When did the Democratic party become shit Holla Forums?

Humans vs Orks is back again

those huwhyte folks were on land that wasn't there's just like huwhyte folk are on land that isn't there's now and were on land that wasn't there's in Danzig and Alsace

the prize of a fully elaborated feudal state is at last within their sight.

Try condoms instead.

boi

boi

boi

1970s. Good though the economic effects of FDR were, many harmful idpol issues (and other non-economic issues such as environmentalism and free expression) remained enshrined in law.

The 1960s "culture war" realigned away from the labor coalition which both formed the base of the Democrats and supplied leftist activism with most of its agitators to that point, toward a new base represented by new activists. Resounding legislative victory on all fronts followed within the decade, which should've meant another realignment back to economic issues and the integration of both the "old" and "new" left into the new legal order that had been created.

The 1970s saw, instead, the social issues activists continued to fight a war that had already been won, completely alienating both their old-left activist allies, and the entire leftist base. The new-left base simply became apathetic in the face of no more improvement to their lives, but the old-left base was in large part captured by rightism (unlike their activist counterparts, who were simply chased out of organized politics altogether) after having been viciously antagonized by now-deranged new-left activists.

This tumultuous waning of leftism and hybridized waxing of rightism, first laid the groundwork for the ascendancy of neoliberalism (deregulation/privatization against the socdem state, borders open to offshoring and immigration against organized labor) from the mid 1970s, second for the rise of neoconservatism (neocolonialism abroad, state "wealthfare"/MIC/regulatory capture and sectorial financialization/debt) in the 1980s.

By the late 1980s, both the Republicans (under Reagan) and the Democrats (under the DLC that spawned Clinton) had fully invested themselves into "radical centrist" political agendas that neither party's voters actually supported.

From the late 1980s to the 2010s, this syncretism gradually produced a number of exceptionally worrying byproducts among the activist populations "from" both sides of the partisan divide, such as the christard/feminazi "ominous alliance", and the PC-weenie/lolbert "rapture of the nerds". This new "economically conservative, socially liberal" status quo has essentially allowed the elites of both parties to merge, and completely abandon both of their supposed voter bases.

Whether this abject abandonment of populism can will spontaneously combust on contact with reality, or manage to fabricate a separate but equally surreal mystery cult to subdue the minds of the teeming masses, is the question of the 2010s.

The same history is broadly true of other socdem nations around the world.

No I mean the radical Republicans under Lincoln
Although the progressive party was pretty great compared to the other two again partoes

sage

Upboat

Never because it always supported capitalism

it has always been shit

if white people need an ethno-state to survive they probably shouldn't survive

The policies changed on social and environmental a lot but economics was not a main focus.

Without FDR you wouldn't even have any form of welfare. The USA would have turned into the United Corporations of America.

I'm not sure the Democratic Party (as a party) isn't the best it's ever been in a certain sense right now. Maybe it's been better. But consider that the great progressive Dems of FDR's era shared the party with Dixiecrats, who didn't totally leave until like the '80s - although they experienced a huge rift with Kennedy and LBJ. I guess there's something to be said for the times when parties could represent broader ideologies, but being a regional vessel for the Klan? Not great.

It's a political party founded in 1828 on principles that existed and were relevant to those times and changed over time accordingly.

This question doesn't really work. It's like applying modern-day ethics to the fucking Greeks: of course they were fucking terrible back then when viewed from a modern lens.

Nowadays? They're just a political party that will bend knee to anyone if it means they get nice tidy profits and stay in power. The republicans are just actively regressive and reactionary in comparison.

and when great depression 2 electric boogaloo happens we may get either the same thing, or the end of liberal democracy and the ultra-modern police state with freedom characteristics

They did have to fight. The Republicans took the House in 2010, (as well as a majority of state governorships and legislatures) and have only been doing better from there.

The Dems' problem is that they are stone cold retarded.

The ultimate safespace

Not to mention the complete lack of depositor's insurance, bankruptcy, minimum wage, child labor, and retirement laws. Slavery was in essence still legal, and the economically dominant mode of production, until FDR. Literally worse than the Dengist state capitalism in today's China.

The Democrats are the successors to the Democratic-Republicans from 1792. The Republicans are essentially the latest in the line of the Whigs and Federalists. Though I guess that arguably swapped places after the Dixiecrat split.

Hey, at least it's better than going full retard like in Europe:
How did you guys manage to lose so hard on both fronts?

...

It was always shit.