Neoliberalism: The Movement That Dare Not Speak Its Name

[Felya]

@Theodarzna here is a fun concept... I can prove you are a neoliberal, by the definition set by the OP.

When you knew that the SCOTUS was up for grabs, did you side with the ‘capitalist’? If not paving the road to conservatives, much like the definition of neoliberalism accuses DNC with supporting conservatives... What has the last four years of jumping from Jordan Peterson to the latest altright craze, instead of seeing fundamental changes to SCOTUS, mean? How is that any better, within the scope of your ability, than being a neoliberal? It’s the same compromising that’s a problem, but amplified... if you consider neoliberalism a failure, how is accelerating to ignore GOP completely, any better... how is it not neoliberal, but accelerationist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that capitalism and its historically associated processes should be accelerated instead of overcome in order to generate radical social change. Accelerationism may also refer more broadly and usually pejoratively to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse.

Everything the OP blames on neoliberals... I can articulate as accelerationist. I can articulate the fact that neoliberals thought they would get something in return, while your accelerationist knows and even depends on knowing it won’t. Is that a real difference or just the lack of self awareness required to be an accelerationist or reactionary?

- - - Updated - - -

It did not stick so much that even a lot of neoliberals call themslves neoliberals. Why do you care what people use to insult capitalists/right-wingers? Even when they call themselves neoliberals, those of us on the left did not come up with the term.

According to OP it’s a hidden term... redefining democrats as neoliberals, is accelerationist attempt to get capatalism bigger...

Neoliberalism is a right-wing idealogy tho

Is accelerationism a right wing ideology or is it a left wing ideology that depends on capitalism becoming bigger?

Pretty much the same thing in a new coat of paint.

No... Classic liberal is how fascist get you to accelerate on capitalism, with a promise that once capitalism gets big enough... it will just end. Neoliberals, is how those people justify it.

Like I keep saying... Gulliani even called Trump a classic liberal... this is Trump cult rhetoric being pushed to main stream.

[Draco-Onis]

Neoliberalism is a right-wing idealogy tho

It is but if Theo was interested in a balanced conversation she would talk about how the right wing going to extreme has created the space for neo liberalism to exist within the democratic party. Unfortunately we are stuck in a two party system currently there is no room on the right for "modern" republicanism only extremist which is why the democratic party is basically two parties at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember when Clinton lost, it mean liberals need to change, with Trump win showing people are sick of democrats. Yet, with Trump losing, the narrative is... ‘he can’t hurt you anymore’... The Clintons and Obamas, now those guys can...

Just imagine the near future of democrats being blamed for failing to get passed the SCOTUS. So much more shit to blame on liberals as a result... The rhetoric of democrats being neoliberals, is only going to get stronger, as we lose social safety nets and civil rights through the SCOTUS.

You think ‘democrats had 2 years of total control of government and all we got was ACA’ is annoying? Try that for the foreseeable future... imagine a future where every liberal cause failing at SCOTUS, is argued as a success and fault of neoliberals.

Her entire stitch only works if you pretend the GOP and Trumpism don't exist, I mean she thinks Warren is a neo liberal.

[PC2]

Neo-liberalism can more simply be described as Capitalism that adopts the aesthetics of social progressivism out of convenience.

That's how I interpret it as well but it doesn't even matter at all because in politics it's pointless to argue about what labels mean instead of arguing for policy solutions and explaining why policy ideas are good or bad. Agreeing about definitions and labels can be a nice bonus but it's not necessary nor is it important.

[Theodarzna]

It is but if Theo was interested in a balanced conversation she would talk about how the right wing going to extreme has created the space for neo liberalism to exist within the democratic party. Unfortunately we are stuck in a two party system currently there is no room on the right for "modern" republicanism only extremist which is why the democratic party is basically two parties at the moment.

Neo-Liberalism predates your current hyper obsession with reality tv show guy turned president.

Also the article discusses the involvement of the Neo-Liberal movement in the Republican party. I am guessing you didn't read it, you simply came in for the cherished dog pile before leaving.

- - - Updated - - -

This is not a change since the 1940s. That should be evident with the very concept that the market was fully capable of being dominated without the help of the government, before 1940 and after 1940; there wasn't a repurpose needed, the reality always existed. I am not sure if the lack of measures being put in place is much of an indication of neoliberalism anymore than it is liberalism.

You are confusing what the article is saying. It isn't making the case that the market is dominated, or even that the "market" exists except as an abstraction. It draws on the historical evidence that Neo-Liberalism view is that "Markets" must be made, and for them to be made a powerful force must mold people into market subjects.

As opposed to say the Classical Liberals (Not Youtubers but the thing that existed in the 1940's) which argued that actually no powerful force was needed because the market in their ideology served people. You are seemingly insistent on missing that point.

Ah yes, neoliberals think tanks are the ones trying to scaremonger with the massive amounts of debt that governments are racking up, not you know, every single economist on the spectrum of political leaning. Not even sure what the rest of that sentence is even supposed to imply.

The deficit is only a problem when its helping normal people, when its bombing countries into subservience, then the deficit isn't even real. Or ensuring financial institutions weather the latest cataclysm.

That's certainly one hot take on why incarcerations exploded. I guess the cultural aspect of it, starting under Reagan, the racial one that has perturbed it throughout, and the religious abstinence perspective on particularly drug usages, is neglectable factors in the face of malice neoliberalism.

Malice implies personal hatred. Crime and poverty are linked, and people not useful to the Market are basically worthless under that ideological framework.

This has basically nothing to do with neoliberalism. It is a whole other very hard pinpointing political philosophical question, that is being argued in this very day and age.

It has a lot to do with it, but you insist on not reading the OP but instead picking parts of it out, I think you skimmed this at best, so, to restate, what makes Neo-Liberals particular is that despite the rhetoric they believe in large state power, the State exists to forge people into market subjects, all State action is to shepherd and cultivate and empower the Market and make people serve it.

Because the very concept of stealing intellectual property was not a particularly profound issue prior. But I guess that goes on neoliberalists shoulders as well, fuck the people who wants to make a living of entertainment, copy it as many times as you like...

IDK, I'd say copyrighting a work to last seventy years after your own death, even a noise or DNA is a strange application of private property.

Not only have we bailed out banks prior to neoliberalism, there are almost no economic theory that advices to do otherwise, because there is almost no price that exceeds an economic collapse.

So two things, one this is very, very American centric, which makes the notion of neoliberalism to be an all purveying economic philosophy kind of laughable. If it doesn't hold true to principles across borders, then it is not a particularly well established political philosophy to which one can criticize as all encompassing evil. Secondly, it is a mess of mish mash of all sorts of political acts, that completely glosses over all context of the matter, striving hard to line them all up to be neoliberalism; I think particularly the incarceration one speaks volumes to that.

Neo-Liberalism is discussed in other countries context in the Article. Actually; there has been cases for not doing the bail outs, and given the long history of this school of thought, and that we've only needed these vast bailouts within the time frame of its existence. Yeah no.

Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty is not a guidebook, nor a philosophical work meant to propose. It is abstract thinking, to address underlying problems with humans fundamentally flawed ways of government. How an economist gets this wrong, is somewhere between being shit at their job, or outright lying to make a point, there is no other conclusion to that interpretation of that. James Buchanan precedes neoliberalism, and equally calling what he strived for neoliberalism is absurd; the dude refused to bail out banks, but oh yeah, totally neoliberalist.

Neo-Liberal is what they described their own movement in their own terms in the 1940s. Also you have a curious view of economics. Like it is the most objective of sciences, possibly more objective than physics. Also their books are windows into what they considered to be valid political thought. So what? We cannot go by what they themselves said, or what they themselves called themselves?

I mean... Okay? Uhm, there is a lot of interpretation of motive, action and motivation, that stems from... this person own made up logic. Sorry, that's about all I can really say to that. Sounds a lot like exposing postmodernist marxism as well; this all encompassing machine, which a person has derived the entire motive, action and motivation, through sheer logic. Fuck the notion of presenting any, and I mean literally any evidence that the conclusion is true.

Or, he is pointing out that people who follow this ideological framework are quick to deny they do so. Alla a pervious poster citing the Koch Brothers foundation to claim its not even a thing. Which is a bit like asking Ted Kaczynski if in Ted's opinion everything he did was justified, surprisingly Ted agrees that Ted was right.

- - - Updated - - -

Neoliberalism is a right-wing idealogy tho

The irony of irony is that a lot of people in this forum with Antifa avi's and the like come in to defend the ideology of Augusto Pinochet. That is delicious.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there really any practical difference between what gets labelled as neoliberalism, and straight up classical liberalism?

Yes, mainly in their attitude about the Market. Classical Liberals earnestly (I'd say foolishly) believe the Market serves people and are in the small government camp. Neo-Liberals are duplicitous in this respect because they believe fundamentally in a powerful State and using that power to make people serve "The Market". That would be one major core difference.

- - - Updated - - -

And I have feeling you won't read the works of these people mentioned in the article to gain the full comprehension, and instead will just blindly trust the article because it is your favourite topic of neoliberalism=bad.

Yeah and I find that part to a major copout. Postmodernist no truth exists, political ideology meanings are beyond pinpointable, except we can pinpoint neoliberalism to an absolute specific point.
Also if everyone is a neoliberalist, I think it is time to concede, seeing as it is the one item in human history we apparently all could acknowledge as righteous.

Foucault was himself a self described Neo-Liberal and contributed to its thought in the later part of his life.

Also, hegemonic ideology doesn't mean everyone agrees with it, or it is good. Merely that it is currently very dominate.

- - - Updated - - -

I will save you some reading for all of Theo's threads aside from a very few "LEFT WING BAD" or "BAD THING IS ONLY LEFT WING". Now that Trump has lost it's the back to the tried and true no need to talk about supporting Trump for four years it's LEFT WING / LIBURALS BAD.

I am glad you happily reveal that you never read the OP and just respond. I do hope your clique on here has a rewards program for your dedication. The only mention of a political party is the Republican Party, the Democrats aren't even named here. But do go off, I enjoy the fanfiction.

[Machismo]

Neo-fascists and ethno-nationalists will do just about anything to shill for Trump.

[Felya]

Neo-fascists and ethno-nationalists will do just about anything to shill for Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that capitalism and its historically associated processes should be accelerated instead of overcome in order to generate radical social change. Accelerationism may also refer more broadly and usually pejoratively to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse.

I simply don’t understand why they don’t simply admit to supporting Trump and GOP, in the name of winning the liberal long game. It can’t be that it’s a ridiculous concept to admit...

Accelerationism is the real ideology that no one dares to admit. That’s the real evil that is poisoning the well of politics. An ideology that not only relies on the worst of the right gaining power, but where the goal is fall of civilization, to be rebuilt in their image. If their goal is to get conservatives and extreme right in power, make sure to specify it’s that sort of leftist. Otherwise people will assume you are not just trying to get far right in power, but that you are far right your self... for obvious reasons... why do you think they didn’t care if far right controlled SCOTUS? It’s part of the plan...

TLDR: Neoliberalism is in part a way for the far left, to justify the hidden Accelerationism in to gaining power for the right. How do you hasten capitalism, if not removing the flawed resistance that even exists?

[PC2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

I simply don’t understand why they don’t simply admit to supporting Trump and GOP, in the name of winning the liberal long game. It can’t be that it’s a ridiculous concept to admit...

Accelerationism is the real ideology that no one dares to admit. That’s the real evil that is poisoning the well of politics. An ideology that not only relies on the worst of the right gaining power, but where the goal is fall of civilization, to be rebuilt in their image. If their goal is to get conservatives and extreme right in power, make sure to specify it’s that sort of leftist. Otherwise people will assume you are not just trying to get far right in power, but that you are far right your self... for obvious reasons... why do you think they didn’t care if far right controlled SCOTUS? It’s part of the plan...

TLDR: Neoliberalism is in part a way for the far left, to justify the hidden Accelerationism in to gaining power for the right. How do you hasten capitalism, if not removing the flawed resistance that even exists?

lol dude how is this different than a conspiracy theory?

Progress is *incremental* and if there is any accelerationists they are just confused idiots and they're not scheming masterminds who are bringing down the system. Neo-liberals are basically the adults in the room who don't want revolutionary change and somehow people have associated them with Trump supporters and the far left at the same time.

[Felya]

lol dude how is this different than a conspiracy theory?

As different as an ideology to a conspiracy theory? What exactly is conspiratorial, in the ideology of accelerated capitalism, will force the shift to socialism?

Progress is *incremental* and if there is any accelerationists they are just confused idiots and they're not scheming masterminds who are bringing down the system. Neo-liberals are basically the adults in the room who don't want revolutionary change and yet you've somehow you turn them into Trump supporters and far leftists at the same time.

Who said anything about scheming? Did I say anyone lied or said something underhanded? In fact, I didn’t even call them idiot, by explaining that this misunderstanding is what leads to perception of being right wing. It literally explains the argument being presented, without anyone being dumb or malicious.

[Theodarzna]

lol dude how is this different than a conspiracy theory?

Progress is *incremental* and if there is any accelerationists they are just confused idiots and they're not scheming masterminds who are bringing down the system. Neo-liberals are basically the adults in the room who don't want revolutionary change and somehow you've turn them into Trump supporters and far leftists at the same time.

As I've noted elsewhere the cries of "But Incremental reform!" don't make much sense when one looks at the Health Care issue. Why is ACA the critical first step and not Medicare which we established many decades earlier and was also promised to be a first step? Or say the Afghan forever war, for which people are currently fighting whom were not even born yet when it started. At a certain point when does one actually ask for proof and a time table on this supposed incrementalism?

[PC2]

As different as an ideology to a conspiracy theory? What exactly is conspiratorial, in the ideology of accelerated capitalism, will force the shift to socialism?

I'd just say they're confused if they think that shift is coming.

Who said anything about scheming? Did I say anyone lied or said something underhanded? In fact, I didn’t even call them idiot, by explaining that this misunderstanding is what leads to perception of being right wing. It literally explains the argument being presented, without anyone being dumb or malicious.

Ah okay, yes most of these problems are due to a misunderstanding and not malice. I thought you were implying there was a significant amount of people who wanted civilization to fall so that they could pick up the ashes or whatever.

[beanman12345]

As different as an ideology to a conspiracy theory? What exactly is conspiratorial, in the ideology of accelerated capitalism, will force the shift to socialism?



Who said anything about scheming? Did I say anyone lied or said something underhanded? In fact, I didn’t even call them idiot, by explaining that this misunderstanding is what leads to perception of being right wing. It literally explains the argument being presented, without anyone being dumb or malicious.

I would say that all trump supporters are all of equal intelligence. =)

[Elegiac]

As I've noted elsewhere the cries of "But Incremental reform!" don't make much sense when one looks at the Health Care issue. Why is ACA the critical first step and not Medicare which we established many decades earlier and was also promised to be a first step?

Man, maybe it might have something to do with the thing that the Third Way was invented in reaction to, which you spend little to no energy criticising or complaining about because said thing carries a hefty dose of the "tax single people to punish them for not settling down" family values nonsense you're fond of, to say nothing of the ethnonationalism.

[Felya]

I'd just say they're confused if they think that shift is coming.

Don’t tell me... I’m not the sort to believe cutting off your nose solves anything.

Ah okay, yes most of these problems are due to a misunderstanding and not malice. I thought you were implying there was a significant amount of people who wanted civilization to fall so that they could pick up the ashes or whatever.

No, civilization fall was a very shitty way of putting it, since I mean capitalism falling. That’s on me...

- - - Updated - - -

As I've noted elsewhere the cries of "But Incremental reform!" don't make much sense when one looks at the Health Care issue. Why is ACA the critical first step and not Medicare which we established many decades earlier and was also promised to be a first step? Or say the Afghan forever war, for which people are currently fighting whom were not even born yet when it started. At a certain point when does one actually ask for proof and a time table on this supposed incrementalism?

Your muddying the waters of what accelerationism means... it’s accelerated capitalism, like ignoring what Trump is doing, while attacking the only stop gap against it. As an example, you say nothing about the destruction of Kurds, thanks to Trump’s withdrawal, even though just years ago you were complaining about a different Turkish genocide. You complain about Iraq war and Afghanistan, both predicated on the very rhetoric that you accelerate into. You say nothing of withdrawal from Iran peace treaty, Trump’s increased droning and 2000 US troops protecting Saudi Oil... you don’t complain about right wing acceleration, because you think the only way the left wins, is if GOP gains total control. It’s why you never cared about the SCOTUS... conservative majority wasn’t a result of a mistake... it was the point.

Remember how you bitched about colonialism and spreading disease to native Americans... Now you claim covid is a democrat hoax to get big tech into schools... as Native American community is getting ravaged and senate is on vacation, while Trump is too busy golfing.

- - - Updated - - -

I would say that all trump supporters are all of equal intelligence. =)

I gain nothing by calling them stupid...

- - - Updated - - -
@Theodarzna you can cry about Iraq war and Afghanistan all you like. But, when you downplay Trump’s actions in Middle East and towards muslim community in US, it obvious you learned nothing. You laughing instead of voicing outrage at the actions and the rhetoric about Muslims, is probably the same reaction you had when GOP was attacking neoliberals with freedom fries. You will point at the minority voting for a war, as over 90% support forced their hand, and ignore the Muslims dancing on rooftops from Trump, that demanded blood sacrifice. You ignore that the very rhetoric that caused those wars, is what broke the treaty with Iran... Is what caused Trump to veto war powers being removed.

Remember, Democrats gave you a candidate that tossed his Purple Heart in the Lincoln memorial... but, the public wanted freedom fries and neoliberal Kerry would be the same as Bush. Now 70+ million voted out of fear of brown people and you are still blaming democrats.

In simplest terms... How can you be so pissed at Biden for wars, when the current news is about Iran retaliation plans?

- - - Updated - - -

Man, maybe it might have something to do with the thing that the Third Way was invented in reaction to, which you spend little to no energy criticising or complaining about because said thing carries a hefty dose of the "tax single people to punish them for not settling down" family values nonsense you're fond of, to say nothing of the ethnonationalism.

Notice that despite all the talk of adhering to tribes, the fault of neoliberalism is compromise. Who is actually enforcing tribalism, if compromising within the existing system, is failing the purity test?

If democrats don’t compromise, they are tribalistic. If democrats compromise, they are as bad as the opponent tribe. But, tribalism is the real problem... without tribalism... everyone would see I am right.

Edit: I will repeat... John Kerry was an anti war candidate... You don’t nominate a candidate that tossed his Purple Heart into the Lincoln memorial, during a protest with Jody Foster, if you want more war. It wasn’t neoliberals that voted Bush... It wasn’t neoliberals that voted Bush, when Gore was pushing the environment in the 90s.

Oh and what else was fucked up by not voting for the neoliberal John Kerry? He is now the god damn special envoy on climate crisis, since he became an expert:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/23/polit...voy/index.html

Other than trying to spread Hillary all over democrats, what is the point of defending Halliburton, in the attach on Big Tech? Because Theo thinks Newsome is conspiring with big tech and covid? Suddenly we care about war, but we ignore the military industrial complex?

[Kaleredar]

So is this just another faux-outrage thread admonishing liberals for not being liberal enough while being completely silent about the conservative bastions in the country actually propping up the systems the OP is ostensibly aggrieved with?

Bonus points if "big science" is somehow behind it all, too.

[Felya]

So is this just another faux-outrage thread admonishing liberals for not being liberal enough while being completely silent about the conservative bastions in the country actually propping up the systems the OP is ostensibly aggrieved with?

Bonus points if "big science" is somehow behind it all, too.

Neoliberals are bad because they are capitalist. Outcries of Republicans being too capitalist is bad, because Orange Man Bad is irrational.

Aka... Accelerationism... Corporation as president, is better than a corporatist president.

[Kaleredar]

Neoliberals are bad because they are capitalist. Outcries of Republicans being too capitalist is bad, because Orange Man Bad is irrational.

Aka... Accelerationism... Corporation as president, is better than a corporatist president.

So in essence, a resounding "why settle for the lesser of two evils?! At least with the greater evil, you know just how evil they can be! If you go with the lesser one, you have no idea... they might could even be as evil as the greater evil, and then where will you be?!"



I generally see their ploy as being the classic "Progressives, liberals aren't for you! You need to divest yourself from them to ever truly do anything progressive!" to the inevitable and intended end to ensure that the conservatives who actively fight against anything progressive are the ones to actually maintain power by only having to contend with two split parties.

Couch that in constant walls of text and responses that are nothing but false concern and begging the question, and boy does it get tiresome quickly.

Biden's win must've sent them for a shock. They see the very real and palpable chance of the dissolution of conservative hegemony in the future, and are trying to sew the seeds of discord among their political and moral betters to cling to it.

[Shalcker]

Neoliberals are bad because they are capitalist. Outcries of Republicans being too capitalist is bad, because Orange Man Bad is irrational.

Article quite literally calls Republicans on that, so i'm not sure where you're coming from with that.

Neoliberalism is bad because it declares market primacy - market as self-evident best way of doing everything, with every market result being considered the best you could get in any situation - despite plenty of modern civilization advances like universal healthcare coming from things divorced from market principles.

Aka... Accelerationism... Corporation as president, is better than a corporatist president.

One of the pro-Trump accelerationist points is that when pressure is more obvious resisting it is much easier then when it is covert.

Like the fact that Trump deported less immigrants then Obama despite all his rhetoric - because making it overt made non-cooperation viable strategy.

[Felya]

So in essence, a resounding "why settle for the lesser of two evils?! At least with the greater evil, you know just how evil they can be! If you go with the lesser one, you have no idea... they might could even be as evil as the greater evil, and then where will you be?!"

More like... Democrats are pretty much republicans anyway. The only way to truly change the system, is to accelerate into capitalism, because without the bandaids that neoliberals put up... capitalism is destined to fail... a failure, which is the only way we get real liberal system in place.

Step 1. Our mixed economy accelerates to pure capitalism.
Step 2. Capitalism fails due to it’s unsustainable policy.
Step 3. ???
—————-
Result: We live in utopian communism.

[Kaleredar]

More like... Democrats are pretty much republicans anyway. The only way to truly change the system, is to accelerate into capitalism, because without the bandaids that neoliberals put up... capitalism is destined to fail... a failure, which is the only way we get real liberal system in place.

Step 1. Our mixed economy accelerates to pure capitalism.
Step 2. Capitalism fails due to it’s unsustainable policy.
Step 3. ???
—————-
Result: We live in utopian communism.

...which, of course, isn't their goal. They want it to just sort of bottom out in step 1 with conservatives in power while hoping the people who want actual progress are still fighting each other so that it never really moves past that first step. I remember enough of their posting history to know that.

It's the same vein as those "progressive" loons that were hoping Biden would lose and were okay with four more years of Trump so that "it would teach democrats that they needed to be more progressive in the future. It'll be good for them"

[Felya]

Article quite literally calls Republicans on that, so i'm not sure where you're coming from with that.

It calls out republicans on what? Attacking their opponents? What does that mean to the OP as a whole?

Neoliberalism is bad because it declares market primacy - market as self-evident best way of doing everything, with every market result being considered the best you could get in any situation - despite plenty of modern civilization advances like universal healthcare coming from things divorced from market principles.

I am pointing out that this is the result of conservative power. We don’t have kings and despite the premise the OP likes to put up, DNC is far more diverse ideologically than the GOP. Making whole sale changes, without compromise, impossible.

What happens when you blame the compromise, on those compromising and not whose demands are being compromised with? What happens when you claim the people compromising, are the ones driving the ideology?

One of the pro-Trump accelerationist points is that when pressure is more obvious resisting it is much easier then when it is covert.

Which is completely untrue, when you looks at how much shit Trump gets away with. How can you both, recognize the power of wealth and the sort of shit you can get away with as a result, while thinking that a billionaire will be exposed? I wager that they will blame liberals regardless of Trump’s faults. I wager that more than 70 million people will do that...

Like the fact that Trump deported less immigrants then Obama despite all his rhetoric - because making it overt made non-cooperation viable strategy.

Please tell me... who calls Obama soft on immigration and claims he wants open borders? While, who named Obama Deporter In Chief? Is Trump an Obama supporter now, downplaying his record?

- - - Updated - - -

...which, of course, isn't their goal. They want it to just sort of bottom out in step 1 with conservatives in power while hoping the people who want actual progress are still fighting each other so that it never really moves past that first step. I remember enough of their posting history to know that.

It's the same vein as those "progressive" loons that were hoping Biden would lose and were okay with four more years of Trump so that "it would teach democrats that they needed to be more progressive in the future. It'll be good for them"

It’s an absolutely idiotic ideology... it defines the term... Useful Idiot...