this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2026

214 points (95.7% liked)

politics

31892 readers

2353 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago

Tell ya what, Hakeem:

You let somebody else who's not a corrupt shill be Speaker of the House for the next two years, and you spend those two years BUSTING YOUR ASS for progressive legislation to help fix this mess that you helped cause.

ONLY THEN will we even BOTHER listening to you ASK about being considered for this role.

You have NO business being involved in government. You do nothing worthwhile. You don't serve a purpose. You BLOCK the people who are trying. You are a HUGE part of the problem.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Corporate Democrat… what a disgusting oxymoron.

[–] futileusername@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago

He’s a fake ass Obama wanna be. Jefferies lives in a fantasy world where Obama’s politics would still be relevant. We are not in that America anymore. People want strong action, not milquetoast centrist compromise. We saw Donald Trump and the Republican steam roll everything through for the last two years, so we know it’s possible. We all know that centrist compromise shit always favors the rich over us. We’re sick of corporate stooges doing Progressive cosplay.

[–] Curiousfur@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

So he and his allies actually want him to be a DEI hire? Giving him the role just to check off having a black Speaker is exactly what Republicans accuse the left of doing, and it would be so obvious because of how little he'd accomplish and how much the progressive block would hate him.

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 24 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Ayanna Pressley would be a great choice to get a progressive that is also a black American. She would be the first black female majority leader and isn't that a bigger win than just a black man.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, Ayanna Pressley sounds like a great idea. Why should we choose Jeffries if the only thing he has going for him is his identity? Offer substance or get out of the way for someone who will.

I'd like to see Pressley run for speaker. If my district rep was a Dem I would submit my opinion to their office. We need someone who will deliver.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 hours ago

She would be the first black female majority leader and isn't that a bigger win than just a black man.

Yup! Especially if said black man is the in many ways even worse than herself hand picked protégé of Nancy Pelosi.

Add that said black female Speaker would be a legitimately badass progressive like Pressley, and it's obvious to anyone not too corrupt or brainwashed to see reason!

[–] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 81 points 13 hours ago (5 children)

Hakeem Jeffries is a republican, effectively. It’s controlled opposition.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 45 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Jeffries and Schumer are just more Sinemas/Fettermans being exposed.

I'm actually very pleased with just how quickly progressives came out swinging against this bullshit. They're too big to ignore now.

[–] joyjoy@piefed.social 2 points 8 hours ago

Republicans have RINOs, well Democrats have DINOs.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 10 points 12 hours ago

They are a uniparty, controlled opposition.

[+] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com -6 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Democrats win in historical landslide we finally have opportunity to have government to listen to us and we are falling for effort to divide us and result with weak Democrats that are fighting against each other and Democrats didn't even start working.

You want Congress to act certain way instead of micromanaging who is the leader contact your senators and representative and say what your stance is.

The speaker and majority leader in Senate's job is to make sure that all Democrats vote together. If Democrats are all aligned then the job of leadership is easier.

Here is HCR explanation of it that says it much better: https://youtu.be/Eqjm4avbvdw?t=2011

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Never thought I'd downvote a pro-HCR comment, but here we are. She's just wrong on this.

The primary legislative job of both the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House is to control what, when, and how any particular bit of legislation comes to the floor for a vote. They are first and foremost both legislative positions, and it is in the legislative duties that their vast individual power resides.

You can have an entire party that wants something, even a supermajority, and not have your bill come to the floor because your own party's Speaker blocked it. Case in point: all the times the House Republicans in the current Congress have had to sign a discharge petition to get around Mike Johnson.

In March 2025, a petition to make a House rule to allow proxy voting by members who gave birth, or with spouses who did so, reached the requisite number of signatures. The petition was tabled in April 2025 after the House leadership approved rules to establish vote pairing.

A second petition reached the required majority in November 2025 to bring forward the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The bill passed the House on November 18, 2025 by a vote of 427 to 1, formally passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 19, 2025, and was signed by President Trump later that day.

A third petition reached the required majority in November 2025 to bring forward a bill restoring collective bargaining rights for most federal employees. The bill passed the House on December 11, 2025 by a vote of 231 to 195.

A fourth petition reached the required majority in December 2025 to bring forward a bill authorizing a three-year extension of the enhanced tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. It passed the House on January 8, 2026 by a vote of 230 to 196.

A fifth petition reached the required majority in March 2026 to bring forward a bill directing the Department of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for Temporary Protected Status. The bill passed the House on April 16, 2026 by a vote of 224-204.

A sixth petition reached the required majority in May 2026 to bring forward a bill to providence financial assistance to Ukraine, add new economic sanctions on Russia, and help to fund Ukrainian reconstruction. The bill passed the House on June 4, 2026 by a vote of 226 to 195.

A seventh petition reached the required majority in May 2026 to bring forward a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to impose strict federal timelines and mandatory binding arbitration on first union contract negotiations. The bill passed the House on June 9, 2026 by a vote of 230 to 193.

An eighth petition reached the required majority in September 2026 to bring forward a bill that allows a veteran with a combat-related disability to receive retirement pay, without reduction, concurrently with their disability compensation. The bill passed the House on November 12, 2026 by a vote of 392 to 18.

A ninth petition reached the required majority in November 2026 to bring forward the Epstein Files Transparency Act II.

That's what Dems in the new Congress will have to do to get around Jeffries. Same goes for Chuck Schumer, especially when it comes to slowing down cash flowing to Israel:

Schumer is a longtime supporter of military aid to Israel and has manoeuvred to stop bills in Congress that would condition military assistance.

I have a lot of respect for HCR and listen to her regularly, but on this she is dead wrong.

Neither Schumer nor Jeffries will advance legislation they don't like, and have proven it time and again, most recently with Jeffries not whipping the Hegseth impeachment vote.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 17 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I listen to HCR almost daily, but she respectfully misses the mark on this topic. Sorry.

"Elections for Senate Majority Leader and Speaker don't happen until January," but the fight begins now. It's an absurd comment to make and is like saying, "Elections for midterms aren't until November, so why start campaigning 3 months out!?"

If those positions are representative of ideological-center and carrying the broader Congressional Chamber, then leaving these conservative-right Leadership roles in place is a flagrant dismissal of The People's desire to shift the Overton Window back left at least a little bit. Both House and Senate just shifted back left, and leadership should proportionally shift leftward in kind.

Literally: Without the Speaker's approval, bills cannot be brought to the floor without a vote -- **IF Jeffries is a Sinema-like plant, then what does that spell for the Agenda, especially when he has already backpedaled on interest in Medicare For All?

These are DEMOCRATIC Leaders and in ostensibly SAFE BLUE SEATS. They should be significantly more left than this, and while they're procedural positions they absolutely do hold powerful voices in terms of determining the vision and agend afor Democrats.

If Jeffries wants to be the House Whip, that's another story. Let him. If Schumer wants to be in an advisory role as a US Senator and cede ground, then let him.

But they must go in terms of leadership positions.

"Nothing gets done if you lose the caucus." — Newsflash: Nothing is going to get done anyway, because you (HCR, etc.) still pretend that Republicans are acting in good albeit ideologically-opposed faith. They are not. They will play scorched earth forever. Trump will veto anything and everything and blame Democrats. Have we STILL not learned this lesson, dating all the way back to Obama? For fuck sake.

Look,

The first biggest impediment to progress was Republican Congress — Done.
The next biggest impediment where we have agency to change: DINO Democrats in Congress — In Progress.
The next biggest impediment to progress is Trump's Veto Power.

If Congressional Democrats push Medicare For All up against Trump (which has supermajority support by the electorate0 and force him to veto it, then that sets Democrats up so well for 2028.

Move Democratic Leadership Left a bit.
Distance from AIPAC and Private Equity lobbyists.
Set the chess pieces for 2028.

It's a no-brainer. 2028 Democratic Primaries began the moment Midterm polls closed, and I'm all for this purification process and holding our own accountable as to the direction this country MUST go.

I have ZERO interest in compromising with fascist Republicans. Zero. Neither should you. Press the attack. Don't start coddling conservatives... Again.

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I don't like Schummer he was already a majority leader and he showed that he is a bad leader.

I don't know how good is Jefferies, but I don't like him either especially after he thought meeting with Kushner was a good idea. Definitively not good optics meeting with a civilian who has no position in government and is close to the center of the corruption Democrats supposed to investigate.

Having said that we should express our concerns but not force then to choose specific people. The leader is there to make sure all Democrats act as a single block.

You are forgetting that there are still many non progressive Democrats and the tough pay will be to have them vote together. It is not an easy job, and someone who would be good needs to be great at internal politics and be liked or respected by their colleagues.

This is why Pelosi is considered as one of the best speakers, because every bill she brought for a vote, passed. She definitively wasn't progressive, but she helped push some progressive changes.

If we force them to choose someone who isn't working well with test of them we will get a democratic version of Mike Johnson. Unable to pass nearly anything despite Republicans holding both houses and best at shutting down the Congress.

On Senate we had Van Hollen expressing interest in the position and we had other senators voicing support for him. This is good.

Though in House there is no one who did that. I mean people try to bring Pressley but she didn't do it officially. I guess she started a petition, but that is going the wrong way, she should talk privately with her colleagues whether they would support her abd then express candidacy. Starting with a petition to people implies that maybe she doesn't get along well, and if that's true that might be a disaster.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago

The efforts to divide are coming from the inside now. There's a realignment that may be happening and it will squeeze out the old guard. Yes they need to work together - but under what banner? There's not much point to having democrats in power if they keep doing the same thing as the republicans. You can tell the conservative Democrats to not divide and support the progressives, just as you can want it to go the other way. There are some fairly distinct policy directions to choose here, not much middle ground.

[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 hours ago

If he's so eager to be the first black speaker, he'd better embrace the attributes expected from a majority oeader and speaker. His positions suggest he's not that interested in representing the current flock of Democratic senators, but only in exercising power to enforce his own personal preferences.

[–] lmmarsano@fedinsfw.app 23 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Jeffries most recently failed at the basic duty of party leader to whip votes to impeach Hegseth.
Clearly unfit to carry that role as speaker.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Let's focus on what we want and let them fight it out on how we get there. We came up with a list, add as you will.

Stop funding the war
Roll back Trump’s tariffs on Canada (and more)
Stop taxing low and moderate incomes
Restore Medicaid, SNAP, and Obamacare subsidies
Restore the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Pass Medicare for All
Cap tax breaks for private retirement savings
Repeal Right-to-Work laws and go after union busters
Ban algorithmic pricing
Remove contribution caps for social security
Start taxing billionaires like they did in NYC. Only 2% left the city. Worth it.
Raise the federal minimum wage
Get rid of Citizen’s United
Regulate AI to keep jobs and have communities be able to control them

https://sh.itjust.works/post/69872782

[–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

Hear hear

[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 20 points 12 hours ago

This was expected, instead of letting conservatives control the narrative we need to keep pushing things left.

Keep calling congress members and voting!

[–] Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

They may trick the dolts in the party, but my eyes have been pried open. I'll never vote for these bloodsuckers again.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 hours ago

Many progressives ~~view Jeffries as an establishment figure who offers no hope for meaningful change~~ are paying attention

Simplified it for them

and ~~want someone less beholden to corporate interests to be speaker.~~ aren't suckers

Simplified it for them again

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”.~~ lied and done a DARVO

Fixed it for them.

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.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 12 points 13 hours ago

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

[–] Schmoo@startrek.website 2 points 11 hours ago

Not news to me.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 0 points 11 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.