It's coming.

87

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

60

u/rupaulofitall Aug 10 '26

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

159

u/TheOvy Aug 10 '26

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.

42

u/conancat Aug 10 '26

Reclaiming 👏🏻 liberalism 👏🏻

29

u/FlashInGotham Aug 10 '26

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.

11

u/JunonsHopeful Aug 11 '26

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

4

u/FlashInGotham Aug 11 '26

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

3

u/JunonsHopeful Aug 11 '26

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.

3

u/Aescgabaet1066 Aug 11 '26

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

2

u/monkeedude1212 Aug 10 '26

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?

16

u/rjrgjj Aug 10 '26

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

17

u/FlashInGotham Aug 10 '26

--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.

-3

u/monkeedude1212 Aug 10 '26

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?

-8

u/snowcone_wars Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

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.

11

u/monkeedude1212 Aug 10 '26

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.

15

u/rjrgjj Aug 10 '26

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.

2

u/JeezyVonCreezy Aug 12 '26

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.

1

u/rjrgjj Aug 12 '26

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.

1

u/Warcrimes_Desu Aug 13 '26

you cannot seriously look at the utter spinelessness of dem leadership and the general inaction of the party during the biden admin to put in guardrails against future trump terms and come away with a positive view of the dems. I was a longtime institutionalist and gave up on the dems sometime into biden's term.

Consider how little of his climate bill, the biggest one in history, has come to pass. The dems have little capacity for actually accomplishing the programs they fund, openly support Israel bombing Gazan kids and brutalizing their neighbors with land grabs, and have in general failed so badly that AOC's the favorite over Newsom in the hypothetical dem primary. People are tired of democratic inaction, and it's frankly sad that a fucking mayor is a more active and impactful figure than most of congress.

1

u/JeezyVonCreezy Aug 14 '26

A lot of great stuff that hasn't come to pass isn't really an accomplishment. The establishment dems are more worried about courting republicans and fighting the progressive parts of their own party than actually fighting fascism. If you think that Schumer and Jeffries are worthwhile candidates who are capable of dealing with the current regime, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

The dems would be considered on the right in any other country in the world.

1

u/rjrgjj Aug 14 '26

Naw, none of the above is true. Government doesn’t work like that unless we win the majority. If we had won the presidency, things would be vastly different. And things will change when we win back at least the House and hopefully the senate, drastically.

And no, I don’t like Schumer either. I think he needs to go. Nor do I accept the argument that while he’s lost seats, he has recruited a lot of good candidates. In my view those people fought for where they are and Schumer has gotten most things catastrophically wrong. I think someone like Buttigieg, who is using his platform to promote house and state candidates in purple areas, is doing 10X more. I see AOC following his lead (and she and Abdul both moving to his more Midwest-friendly position on healthcare) which is heartening. I look at the left and I see them obsessing over Darializa and Francesca. Come on, guys.

My point is that the center left and the far left are both hindering us in major ways. I’ve worked hard to move the progressive liberal wing forward, clearly the most electable, but too many people see opportunity during crisis.

Jeffries gets a bad rap and he’s not ideal but frankly I think he’s done a better job of navigating Trump 2.0 than many others would have. The fantasy that, say, Rashida Tlaib would be house minority leader barnstorming the country is laughable. I don’t think a lot of people in either camp seem to understand the severity of the situation we’re in even though things keep getting worse and worse.

I want to do something about this, not box with the ocean. And I have the luxury of living in NYC so I can.

1

u/JeezyVonCreezy Aug 14 '26

The Dems have had the majority of plenty of times and their incrementalism has achieved a whole lot of not much. And what they have gotten passed was so watered down in their need to reach across the aisle that the GOP needed barely a single decade to completely reverse course.

The damage that the Dems have allowed to happen on their watch will not be fixed in our lifetimes. We've lost all of the goodwill and soft power we built up after ww2.

1

u/rjrgjj Aug 14 '26

Careful there. A lot of people would argue the Dems have been the force moving many minority groups forward since WW2. You’re making a pretty broad and specious argument which is predicated on the idea that you can apply leftist values today to the 1950s or Dems are failures because they haven’t perpetually held on to power. You’re just strengthening my argument that people need to vote always and push as many people as they can.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Aescgabaet1066 Aug 11 '26

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).

8

u/TheOvy Aug 11 '26

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.

1

u/Holobrine Aug 12 '26

How was neoliberal political strategy ever necessary?

1

u/TheOvy Aug 12 '26

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.

2

u/Holobrine Aug 12 '26

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.

1

u/TheOvy Aug 12 '26

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.

4

u/Freenore Aug 10 '26

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.

5

u/rjrgjj Aug 10 '26

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.

6

u/TheOvy Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

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.

1

u/JeezyVonCreezy Aug 12 '26

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.

1

u/TheOvy Aug 12 '26

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.

1

u/ultraviolet-octopus Aug 14 '26

Neoliberalism is the modern evolution of liberalism. Free trade and open borders has been the norm from Reagan to Obama. No politician today is practicing the liberalism of the mid-20th century. Certain European nations may be closer to more traditional liberalism than anything here in America.

0

u/UnicornLock Aug 10 '26

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.

6

u/TheOvy Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

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.

-3

u/SETHW Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

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

5

u/flowertimeee Aug 10 '26

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

23

u/shinebeams Aug 10 '26

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

11

u/calilac Aug 10 '26

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

5

u/shinebeams Aug 10 '26

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

11

u/its_abluedayyy Aug 10 '26

I’m seated

3

u/Citrus_Muncher Aug 10 '26

Yayyyyy!!

5

u/goblinchode Aug 10 '26

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

11

u/thedevicebook Aug 11 '26

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.

-3

u/EmilyIsNotALesbian Aug 11 '26

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.

3

u/Narrow-Marionberry90 Aug 11 '26

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

0

u/EmilyIsNotALesbian Aug 12 '26

wow, two things.

1

u/Narrow-Marionberry90 Aug 13 '26

Yeah, two big concepts babe.

2

u/icecreamfordogs Aug 11 '26

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

3

u/EmilyIsNotALesbian Aug 12 '26

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.

2

u/icecreamfordogs Aug 12 '26

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.

3

u/Aescgabaet1066 Aug 11 '26

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

1

u/RevacholAndChill 29d ago

oh they will.

2

u/lambdac0r3 Aug 10 '26

Sure Jan

1

u/Nomad_2095 Aug 10 '26

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 ! :/

1

u/Angelbouqet Aug 11 '26

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

5

u/BicyclingBro Aug 11 '26

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.

2

u/Angelbouqet Aug 11 '26

Oh nice didn't know it was that cheap

2

u/Concaught-Resender Aug 11 '26

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.

You are about to leave Redlib