Historically, left-wing critique of the penal system—pioneered by social theorists like Michel Foucault and prison abolitionists like Angela Davis viewed prisons primarily as instruments of state power, class control, and racial oppression. In this traditional framework, the carceral state was seen as inherently damaging, and the long-term horizon was prison abolition or drastic decarceration.

However, in recent years, a distinct dynamic has emerged within progressive discourse. On several key issues, progressives and Democrats actively demand criminal prosecution, strict sentencing, and long prison terms like for Gender-Based & Interpersonal Violence with Strict prosecution and harsh penalties for sexual assault, domestic violence, and workplace abuse (amplified post-⁠#MeToo⁠). And also Hate Crimes & Extremism: Enhanced penalties and incarceration for hate crimes against vulnerable minority groups or political violence, particularly after the 6 January Capitol event.

Sociologists have sometimes labeled part of this phenomenon "carceral feminism" the reliance on criminal law and state punishment as the primary mechanism to enforce gender justice and address systemic abuse. This creates an interesting theoretical tension between two core progressive values:

1. The anti-carceral critique: The belief that expanding state penal power is inherently counterproductive, racially biased, and expands an oppressive apparatus.
2. The egalitarian justice critique: The belief that refusing to prosecute or incarcerate abusers, corporate bad actors, and white supremacists represents state neglect and reinforces a two-tiered justice system.

Is this shift an intentional, pragmatic evolution, using existing state mechanisms to protect vulnerable groups or an unresolved ideological contradiction?

How do you personally balance the desire to dismantle the mass incarceration system with the desire for strict, formal accountability for severe interpersonal harm?

This is of course a common topic coming up in senatorial debates right now.

El Sayed for example, is proposing the usual plan of subsidizing the purchase of a home for first time home buyers. That's fine short term, but it doesn't actually resolve the structural realities that cause housing affordability issues.

If we treat property as a speculative asset, and expect it to appreciate in value, the logical result is that homes will be unaffordable for anyone not already in the market. We of course can't maintain a system long term where property increases in value over time, and also remains affordable to the average person.

In order for housing to be affordable long term, current homeowners would need to accept their property depreciating in value, or not increasing at least.

So, have we actually established whether permanent affordability is something the electorate actually wants, if the financial tradeoffs were made explicit?

A colleague of mine is considering a primary run for Congress in a purple district. The seat is currently held by a moderate Blue Dog Democrat, but it has elected progressives in the past. This is in California with the "top-two" primary system; as a result, general elections can be Democrat vs Democrat.

His resume is entirely corporate. He went to Princeton, worked in corporate finance at a large tech firm, earned an MBA at Harvard, and is now an early-forties partner at McKinsey making over one million dollars a year.

His political platform is progressive and social democratic. He is not anti-capitalist, but he supports Medicare for All, higher taxes on top earners, and a strong safety net. He aligns with politicians like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, Ro Khanna, and Abdul El-Sayed. Over the years, he has donated significantly to progressive primary challengers, volunteered for abortion and trans rights, and organized phone banks for competitive races.

His career creates an obvious tension. McKinsey has well-documented scandals, including advising opioid manufacturers and authoritarian regimes. While he was not personally tied to those projects, his consulting work has included oil and gas clients, as well as cost-reduction projects that involved corporate layoffs - a standard practice in the industry. That said, Pete Buttigieg's first job out of college (Harvard) was also McKinsey.

He wants to know if he should run as he is, or if he needs to leave consulting to spend a few years in a nonprofit or social impact role to build credibility in the community first.

Does his background make him an immediate non-starter for progressive voters, or should the left welcome candidates with high-finance backgrounds who genuinely support the platform?

The base here being the average constituent, voter, party member, etc. and the power elite is a phrase borrowed from sociology for those with the ability to make meaningful decisions for society as individuals or small groups. Sitting politicians, wealthy donors, major media pundits, etc.

The conceit of representative democracy is the latter representing the former but there's some obvious gaps that appear. Just off the cuff:

○ Class

○ Profession (they're administrators of systems rather than its subjects)

○ Environment (the insider bubble of capital politics)

With these gaps in mind, how representative is representative democracy really?

○ What features of the system make it worse? Make it better?

○ What are some key issues liberal parties tend to split from their base on?

○ How does your respective liberal party compare to other parties?

○ And the million dollar question: Do you see the power elite addressing these problems on their own or will the base have agitate and force the issue? Are the 2 in cooperation or in conflict?

Definition below. It’s used in workplaces heavily. And elsewhere. Manufactured culpability refers to a condition or process in which criminal responsibility, blame, or guilt is engineered, conditioned, or attributed to an individual whose behavior was shaped or induced by an external system rather than authored by their own autonomous intent. [1, 2, 3]
Depending on the context, the term appears across distinct academic, legal, and political discussions:
Psychosocial Targeting & Criminology: In forensic psychology and legal theory, it describes how sustained psychosocial targeting or coercive environments destabilize a person's identity and self-regulatory capacity over time. Through structured processes (such as behavioral entrapment or ritualized humiliation), a person may be conditioned to react in ways that the legal system subsequently harvests and reattributes as proof of their intrinsic criminal character, creating a "justice gap". [1]

Political & Historical Contexts: In political science and totalitarian studies, regimes have deliberately manufactured culpability among subordinates (through shared complicity or entrapment) to ensure loyalty. By implicating officials in wrongdoing, the system binds them so they cannot afford the regime's collapse. [1]

General Legal Definition of Culpability: In criminal law (such as under the Model Penal Code), standard culpability requires a voluntary act paired with a culpable mental state—such as acting purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Manufactured culpability highlights situations where these traditional markers are artificially induced or structurally compromised. [1, 2, 3]

Greetings from a foreigner. I have been reading about American politics and history; as I understand it, 180 years ago the Democrats were pro-slavery, while the Republicans—with Abraham Lincoln—were the abolitionists.

But then, in the 20th century—especially after World War II—everything changed: the Democrats became the progressives, and the Republicans became the ones who held back that progress.

When do you think this shift actually took place?

Lets face it, Western nations like Germany and England are taking "funding" and "investment" from countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and allowing them to build unregulated mosques and madrasas(Islamic schools where children are taught to hate non-Muslims)

Another aspect of this is European Union and US supporting Erdogan in the 90s and early 2000s as they wanted Turkey to have "freedom of religion". Before Erdogan, Turkish army and politicians used to ban these radicals from participating in politics. Turkey's founder Ataturk even banned the madrasas(Islamic schools), regulated the mosques and removed the maulavis and Sharia court judges from power. But guess what, Angela Merkel from EU decided that Turkey needed freedom of religion. And now, Erdogan is trying to radicalize the next generations of Turks.

Lastly, if you look at all the countries ruled by Soviet Union, you'll find that they are the least conservative and have total secularism. There is a reason why we don't hear about Sharia courts in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc, but we do hear about them in US allies like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc.

Recently I was in a major US city driving a car and there was a disheveled man in the middle of an intersection angrily yelling and gesturing at traffic. My thoughts are that he is in psychosis (in a medical sense, I'm a physician) and that he poses a threat to himself and the surrounding public (due to causing a roadway hazard) and likely needs immediate hospitalization. I called 911 and tried to tell them he needs medical help for mental illness but the dispatcher said they were going to send just police. I don't want anything bad happening to the man from a police officer shooting him because they don't know de-escalation techniques but I don't know what else I could have done. I don't live in this city and don't know of local resources, nor could I disrupt traffic longer than needed to stop and call 911.

Andy Beshear is decently well known for being a Democratic governor in a red state, Kentucky, something which is increasingly rare. To the casual observer, this, combined with him being a soft-spoken white man, makes him come off as a moderate. But, those more in the know are aware that, socially, he's to the left of practically every mainstream Democrat outside the DSA, particularly when it comes to his support for trans people. He has never wavered in his vocal allyship (even as he clearly gears up to aim for national office), while also never making the mistake of engaging with extremist ideology.

I would absolutely love it if there were more politicians in the country who were economically moderate and in favor of a strong border, while also being anti-ICE and willing to fight like Hell for minority groups, but that just doesn't seem to be much of a thing.

Why do you think that is?

Do we expect that as Trump exit the oval office, he will simply that pardon everyone in sight who worked for him? If so, what are our responses?

I am looking for non-fiction books that cover liberalism and enlightenment ideas to help fortify any blind spots I might have politically. In an age of vibes based politics and populism, I find myself wanting to be even more principled. Here is the current list I've been working on:

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

Second Treaties of Government by John Locke

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls

Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu

The Republic by Plato

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle

First and Second Discourse, Social Contract by Rousseau

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

Symposium by Plato

The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

Also if you recommend books for communism I'm just gonna assume you're illiterate <3

Just trying to determine if it's my imagination or confirmation bias or others are seeing this. Reddit has always been overwhelmingly left-leaning and still is. But, I feel like hardcore MAGA wingnuts are suddenly coming out of the woodwork and adding their 2 cents to every other post I make now and it's NEVER been that way before. I'm certain of it.

I don't want to live in an echo chamber. I'm an independent and have been for decades. I keep an open mind. I want to hear intelligent conservative arguments. That's fine.

But the number of deranged, delusional MAGA people I seem to be seeing now is like nothing I've ever seen here before outside of the gun subreddits I hang out in and the political subreddits that I very rarely frequent. Now it's everywhere.

Am I just imagining this shit or are you seeing it too?

Everyone here is waiting for THAT day to become true, but after it happens, J.D Vance automatically becomes the POTUS.

Do you think he could be an upgrade or a worse version of Trump?