this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
532 points (98.9% liked)

politics

26252 readers
2996 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Former President Barack Obama told Zohran Mamdani “your campaign has been impressive to watch,” and suggested that he was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success beyond the election.

Former President Barack Obama called New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on Saturday, praising his campaign and offering to be a “sounding board” into the future.

The private, roughly 30-minute phone call, which has not previously been reported, was described by two people who participated or were briefed immediately on what had been said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private conversation.

Mr. Obama said that he was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success beyond the election on Tuesday. They talked about the challenges of staffing a new administration and building an apparatus capable of delivering on Mr. Mamdani’s agenda of affordability in the city, the people said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kugel7c@feddit.org 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem is more that people conflate liberal and left through Obama. Like you are doing in this very comment. If you know what left politics is it's obvious that Obama isn't part of this.

If Obama is good or bad, whether he carried some better than conservative policy, or got something done really doesn't matter because he isn't a left politician, so placing him as one will generate resistance not because everyone on the left sees him as evil, but because he is obviously not left to people who understand what 'left' and or 'liberal' means.

It's an error in categorization on the part of the one conflating Obama and left, not a failure of "left purity" on Obamas part, he never was left to anyone paying attention, at best he used left messaging and heritage to promote a liberal campaign. Which might be the second reason many are sometimes angry with him, he used left aesthetics and talking points, while in retrospect not caring all that deeply about them, which to someone starting out naively optimistic about the prospect of an Obama White house, feels like betrayal, not because Obama really betrayed them as such, more because over time they came to realize he was never really fighting for them to begin with.

[–] Octavio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I concede that one possibility is that I’m really dumb and can’t understand what political terms mean and can’t understand what people’s true intentions are even though smart people can easily see.

But I maintain that another possibility is that failure to pass an arbitrary purity test does not preclude one from being on the left side of the political divide and that our refusal to unite against fascism is a moral failing and the authoritarians’ wildest dream come true.

[–] kugel7c@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

on the left side of the political divide

There is no such political divide, at the minimum there are a couple of axis on which to place peoples and groups political position. There can be such a thing as three or more fundamentally opposed political positions(liberal, left, fascist, monarchist,...) and there can be a united opposition of two or more of these opposed to another. As would from some point of view ideally be the case with left and liberal politics being united against fascist politics. This does not make left and liberal politics the same or part of the same thing. They are fundamentally opposed in a way where the underlying assumption of the philosophy that defines them are incompatible so that accepting one of these assumptions makes accepting the other impossible.

refusal to unite against fascism

it's not productive as you said but I think there can be much said about the concept of accepting that one can fight fascism without outwardly doing it towing a liberal party line. Said another way if liberals will not join leftists in their way of fighting fascism, why should the reverse be generally true.

In all honesty it just feels like a case of US brained political understanding or just like not well read. It's the kinda environment where someone will call out Mamdani, sanders, obama, and bill gates for not uniting under one flag to fight orange hitler. Maybe they will but it should be obvious that it's gonna be a temporary and strenuous marriage at best.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics paragraph 3 and 4 it should illustrate why Obama is not considered part of the Left even though part of his campaign and probably governance could be considered center-left

Ideologies considered to be left-wing vary greatly depending on the placement along the political spectrum in a given time and place. At the end of the 18th century, upon the founding of the first liberal democracies, the term Left was used to describe liberalism in the United States and republicanism in France, supporting a lesser degree of hierarchical decision-making than the right-wing politics of the traditional conservatives and monarchists. In modern politics, the term Left typically applies to ideologies and movements to the left of classical liberalism, supporting some degree of democracy in the economic sphere.

Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism ,[9] including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism, and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries.[10] In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally liberal and progressive social movements,[11] including the civil rights movement, feminist movement, LGBTQ rights movement, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, anti-war movement, and environmental movement,[12][13] as well as a wide range of political parties.[14][15][16]‌

[–] Octavio@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is semantics and I’m not interested. Good day.

[–] kugel7c@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago

Calling the plurality of political conflict from 45 to 90, and like several fields of study, semantics is kinda crazy work but you've got the spirit in general I guess. Good day as well.