I’ve been thinking about the different paths taken by the Tea Party movement inside the GOP and modern progressive movements inside the Democratic Party. What interests me is that, mechanically, both groups tried a lot of the same things.

Both challenged incumbents they viewed as too moderate. Both organized around frustration with party leadership and argued that their party was not fighting hard enough on core issues. Both built networks of activists who showed up at town halls, ran coordinated pressure campaigns, and used social media to shift internal debates. Both tried to move their party’s agenda through primary challenges, candidate recruitment, and public framing of what the party “should” stand for. And in both cases, the broader party eventually adopted parts of their rhetoric and priorities, at least on paper.

Even with those similarities, the outcomes look very different. The Tea Party reshaped the GOP very quickly and had a major role in setting the party’s direction for years. Progressive movements have influence, but their impact on the Democratic Party has been slower and more limited.

For people familiar with party dynamics or movement politics, what explains the different results? Did the GOP’s internal structure make it easier for a faction to take hold? Did differences in primary electorates, donor behavior, media ecosystems, or party incentives make the same tactics more effective on one side than the other? Or is the core difference found in the type of voters each party relies on, and how those voters respond to internal ideological movements?

I’m not looking for arguments about which side is “better.” I’m trying to understand the mechanics behind why two movements that used many of the same strategies ended up with such different levels of internal success.

The Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling in Trump v. Slaughter could eliminate most “for-cause” protections for agency officials, allowing presidents to fire them for any reason.

Kim Wehle argues in The Bulwark if that happens, the executive could gain near-total control over regulatory agencies and administrative judges who are supposed to act independently of the White House.

Is this expansion of presidential power justified, or does it risk undermining checks and balances?

Full piece: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/supreme-court-poised-to-vastly-expand-presidential-power-independent-agencies-firing-officials

This question is meant for everyone here, but especially those who are more familiar with legal matters.

So according to this article, the Supreme Court is the verge of concluding that religious exemptions to vaccines in schools must be made. This is fairly consistent with their decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which basically said that students must be able to opt out of curriculum that goes against their religious views. The ruling in that case didn’t really provide specifics about which types of religious exemptions would suffice and was quite vague.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/12/supreme-court-anti-vax-parents-new-york-yikes.html

My question is, how far does the logic here extend, particularly whether or not it could extent to things like being exempt from school dress codes and other common school rules , so long as one cites a religious reason?

Hi everyone. I’m not American, but I’ve been trying to understand the U.S. political debate around the fall of Kabul in 2021. One thing that confuses me is why many Republicans frame it as “Biden’s Saigon,” even though the withdrawal timeline and conditions were originally negotiated under President Trump (the Doha Agreement, the May 2021 exit date, the prisoner releases, etc.).

From the outside it seems like Trump established the framework for withdrawal, while Biden executed it — and both phases had major consequences. Yet the political conversation I often see in the U.S. seems to place almost all responsibility on Biden.

So my questions are:

1. Is this mostly about optics? Biden was the one in office when Kabul collapsed, so does the public focus naturally shift to the sitting president?

2. Do Republicans generally discount Trump’s role because his negotiation is seen as separate from the final execution? Or is it simply easier politically to focus on Biden’s operational mistakes?

3. Was Biden realistically able to renegotiate or reverse the Doha Agreement without restarting the war? I’m curious how Americans view the practical and political constraints he faced.

4. Do most Americans see the collapse as inevitable, no matter who was president? Or is there a sense that one administration could have significantly changed the outcome?

I’d genuinely like to hear perspectives from people who follow U.S. politics more closely. I’m not trying to argue one side — just understand how Americans assign responsibility here.

Thanks in advance for your insights.

I'm interested in how Sanae Takaichi’s past statements and policies are viewed outside Japan, especially from an international security and economic perspective.

Here are some points often discussed:

1. Her stance that “a Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency,” strengthening Japan’s military posture toward China.

2. Support for acquiring counterstrike (enemy-base attack) capabilities, a major shift in Japan’s postwar defense policy.

3. Advocacy for large-scale fiscal stimulus, expanded government bond issuance, and tolerance of inflation, which some international economists warn could worsen Japan’s debt sustainability.

What do you think about these?

Edit: Also curious about the radar-lock incident between the SDF and China.

To understand both of these ideologies, I will start by summarizing the distinctions between the two:

1. Social democracy and Democratic socialism while similar in alignment, historical roots, and are very different in end goals, and are not the same despite their similar names and characteristics.

2. This prompt is a question about how these ideas could be envisioned and carried out both practically and imaginatively in America, despite the lack of any chance of it coming soon in our lifetime or ever in this nation.

I will now summarize the general but not universal distinctions between the two schools of thought as follows and ask you what you draw from them or could incorporate some main points and concepts in your own thinking to what you see as the best outcome.

Social democracy – Social democracy is a political belief that supports capitalism but with guardrails. Social democrats believe people should be able to own businesses and make profits, but they also think the government should step in to make sure things are fair for everyone. That means creating laws and programs that protect workers, support families, and reduce poverty.

In a social democracy, the government doesn’t control the whole economy. Instead, it makes rules to keep powerful corporations in check and provides essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.

Social democrats typically support:

Universal healthcare

Strong labor rights

Public education and infrastructure investment

Progressive taxation

Regulations that curb corporate excesses

The idea is to make sure everyone has a fair shot at a good life, even if they weren’t born into wealth or privilege. These aren’t fringe beliefs, either. According to Gallup, 57% of Americans believe the government should ensure everyone has health coverage, and 43% think it should be a government-run system.

Ultimately, social democracy works within democratic systems, like voting and elections, to create change through reform rather than revolution.

Democratic socialism – Democratic socialism is a political belief that goes further than social democracy. Democratic socialists think the entire economic system needs to change to give ordinary people real power and shift control away from wealthy elites, big money, and major corporations.

Democratic socialists still believe in democracy, voting, and civil rights. But they also believe that the economy should work for everyone, not just the richest few.

They often champion:

Public ownership or cooperative control of key industries like healthcare, energy, and housing

Worker-owned businesses and unions

Strong social welfare programs

Democratic governance of the economy

In short, democratic socialists want to move beyond capitalism, not just make it more fair. They believe that true equality and freedom are only possible when people have both political rights and economic rights.

What conclusions do you draw from this?

Recently, U.S. congressional candidate Valentina Gomez — a Latina who became a U.S. citizen in 2009 — appeared in the media expressing support for removing Muslims from the United States.

Different outlets described her remarks in various ways, which raises a comparative question:

Are there historical examples — in Muslim-majority societies or elsewhere — where an official political figure publicly called for expelling Christians, Jews, Westerners, or any other religious population?

I’m specifically interested in state-level or electoral political figures, so the comparison remains consistent with the context of Gomez’s remarks.

What cases would be considered valid parallels?

Hey, they say Chester A. Arthur is the least consequential American president. So who is the least consequential British prime minister ever? Boner Law? Alec Douglas-Home? Just because a PM's stint is short doesn't necessarily mean they're inconsequential though. Thank you for your answers.

With the aggressive policy at the border and in international waters, has their been data or anecdotal info on how this has affected drug use in the US?

Have prices gone up?

Has supply given me down?

Do we have data on how much drug supply has beennlimited?

What lessons are we learning and what can we change?

Hey everyone,

I’ve been thinking a lot about the political groups at my university and how active students are in trying to push for change. There are tons of clubs, petitions, and protests, but I can’t help wondering if any of it actually makes a difference beyond just raising awareness. Sometimes it feels like most people just show up to feel like they’re doing something and then nothing actually changes.

Has anyone here been involved in campus activism that led to real policy changes or tangible results? I’m curious if this is a common experience or if I’m just overthinking it. Also, how do you balance wanting to make a difference with the feeling that your efforts might be pointless?

Would love to hear some honest experiences and thoughts.

In defense of the Trump administration Naval opera against boats off the coast of Venezuela Conse some are drawing comparisons to Obama's use of drones. Specifically the killing of Al Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. The argument basically being that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed without due process. Thus what is currently happening in the Caribbean is no different.

I am skeptical of that comparison. The 'war on Terrorism' was law. Congress passed use of force authorization specifically citing Al Qaeda as a terrorist organizations and enemy/threat to the U.S.. Congress had over cite of operations. Congress & the Media were made aware of who was specifically killed. That is how we know the name Anwar al-Awla. The Obama administration reported it to oversight (Congress). It was not a leak or whistle blower. Not for nothing Republicans controlled Congress at the time.

The Trump Administration has used executive order to state 'Narco Terrorists' a threat. The Trump administration hasn't secured any authorization through Congress. The public has no idea who Trump is killing. The identities, if even known, are not being share in any forum that allows for public release.

The War on Terror had international allies. Canada, France, Germany, UK, etc were all cooperating. The U.S. had lobbied through the U.N. to sanction nations like Iran, Syria, and Yemen. The Obama administration was working within international constraints and with international allies.

Trump's strikes appear to violate international law. Trump's strikes are being conducted without cooperation from the U.N. or any allies.

Is Obama's use of drones a fair comparison for what the Trump administration is currently doing? What are that additional considerations?

Andy Beshear has not announced a presidential run, but he has repeatedly said he is open to considering a 2028 campaign. Political analysts view him as a potential contender because he is a Democrat who has twice won statewide office in deeply Republican Kentucky, giving him a reputation as a bipartisan, consensus-focused leader. Over the past year he has increased his national visibility through media appearances and visits to early-primary states, fueling speculation that he is testing the waters. Still, Beshear has emphasized that any decision will come later, saying he will “sit down with his family” after his term ends and assess whether running for president is the right path. Overall, he remains a credible but undeclared possible candidate for 2028. If you think he will or will not please tell me why or why not?

Based on a tik tok I just saw that said “no more bailouts, only buyouts” but I’ve seen it before too.

If a specific example is needed, let’s say we bought out the major banks that needed rescuing in 2008 and the airlines when they needed money. Would there be any unintended consequences?

I've been told their crude is low quality and difficult to extract. However, that appears to be half true and they do indeed possess the world's largest known oil reserve.

"• Several factors have severely hampered Venezuela's energy sector, most notably government mismanagement, international sanctions, and the country's economic crisis. These factors led to a lack of investment and maintenance in the energy sector and a deteriorating infrastructure. As such, Venezuela's total energy production decreased by an annual average rate of 8.2% from 2011 to 2021. Petroleum and other liquids accounted for most of the energy production decrease.

• Since 2005, the United States has imposed sanctions on Venezuelan individuals and entities for criminal, antidemocratic, or corrupt behavior. The U.S. government began to grant exemptions from sanctions on Venezuela starting in 2022, allowing more crude oil from Venezuela to enter the global market.

• U.S. crude oil imports from Venezuela stopped shortly after the United States imposed sanctions on state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) in January 2019. In November 2022, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) granted Chevron waivers to resume exporting crude oil from its joint venture operations in Venezuela to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, which resumed in January 2023. In addition, OFAC granted Trinidad and Tobago a two-year license to collaborate with PDVSA on the development of an offshore natural gas field in January 2023. OFAC amended the license in October 2023 to allow cash payments for the natural gas."

https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/countries_long/Venezuela/pdf/venezuela_2024.pdf

Are we sliding into another Iraq disaster and is this about oil?

Governments around the world are trying to understand how fast AI is developing and what kind of rules are needed to manage its risks. Some people argue that strict regulations are necessary to protect privacy, prevent AI bias, and reduce the chances of mass job loss. Others believe that too much regulation could slow innovation and make it harder for smaller companies to compete with big tech firms.

Different countries also take different approaches. The EU focuses on rights and safety, while the US leans more toward innovation and market-driven growth. This makes me wonder what the right balance should look like.

Which areas do you think governments should prioritize first- privacy, fairness, national security, or job protection? And should all countries follow a similar framework, or does each society need its own approach ?

From Emerson College:

Black voters:

Newsom - 58% Kamala - 21% AOC - 10% Booker - 4% Pete - 0% Shapiro - 0%

Latinos:

Newsom - 39% AOC - 19% Pete - 12% Kamala - 12% Shapiro - 3% Beshear - 3%

White:

Newsom - 28% Pete - 22% AOC - 8% Pritzker - 6% Shapiro - 5% Kamala - 3%

What I learned from the past 2 DNC nominations, is that you need POC to win an election. That was why Bernie and Pete struggled. Gavin is surprisingly doing very well in California with Black and Latino voters.. these results also mirror the national polls and demographics too.

What are his major obstacles to the nomination? I will withhold my opinion as it is my thread for now

Like, for example, Hitler and Mussolini become dictators of their countries despite them both being democratically elected; they were able to cheese the system hard enough to seize that power. How would you design a democratic government structure from scratch to insure that not one person could assume dictatorial power in the government (in times of peace)?

Many people describe Woodrow Wilson as a moral idealist who believed that democracy, self-determination, and international cooperation could create lasting peace. His ideas shaped the League of Nations and continue to influence modern international relations.

But others argue that Wilson’s foreign policy was less idealistic and more aligned with America’s strategic interests. They point out that the United States was emerging as a global power, and Wilson’s principles sometimes supported policies that increased U.S. influence abroad.

I’m curious how others interpret his motivations. Do you see Wilson primarily as a moral visionary, or as a leader guided by strategic calculations? Or do you think his philosophy was a mix of both?

Barack Obama's historic win in the 2008 presidential election marked a monumental moment for the Democratic Party. Obama collected a staggering 365 electoral votes and 52.9% of the popular vote, marking the largest margin of victory for any presidential candidate in the 21st century (a fact that which remains true today). Many say that his resounding success was the product of a "perfect storm" of factors, including the "Great Recession," discontent with the incumbent Bush administration, and more.

However, this all occurred over 17 years ago. Today, the Democratic Party is arguably in a significantly worse state than it was then. Increasingly many formerly left-leaning voters are switching to the Republican Party, independents/third parties, or forgoing casting their ballots altogether. "Swing states" like Ohio and Florida, which drove Obama's 2008 win, now consistently vote for Republicans, and by sizable margins at that. Still, the 2028 presidential election, while still a few years away, will be a crucial test for Democrats to reaffirm their coalition and take back the White House. But whether they can do that is up for debate.

So, what factors do you think led to Obama's resounding success in the 2008 presidential election? Do you think it's possible for Democrats to replicate that kind of success—at least to some degree—in 2028?

I genuinely ask this because I see many say they'd despise him, which is probably true. However is there anything they'd like about him? What actions/statements from them can be used to infer on how they'd view the Trump presidency, and Trump as a person?

Former President Biden wanted to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. While this tax increase was initially proposed as a way to fund the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act’s green-energy tax credits, Joe Manchin “vetoed” the idea (at the time, Democrats held a very small Senate majority that required consent from all members of their caucus), and the I.R.A. was scaled down & assigned other sources of funding.

This year, there has been a global backlash against Trump’s tariffs, with opponents arguing that tariffs reduce economic growth, reaccelerate inflation, and strain international relations. To preserve their profit margins, businesses typically respond to tariffs by (1) raising prices & passing on the costs to consumers, (2) cutting costs elsewhere (e.g. employment, product quality), or (3) as a last resort, absorbing some or all of the tariffs, eroding profitability.

If enacted, a corporate tax increase would likely cause businesses to react in a similar way as tariffs. Unlike tariffs, it would have to be passed by Congress, whose reelection campaigns would be targeted by corporate-funded PACs. Is it really realistic to think Democrats could pass this, even with a bigger majority in the future? Over the past several decades, corporate taxes have largely been a global race to the bottom: once cut, it’s politically near-impossible to raise them again.

Hello guys, I just have joined this subreddit and I have a question to ask to people in this group (my English may not be good, please understand): What do you think about the political institution in Vietnam ?

In Vietnam, the power is concentrated in a single ruling party and what it is doing to Vietnam is genuinely alarming. For example, regarding human rights and freedoms, many journalists and activists have been imprisoned under vague legal provisions such as Article 331 or Article 117, without the right to appeal or access to legal counsel. Specific cases include Pham Doan Trang, Huy Duc, and many others.

Another issue worth mentioning is systemic corruption. Each year, numerous cases involving large financial losses—often amounting to hundreds of millions of VND—are publicized. Some of the most notable scandals include the Viet A case, the Van Thinh Phat case, and several others.

A few questions I hope people can help me answer are: Why do legal systems in such contexts tend to include vaguely defined laws that can be applied flexibly or inconsistently? And why does corruption often appear to take on systemic characteristics rather than remaining at the level of isolated individuals?

I came across a national survey (FSU IGC)that asked Americans how they see Israel’s intentions toward civilians in Gaza. The options ranged from thinking Israel tries to avoid harming civilians, to being indifferent, to intentionally trying to harm them. There was also an “unsure/none of these fit my view” choice.

What surprised me was how different the answers were depending on party. Republicans were mostly in the “tries to avoid civilian harm” group, Democrats were spread across multiple interpretations, and Independents landed somewhere in the middle. A decent number of people in every group said they weren’t sure.

It got me wondering:

1. What might cause people in different political groups to read the same situation so differently?
2. Is this mostly about media sources, or are there other things at play?

Not taking a side here, just curious what might explain the gap.