this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2026
214 points (95.7% liked)

politics

31892 readers
2459 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
214
Corporate Democrats are weaponizing identity politics to smear progressives | Arwa Mahdawi (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) by savvie@lemmy.zip to c/politics@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

on Thursday, Jeffries refused to saywhether he supported or opposed controversial efforts to integrate the US and Israeli militaries.

Jeffries also said this summer that he opposes Medicare for All, reversing his earlier position, and putting him at odds with a number of progressive Democrats who campaigned on the platform.

He’s been consistently hostile to the progressive faction of his party, refusing to endorse Mamdani for New York City mayor for months. And it was recently revealed that Jeffries met with Jared Kushner in private before the midterms

…Many progressives view Jeffries as an establishment figure who offers no hope for meaningful change and want someone less beholden to corporate interests to be speaker. Jeffries and some of his allies, meanwhile, have suggested that denying him the opportunity to become the first Black speaker in US history would be, to quote Bloomberg, “racially insensitive”.

…And we’ve seen this craven use of identity politics to smear progressive politics before, haven’t we? It’s the Bernie bros playbook all over again.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I mean, the author writes "corporate Democrats" in the headline but then cites only Haley Stevens and Hakeem Jeffries. That's two – congratulations – but that's not a strong case this is some systemic issue worth such an alarming headline.

  • Regarding Stevens, as the author alludes to, she's a joke within the party and everyone thinks what she's doing is cringe. Everyone hates it. She's abusing feminism as a shield, and everyone realizes this. She's done for in electoral politics, and she's out of the House in January.
  • Then she cites Jeffries having done this one time, buried deep in a CNN interview:

During the June congressional primaries, when a picture of Jeffries came up on the screen at a victory party for Claire Valdez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the crowd yelled: “You’re next!"

“It was very interesting to me, as observed by others, that there was almost zero diversity in that crowd,” Jeffries said in a CNN interview this week.

I don't like this, and I can't say for sure that he hasn't said it elsewhere, but citing him doing this one time is pretty weaksauce when the only other person you're accusing of "weaponizing identity politics to smear progressives" is Haley "self-immolated career" Stevens.