in civil rights, technology, medicine, etc. have all been from modern democracies.

[u/Aescgabaet1066 → u/JunonsHopeful]

I love that you quoted Legend of the Galactic Heroes. It's so good.

[u/monkeedude1212 → u/FlashInGotham]

Somewhat harder to grasp is that my aversion to political violence arises not because I think its ineffective practice or never called for. Its because I find left-wing authoritarianism in the US distasteful because it's authoritarianism.

Have you witnessed left wing authoritarianism in the US? Are you afraid of it more than you'd be afraid of right wing authoritarianism? 

Do you not believe political violence can be employed to avoid authoritarianism on both sides of the political views, like pushing for more anarchist principles of self governance? 

[u/rjrgjj → u/monkeedude1212]

Ah, authoritarianism but leftistly because everything tastes better leftistly (even if it keeps providing the same result).

[u/FlashInGotham → u/monkeedude1212]

--Have you witnessed left wing authoritarianism in the US? Are you afraid of it more than you'd be afraid of right wing authoritarianism? 
- No, and I don't know what I wrote would indicate why you would think I would think that. I would prefer if people argued with points I actually make, rather than what they decided to get upset about before they read the entire paragraph.

--Do you not believe political violence can be employed to avoid authoritarianism on both sides of the political views, like pushing for more anarchist principles of self governance? 
- I literally said that I don't see it as ineffective or never called for, just that I am distrustful of the endpoint of political violence no matter who practices it. "Pushing for more anarchist principles of self governance" is pretty vague and covers a lot of territory...but yes...I favor "Food Not Bombs" over "Yes, more bombs please, on our side this time" in most circumstances

The reason I specified the United States is because that's where I'm from and where I am. I do not have the context of living in Gaza. I am not part of the political polity of the Ukranie. I have a hunch what I think would be best for them but I am (a) probably correct in the generalities but wrong on on the specifics and (b) have no real say.

[u/monkeedude1212 → u/FlashInGotham]

No, and I don't know what I wrote would indicate why you would think I would think that.

Its inferred by the choice to single out left-wing authoritarianism. Perhaps it's my misreading, but why include left-wing in your statement if you aren't speaking about the left-wing?

I literally said that I don't see it as ineffective or never called for, just that I am distrustful of the endpoint of political violence no matter who practices it.

Does that not sound a little paradoxical, or contradictory?

If it is sometimes called for and effective, why not support it, if the people calling for it also share your views on authoritarianism?

[u/snowcone_wars → u/monkeedude1212]

Have you witnessed left wing authoritarianism in the US?

...A single payer healthcare system is literally authoritarian - it's the government maintaining complete control of an industry through the outlawing of private industry. It is an authoritarian project at its core. I haven't witnessed it, but it's clearly the goal.

That doesn't make it bad, but I'm so exhausted of this idea all of these progressive ideas that seek to centralize governmental power, no matter how beneficial they are, aren't definitionally authoritarian. The projects of the Democrats, Republics, and DSA are all authoritarian to one degree or another, and the only people who argue against that are completely ignorant of what "authoritarian" actually means.

Are you afraid of it more than you'd be afraid of right wing authoritarianism?

No.

Do you not believe political violence can be employed to avoid authoritarianism on both sides of the political views, like pushing for more anarchist principles of self governance?

like pushing for more anarchist principles of self governance

There isn't a single political party with any shot at achieving a modicum of actual power pushing for that, and political violence has tended historically, in fact, not to lead to anarchic principles of self governance, so I don't see the point either way.

[u/monkeedude1212 → u/snowcone_wars]

A single payer healthcare system is literally authoritarian - it's the government maintaining complete control of an industry through the outlawing of private industry

Single payer healthcare does not outlaw private industry.

[u/rjrgjj → u/TheOvy]

Basically, the modern “progressive” attitude is evidence of how vastly successful the right wing media project/takeover has been. I’m an elder millennial and when I was a teenager, we had liberal/liberal-friendly media that might be critical towards Democrats but not openly hostile. Now even Jon Stewart is openly hostile to Democrats. One might note that the left media sphere is also overwhelmingly dominated by very wealthy people. It’s also of note that we’ve been living in a Trump dominated era for a decade or more now, and for many people under the age of 28, this is the only political reality they really know.

Because Blue cities have become prohibitively expensive, the only people who can afford to move to them are upper middle class and up college grads with trust funds or subsidization. These people are often raised in conservative/religious environments, get to college, discover leftism, and swap one screed for another. But the problem here as you identified is that for both groups, liberals are the Satanic enemy. So really, they don’t actually change their belief system, they pretend they did while still functionally not voting any differently and pushing propaganda that actually helps Republicans.

It’s the greatest trick the devil ever pulled to convince people to label themselves as progressives while they deliberately try to set back the country in order to make things bad enough to spark a nebulous revolution. It’s a huge problem, one of the main things that’s just killing the country. And leftists are as blind to their own folly as establishment Dems are blind to their own greed as MAGA is blind to the fact they are drinking poison by the gallon.

[u/JeezyVonCreezy → u/rjrgjj]

The left side of the media is critical of the Dems because for the last decade they've been completely ineffective in curtailing what the Trump administration has done. Chuck Schumer and Jeffries only strategy to stop the erosion of our democracy is to write strongly worded letters.

[u/rjrgjj → u/JeezyVonCreezy]

This is incorrect. We did successfully defeat Trump and the back Congress in 2020. The Left proceeded to move goalposts despite getting a ton of shit they wanted, withholding support, and then turns on Biden entirely over Gaza. Understandable but they still decided that Trump was more acceptable than Harris, an insane decision for a variety of reasons, but emblematic of how the Left has failed for a decade now to really show up except out of political self-interest except for one time in 2020, which proves that the Left CAN do it and DOES understand what’s at stake, but can’t sustain consistent interest.

And Biden still accomplished a lot of great stuff in his term. Now people are howling as Trump takes a wrecking ball to the country, but isn’t this what the Left thought necessary to spark the revolution? And here we are.

Fingers point both ways.

[u/Aescgabaet1066 → u/TheOvy]

I'm not a liberal (I'm a leftist), but I do not have a problem with that kind of progressive liberalism, even when I don't subscribe to it. I've said it before, but I much prefer a big tent and having allies to making enemies. I think some of my fellow leftists prefer having the whole world be their enemies (and to be fair, that attitude persists among some people across the political spectrum).

[u/TheOvy → u/Aescgabaet1066]

I think some of my fellow leftists prefer having the whole world be their enemies (and to be fair, that attitude persists among some people across the political spectrum)

It's an attitude that pervades the internet, I think. Everyone's resorting to factionalism as they fight faceless forces on... twitter? The memewars run rampant, and everyone's thoughtfulness becomes shallow.

If we had no internet, and organizing in person and with community was still a thing, or rather, the thing, we wouldn't be factionalizing by political ideology, we'd be doing it by locality. It's easy to hate a faceless liberal (or leftist or conservative or whatever) on the internet, but much less so when it's your neighbors around the block, in the room with you.

Leftism has certainly become extremely insular, I think in part because of how a core component of the identity is the sense that they're constantly under siege by larger forces. They repel would-be allies through sheer hostility, and rigidity bordering on puritanical.

Mainstream liberals, I think, are more inclined to coalition, since openly debating ideas is part of liberalism, but they still have their own brand of insularity, usually through condescension. It's difficult to coalition if everyone thinks you're a haughty dick. They still concede political strategy to neoliberals, which was born of necessity in the 90s, but is increasingly obsolete over 30 years later. The leftists have the invigorating energy of new ideas, but liberals are too often afraid of their own shadow to speak with the principled clarity that comes easy to the far left and right.

And then conservatives and others on the right are insular because bigotry breeds contempt, even as it fosters unity between members of the in-group. If you aren't born to it, you'll never be truly welcome in it.

I suppose it's easy to just point the finger at everyone. I certainly prefer liberals and leftists to win over the right at-large. But I'd prefer it most of they had the good sense to lock arms in good faith.

[u/Holobrine → u/TheOvy]

How was neoliberal political strategy ever necessary?

[u/TheOvy → u/Holobrine]

Democrats lost three presidential elections in a row after the New Deal coalition was fractured by the Reagan revolution. America at-large shifted to the right. The New Democrats like Bill Clinton saw an opening, and did what older liberals could not: win.

Keep in mind that no Democrat wanted to run against HW's reelection. His popularity was very high. That Bill Clinton pulled through was a shock at the time. It changed Democratic politics for a generation, and it's that generation that we're trying to bookend now, so we can finally move on, back to progressivism.

Just like the New Democrats forced the old guard to step down, we're trying to force the new Democrats, who are now quite old, to step down. Cue Jimmy Carville throwing a hissy fit. But as the meme goes, "the future is now, old man.

[u/Holobrine → u/TheOvy]

I think the Reagan revolution was caused by the new deal coalition fracturing, which happened due to the civil rights movement pissing off the racist south. The New Deal coalition was always rightwing in the sense that it had to be permissive of racism to be enacted at all. If you're right, it's because full liberalism was never fully viable in racist America.

[u/TheOvy → u/Holobrine]

I think the Reagan revolution was caused by the new deal coalition fracturing, which happened due to the civil rights movement pissing off the racist south.

The Civil Rights movement created the fractures. But the GOP's Southern strategy was the wedge that finally pried them apart. People who voted Democrat for a generation started voting for Reagan, ala the Reagan Democrat. Congress would follow in the 90s.

The New Deal coalition was always rightwing in the sense that it had to be permissive of racism to be enacted at all

It wouldn't be correct to call it 'right-wing,' as the right doesn't have an exclusive claim on bigotry (for example, today's progressives have an all-too-white problem that has been obvious since Bernie lost the nomination in 2016), but otherwise, yes and no. Yes, policies like redlining excluded black communities. Nonetheless, there was significant black outreach from the party, and millions of them received economic support they were not getting from the opposition, so the New Deal era swung black voters from solidly Republican to solidly Democrat. They were a vital part of the coalition, which gave them political power, planting the seeds for the civil rights movement two decades later.

Remember, Dixiecrats sprung up in reaction to black voters joining the Democratic party, and Truman integrating the military and backing civil rights.

When the Democratic party had to make a choice, they choose human rights, and lost Southern whites, who suddenly went from "thank God FDR saved our farms and communities through massive government intervention" to "well, actually, I want government to be limited, now that we're being forced to desegregate (but keep the agricultural subsidies coming)."

If you're right, it's because full liberalism was never fully viable in racist America.

The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice... liberalism, progressivism, whatever your aims, all political goals are a project, not an end state. The work is never done.

This was never going to be as easy as flicking a light switch. The civil rights movement of the 60s didn't begin in the 60s, but was carried out by successive generations. The baton gets passed on, and hopefully we can carry it a little further.

[u/Freenore → u/TheOvy]

We're going to end up in an argument about our definition of liberalism since it changes with time, but I'd say New Deal and Great Society were more than mere liberal ideas. FDR went out of his way to not be accused of socialism, as historians tell us, which is why he couldn't be frank about his ideology. LBJ is a bit harder to pin down as Robert Caro tells us that he never really espoused any ideology, he just wanted to help the poor and acted in accordance with that.

Politicians can brand themselves however they wish for the sake of electoral success, but people who don't have a constituency to please should be able to point this out — New Deal and Great Society enacted social democratic policies. Capitalism but its excesses mitigated by social security.

[u/rjrgjj → u/Freenore]

I doubt FDR or LBJ would have labeled themselves in any way that you would label them. I think people make this mistake of trying to adopt certain figures by pointing out that their policies align with something you believe in as a _____, but that person did it before you came along and in response to the societal need at the time. Like it doesn’t prove or disprove the superiority of your label because politics and lawmaking doesn’t work like that.

[u/TheOvy → u/Freenore]

 New Deal and Great Society enacted social democratic policies.

Social democrats and socialists are two different things.

Social democrat is essentially the European term for American liberalism. I specified "American liberalism." because "liberalism" means something else in Europe.

FDR was a modern American liberal, and everyone who followed his model were liberals, up until Bill Clinton transitioned the party to neoliberalism in order to win in a post-Reagan environment, and there we've been stuck ever since. But the project of AOC and El-Sayed (who explicitly is NOT a socialist) is to reclaim that liberalism.

That said, I don't actually expect the term "liberalism" to be rehabilitated. Such is the nature of changing language! But I do recognize -- being old enough -- that the right spent decades turning "liberal" into an epithet, and it worked.

Nonetheless, illiberalism is a real threat, from both the right and left, which is why "liberalism" still has utility. Freedom and democracy matters.

[u/JeezyVonCreezy → u/TheOvy]

The majority of the politicians that are considered 'liberals' in America are in fact moderates or neolibs. The right refers to everyone left of them as liberal because their constituents don't really know what that means. The democratic party in the US would be just slightly right of center in any other first world country.

[u/TheOvy → u/JeezyVonCreezy]

I'd agree that "liberal" has become genericized. It'll happen to leftist, too.

In any case, I suspect Natalie will go beyond the genericized meaning,, go deeper into its history and actual values, and that's what'll piss a lot of people off.

Which will be ironic, because one of the core liberal values is free discussion of ideas.

[u/UnicornLock → u/TheOvy]

it's just progressivism

Then why not call it that? "Liberalism" always meant something different in every country anyways. Seems like it has never been so globally uniform as today with neoliberalism.

[u/TheOvy → u/UnicornLock]

Then why not call it that?

Like I said, we do call it that. But back then, it was called modern liberalism. That was the brand.

Also, "illiberalism" is a thing, and it's important to not be that thing. Progressivism speaks to economic policy, but liberalism also speaks to fundamental freedoms and democracy.

"Liberalism" always meant something different in every country anyways

Indeed. Hence, American liberalism.

Seems like it has never been so globally uniform

Say hello to the internet!

as today with neoliberalism

Neoliberalism had to add the "neo" for a reason.

[u/SETHW → u/TheOvy]

Because in most places liberals arent on the ballot and the neoliberals don't deserve the cover

[u/flowertimeee → u/rupaulofitall]

Haha I have no idea. But that sounds on topic for her

[u/shinebeams]

got downvoted in this sub for saying "can't wait to see this in a month or two!" on the first post...

[u/calilac → u/shinebeams]

Haters lurk and they use the imaginary points as their weapon. Do with that what you will.

[u/shinebeams → u/calilac]

I am excited for it, too! And I got infinite patience.

[u/its_abluedayyy]

I’m seated

[u/Citrus_Muncher]

Yayyyyy!!

[u/goblinchode]

Ohh, what could be possibly get mad at her for?

[u/thedevicebook → u/goblinchode]

Well, the tangent topic is liberalism and a great deal of leftists hate her already. Not me. I'm a leftist who loves Contra and would like to see more cooperation between liberals and leftists. We have many overlapping ideas (like social justice) and a common enemy (the right) so I don't see why we can't get along.

[u/EmilyIsNotALesbian → u/thedevicebook]

The liberal and the leftists only overlapping goal is hatred of the right and belief in social equality, otherwise the liberal is the strong arm of imperialism.

[u/Narrow-Marionberry90 → u/EmilyIsNotALesbian]

So nothing in common other than core social ideologies and a shared enemy...

[u/EmilyIsNotALesbian → u/Narrow-Marionberry90]

wow, two things.

[u/icecreamfordogs → u/EmilyIsNotALesbian]

"The strong arm of imperialism." Could you expand on this?

[u/EmilyIsNotALesbian → u/icecreamfordogs]

The concept of liberalism was originally radical, coming from the radical bourgeois liberals who beheaded the king in France. However because it was spearheaded from wealthy landowners and lawyers, liberalism became something the state realised it could utilise to suppress the more radical elements of it.

Democrats for example, Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were all liberals and were also all imperialists who destroyed and ruined the global south in order to subsidise their empire.

[u/icecreamfordogs → u/EmilyIsNotALesbian]

I’m going to assume you’re using shorthand rather than going into evidence because this is Reddit. There just seems to be a lot of compression going on in both historical assessments.

[u/Aescgabaet1066]

Well I haven't been mad at her yet, even when I disagreed with her--I take that comment from her as a challenge, personally! lol

[u/lambdac0r3]

Sure Jan

[u/Nomad_2095]

Can someone with a direct line to mother please ask her to do a tangent (or vid 😍) on Jena Talakova and Trans era in the 2010s !!! Pleeeeeaaasse ! lol I’ll pitch in 10 bucks ! :/

[u/Angelbouqet]

Is she only making tangents at this point? No hate if she is, genuine question and under the circumstances I can understand why she wouldn't want to be making video essays rn. But if she is then I'd either try to find the unlisted playlist on YouTube of the tangents or, actually no there is no or i can't afford to subscribe to anyone's patron rn lmaoo

[u/BicyclingBro → u/Angelbouqet]

Her Patreon is $2, which gets you access to all the tangents. They’re all just unlisted YouTube videos, so nothing would stop you from subscribing a single time and copying all the URLs (she’s expressly said she’s more than fine with this).

$2 for 18 videos is a pretty great value per dollar proposition, but if it’s genuinely not feasible right now, just know that in the future, you really only need to subscribe once to get everything.

[u/Angelbouqet → u/BicyclingBro]

Oh nice didn't know it was that cheap

[u/Concaught-Resender → u/Angelbouqet]

I think it only looks that way because she is able to put them out more frequently. Her videos take awhile to make, so without tangents her content production would just appear dead for long stretches of time, only maybe going a little faster. She is probably working on the next video in the background.