She is 26 and my foreign policy was not much better at that age. She has time to develop, but being elected to the United States Congress will probably harm that development more than it will help. I saw that her FP positions came from a dogshit advisor that she isn't working with anymore sonkaybe there's hope in some kind of shift? Not gonna bank on it, though.

If I lived in the district, good domestic policy, and no AIPAC money is good enough for me to offer some support (like if I were discussing with friends or acquilaintances in the district), while also giving me the opportunity to immediately denounce her foreign policy and illustrate there is no actual winning in the US cause that requites exploiting another working class instead. 2-4 years later that same audience will be primed for the "we really need to shift our focus from electoralism" talk, but most regular people aren't there today.

[–] hello_hello@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

She has time to develop

She has a degree in international relations from George Washington university in DC, she's already fully developed as an Anarcho-bidenist. biden-leftist

comrade john_brown already pointed out how she handpicked Illinois, they don't even do the AOC bartender type stories anymore they'll just put their plants in and know that nobody will call them out on it besides the disenfranchised.

[–] john_brown@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

by moving to a completely different state to handpick a good district for herself, she's basically screaming out loud she wants to become a system democrat doing system democrat things

I cannot imagine anyone living in her district believing she gives a shit about their needs, she just moved there!

[–] zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As Lenin's Imperialism shows, foreign policy in capitalism is a continuation of economic policy. The power of the monopoly firms and finance capital forces the hands of the politicians to adopt a militaristic foreign policy, so that they can do regime change or take over natural resources or subjugate a local population for cheap labour, to combat the falling rates of profit.

Unless her domestic policy seeks to cripple the political power held by the monopolists and finance capital, regardless of her stated foreign policy choices, she will end up capitulating to the capitalists or be forced from her position for another politician who will.

But she already advocates for the god awful foreign policy decisions capital loves, so the chances of her actually challenging capital's power is basically null.

Advocating for the US to intervene against China for Taiwan separatists serves international capital only, advocating for gaza to be regime changed if it elects Hamas again serves international capital only. There would be no reason to support these policies if she were genuinely anti-capitalist, or advocating so-called domestic anti-capitalism.

I don't mean to rail on your position, just clarifying some thoughts I had out loud.

[–] free_casc@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago

No yeah I'm in agreement on a deeper level, and down to have that conversation among ourselves. The average person in my community is not up to speed on all that yet, so it's a matter of giving people "baby's first socialism" so they can start having their own experience tryingnto build a better world. If they have any earnestness about resolving some of the domestic issues, they'll learn from the blowback and contradictions they run in to on their own terms which will be much more effective than me beating them over the head with theory about how it's actually futile (but I'm right tho!).

It is funny to me to move a couple of my socdem sympathetic friends to more confident and principled Demsocs. They go and talk to more liberal friends of theirs (with newfound confidence) and tell me they are surprised at how much pushback they get about something like universal healthcare haha