Agreed. What's more, this is exactly what the 'left' wing political parties should be doing about now. They always say they can't get young people to vote. They always complain about losing to their opponents or what not.
Well, maybe actually saying they'll fix copyright laws, throw large corporations to the curb and actively fighting to reduce the term to a reasonable length may help with that. Show they're not corporate shills, and do something that younger people may actually support them with.
Is that enough on its own? Hell no, there are tons of things these parties need to do to win trust back. But it would be a great rallying point for them, and get a decent amount of support from internet folks and younger people.
The problem is that they are corporate shills. There are quite a few things I wish the Democratic party would do that I'd support, and lots of them they did historically. Even if they were still actually pushing anti-war, freedom of speech, and related things then that would be fantastic, but lately they seem to tow the same line as the Republicans on those issues.
I would reverse those. The hyper adversarial nature of our political environment is shaped by our electoral systems; specifically plurality voting, partisan primaries, and gerrymandered single member districts. Fixing those three things will go a long way towards restoring sanity to our politics.
The only points when "sanity prevailed" were when there was a clear Other to rally against and fight a war. The hyperpartisanship we're seeing is actually normal for the US.
The US was broken in the 1800s. It was broken in the 1820s-1840s with the fight over slavery. It was broken in the 1860s, and we had to fight a civil war to restore any sort of santy. It was broken in the 1880s after Restoration was rolled back. It was broken in 1900 with the rise of the Klan again. 1915 was WWI, in 1920 we were back to being broken. 1930s we were broken by depression and the fight against fascism, 1940s we had WW2. 1950s we had Korea, 1960s we were broken, 1970s we were broken, and that begun the decline of any sense of civility in the congress.
1980s we were completely broken, 1990s we were completely broken, 2000s we were completely broken, 2010s we were completely broken...
The lack of justice for Nixon broke any sense of normality left in the nation. And the Republicans nevertheless played off the idea that Nixon was somehow crucifed, and elected Reagan, then went on a witch-hunt against Clinton. Then they elected a historically bad president in Bush, started the longest wars in US history, and when people complained they crucified Obama in response. And then they elected the loudest finger-in-the-eye they could find in response.
The US has been somewhat broken for literally its entire existence but it has been actively unable to transact its internal business for about half of that... about half of that being in the last 50 years.
The first is softball and obvious. Things can work on a small scale and collapse on a large scale. We started with around 30,000 citizens per congressional district (and thus per representative). And there was a strong urging to push it lower by some. This number was envisioned as remaining as a constant, for if you dilute the power and "connection" of the average voter too much, you risk exposing yourself to politicians too far detached from their constituency which can breed tyranny, corruption, and so on. And indeed 30,000 is already pretty far up there. Today we have more than 700,000 citizens per congressional district.
The second is a more contentious issue, but perhaps even more relevant. Today we've become an increasingly divided and polarized society where nuance is increasingly a lost art. Democracy does not work in such situations. Iraq is an extreme example. Iraq is fundamentally broken up into three major groups - Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds. And these groups tend to be extremely intolerant of one another with members of each group generally adopting wholesale all views of their own group and only their own group. It just turns into a tyranny of the majority.
Somehow the United States has started trending towards this exact behavior. This wasn't always the case. While we may have had vice president engage in a duel to the death with a secretary of the treasury, these were personal conflicts. Today people are engaging more in group conflicts. Democracy works when people are willing to work together, not when they view politics as a team sport where the idea is for your side to "win" and the other side to "lose."
Well, Iraq never developed the traditions or culture or whatever the preconditions for a democracy are. One was imposed on them by a neither competent nor determined foreign occupation force.
The US has had that precondition for centuries, so if we were to lose it, it would be a very different case fro Iraq, who never had it.
I think the factor behind increased polarisation in the US and across the democratic world probably is this thing right here. The internet! People are now increasingly getting their news and information, and thereby their world view from "social media", not the traditional mass media of the last 2-3 centuries.
It's a huge sea change, and we're only seeing the beginning of it. So far it't looking kinda scary, but things will keep changing quickly, and I think we'll sort things out. We better :)
How about limiting political control of people, so corporations won’t try to control politics so much? Since so far “limiting corporate control of politics” looks more like gatekeeping: allowing some corporations to control while denying others.
The 2016 election? Both the Democratic front-runner and the nearest also-ran not only had campaign finance reform prominently in their platforms (each with a full page devoted to the issue on their websites) but also brought it up during the debates.
The primary aim of the new democratic house is to continue in the same way under the same leadership as they have for the last 30 years. They're a conservative party who mainly want the same things as Republicans, but have somehow managed to bamboozle a whole new generation into thinking they're the party of civil rights, egalitarianism, labor, etc. They're about as interested in campaign and election reform as the Republicans.
I think the focus on extremely divisive issues like abortion, lgbt, climate change, etc... has brought the two parties more into line on most other issues, to the delight of many low key interest groups.
Note how the people that get blamed in these cases don't have much power to begin with, whereas topics involving economical inequality (and money in politics) put the blame on them. If you're a rich and powerful individual or company, it's a lot more convenient to focus on something like LGBT rights (where the blame can be put on poor/rural/uneducated folks) rather than taxes and political lobbying (where the blame would end up on bankers and large corporations).
Those are important issues for progressives. The right and middle share common most important issues: jobs, border, security. Progressives make up only about 8% of the population, and they're overwhelmingly white and wealthy. Here's a video discussing the relevant study.
I read the study, it's very good. The video not so much, and your summary here is misleading and wrong and not very representative of the study I just read.
First, the study specifically avoided self identification and labeling. They clustered people based on their answers to core belief questions. From which they found 7 key clusters. One of those the study labeled Progressive Activists. But that's a label put on after the fact. So it doesn't mean 8% of the population identify as progressive activist. Just that from the study, there's 8% of the population with very similar core beliefs.
Then the study demonstrates that self labels like being left, right, middle, conservative, Democrat, Republican, etc, are bad predictors of shared common issues.
Only 3 out of the 7 groups cared most about jobs, and only one group, the smallest one, cared most about immigration.
The groups the study labeled liberals make up 26%, and the ones labeled conservative 25%. But again, that's the labels the study gave people based on their answers.
Also, the wealthiest and withest cluster identified of them all is the Devoted Conservative.
Finally, the whole point of the study is that appart from the wings of progressist activist (composed of young professionals mostly), and from the traditional (old, white middle class mostly) and devoted conservatives (old, white and wealthiest mostly), all other groups are much more willing to compromise and have varying beliefs depending on the situation, and are most bothered by the wings polarizing the country. Thus when you look at the silent majority, they are much more diversified in opinions.
Because if you put the elimination of marriage and gender equality on the table, nobody's going to believe you're remotely interested in fixing inequality.
The government is literally shut down at the moment over a purely partisan divide, and you're trying to make a "they're all the same" point? Seriously?
They’re quibbling over basically nothing, making a purely us vs them grandstand. It’s about $1.3B vs $5B in border security funding. Yeah I think a wall is dumb, not least because I’m not sure which side of the rio grande they plan to put it on. This is a new point of contention though, I’m not sure prior to Trump Democrats and Republicans disagreed a whole lot on immigration or border security at all. How much mileage of fencing did the Obama administration put in? In 2011 he declared it “basically complete.” They found a difference the public cares about right now and seized on it for all they’re worth.
This reminds me of the futurama episode with the clones running for president: A: “your 10c titanium tax goes too far” B: “well I say your 10c titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough!”
Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the guidelines so often that we've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
If either party would start concentrating on free speech issues, they'd have my attention.
But these days, once you get past the five-second sound bites and the rhetoric, there is very little difference between what Republicans and Democrats actually do.
This is correct; the options in the US as of the last election cycle are center-right and far-right. A Sanders type party would be left or probably more accurately center-left. That’s not a value judgement (you’re not a bad person for picking one or the other) just an assessment relative to world politics.
Obama was a pretty center-right politician, and Hillary would have been also. He didn’t support socialized medicine, didn’t support socialized education, didn’t push for a $15 minimum wage, didn’t really bolster unions — though didn’t try and demolish them either — and didn’t really tax the wealthy. He was also fairly supportive of the surveillance state. To his credit he did a lot of good work bolstering environmental regulations and pushing forward climate science. I’m a leftist by Canadian standards and I liked and respected Obama and I can confirm he was no leftist.
The rest of the western world sees the death penalty as morally wrong and more similar to murder than justice. By their standards you are essentially saying "The government has only murdered a few people recently".
More accurately would be the government murdered nobody recently. Sure they have in the past but California hasn't actually executed anyone in 12 years (13 in a few days). Also while California has the death penalty, it is fairly reserved in what can earn it: Repeatedly convicted first degree murder with a number of conditions, treason, intentionally derailing a train resulting in deaths, perjury resulting in someone else receiving the death penalty, or fatal assault as an escaped convict already in for life. With the exception of possibly treason, all of those seem like mostly reasonable conditions if a state had to have a death penalty.
From what I can find that bit was added in the 1870s to help curtail train robbers who were using more aggressive and destructive means to acquire their loot.
It was just an broad extension of private health insurance. In fact it was very heavily based on a similar system implemented in Massachsets by, er, Republicans under Mitt Romney. That’s why Obama though he could get it through. The only reason the republicans fought it at the national level was because Obama.
In fact until they turned on it for political strategy reasons it was quite popular with Republican representatives and saw extensive bipartisan review and amendment. The Republican narrative that it was pushed through without them having a say is flat out false.
As a UK conservative I’ve had it up to my teeth with the US Republican Party. It seems like all they’ve got left is reactionaryism and nationalism. They’re now even dismantling trade deals largely built by free trade republicans, and can’t even support their own policies as soon as anyone else supports them too. They’re totally dysfunctional.
I’m a big believer that any political party that has power for too long becomes corrupt. Success attracts mouthpiece politicians that parrrot the party line because it’s successful, without thinking through and living the basic principles. I’ve seen it happen to the Conservative party. I voted con in 1997 but we deserved that defeat. It happened to labour under Blair and Brown. The US republicans have had the same disease since the Bush eras and just can’t shake it. The fact the democrats have occupied the centre right had forced republicanism into a reactionary corner. As a conservative myself it horrible to watch. They’ve become a twisted parody of the party I once loved under Reagan.
Usually, the definition includes the government determining what (basic) insurance covers and what price the insurers pay to the hospitals. Those two things are missing in ACA/Obamacare.
For example in The Netherlands, the government defines a extensive healthcare package that every insurer must provide to everyone, insurers must accept everyone for and all their clients must pay the same price, and they also determine what hospitals can charge for certain procedures. "Add-ons" like sport-related Physical Therapy are mostly unregulated.
That's far more far-reaching than Obamacare, which allows age-based price discrimination, only mandates coverage of 10 categories and does not regulate hospital pricing.
Yes. But tariffs and protectionism are historically center stones of the left. So it’s a mixed bag. A normal leftist party would support tariffs strongly according to historical precedence. We live in strange times though.
But protecting local workers from competing with low cost Chinese workers and illegal migrants are very left wing policies, probably the most left wing policies enacted by any president in decades.
I wouldn't call increasing military spending left or right, just about every corner of the political spectrum has done this at some point, most notably the Soviet Union.
Protectionism is not specifically a left or right wing policy. There are right wing and left wing reasons to support protectionism. But the left traditionally has been opposed to protectionism because it was seen as way for farmers and other industries to make workers pay too much for their food and other goods.
As far as restricting all immigration, that's very far right.
Business friendly? I am not so sure. Maybe "large/existing business friendly"? After all, the private sector spends a lot of money on pressuring government to maintain existing monopolies/status quos, and the government is happy to oblige.
What you described is exactly one form of 'business-friendly'. Unfortunately, it is logical. Big business brings big investment and hold a lot of employment under its umbrella. Small businesses might, on aggregated level, provided more jobs or tax revenue, but they don't have a single voice to represent their interests.
So I guess you are right, it is truly 'big-business-friendly', whether that is good or bad, I don't know.
Business friendly often means giving big businesses tax breaks, which means that the government is seeing less of these big investements. May, instead, the lobbying power that big businesses can afford, have something to do with their power? I'll give you the employment argument, though.
Hollywood talent (some of them) may be left-wing, but the corporations that hire them are corporations that care far more about lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and access to American law enforcement assets: all rather right-wing goals. If you want to go after megaupload, or prevent a new internet-related tax, you want to back right-wing parties. So don't assume that any corporation with hollywood links will automatically share left-wing opinions. Their employees, movie stars, might. But in the end, financial motivations trump all.
There is also a huge right-wing movement among celebrities. Ignoring one particular rap artist, many of the older and more successful actors are right-wing icons. From Clint Eastwood and Kelsey Grammer to Mel Gibson, once you are sitting on a pile of money one's opinions tend to shift right. The biggest and most successful media organization at the moment is FOX, and the biggest television stars are the fox presenters. IIRC Judge Judy remains the highest paid TV presenter/host.
And Regan. And Trump. Both hollywood personalities.
Idk. If the corporations cared so much they would be pushing a conservative message down our throats all day and trying to get more of their people elected in government
If they wanted “lower taxes” to be the biggest issues they have all the power to make it happen.
The only reason conservative groups do so well is because they are the exception to the majority left-leaning entertainment industry. Conservative thought is highly concentrated to a few sources (in the mainstream)
Idk. If the corporations cared so much they would be pushing a conservative message down our throats all day and trying to get more of their people elected in government
This is literally what happens every day in 2019 America. I invite you to spend five minutes learning about the American Legislative Exchange Council, how ALEC writes state-level legislation, the Republican project "REDMAP", and how they all fit together.
Copyright and intellectual property are entirely state constructs. Media companies and IP trolls (to whatever degree you can separate the two) definitely do not want deregulation in this regard.
> Copyright and intellectual property are entirely state constructs.
Copyright and patent laws are enacted by Congress, and are explicitly an optional legislative power given to Congress by the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). The two main types of "intellectual property" are explicitly something that Congress has power to legislate.
Congress has also legislated additional forms of "intellectual property": copyright is codified in 17 U.S.C. (Copyright Act), patents in 35 U.S.C., trademarks in 15 U.S.C. 1051-1141 (Lanham Act), and trade secrets in 18 U.S.C. 1839. So all of the substantive forms of "intellectual property" are federal law, and thus aren't state constructs.
EDIT: Ah, if you meant "state" as in "government" then yes you're correct.
I am afraid you are mistaken about Hollywood. Powerful Weinstein, until the downfall, was a massive contributor to Democrats. Most of the top agencies are led by people who donate millions to almost exclusively Democrat candidates. Wrong or right, it’s indisputable that Hollywood industries are overwhelmingly left or left leaning. For every Clint Eastwood, I can give you 25 Stephen Spielbergs.
Just because they make tens of millions of dollars doesn't mean that they're the ones holding the pursue strings. For every 10,000 Spielbergs, Eastwoods, and Weinstein's there is one Les Moonves type who actually calls all the shots. The employees are overwhelmingly liberal. The employers, not so much.
Besides, most actors/directors/producers dont make nearly enough money to have the impact of a Koch or Mercer.
Being pro democrat is not being left at all. It’s being center right. The left since Carter has pushed forth far right neoliberal economic policy. Bill Clinton is universally known for his right wing policy. Obama literally bailed out the banks rather then the people with mortgages. Obama could have easily bought up the bad debts from the bank at a discount and allowed people to restructure their mortgages with 4.7 trillion dollars. Instead he gave it to the banks, allowed everyone to lose their house and be bought up by predators like Blackstone Realty.
The TARP program was 800 billion dollars, not in the trillions. Not sure where you are getting the 4.7 trillion figure from.
The problem wasn't really the bad debt. The problem was one of confidence, and putting the money into the banks restored that confidence.
As repugnant as it seemed, and still seems, to give that money to the bankers that created the problems, it was likely the right move at the time. We'll never really know since we can't go back and try the other way, but things were grinding to a halt, and putting money in people's hands was it going to move things quickly enough.
4.7t is probably in reference to QE, which in part was used by the central Bank to purchase mortgage backed securities, the rest spent to supress bond yeilds. Banks ostensibly offloaded their poor performing mbs's onto the average citizen who earns and spends in USD. When the central Bank decides to invent trillions to support poorly managed debt obligations it is debasing the value of your earnings potential. The act should be vigourusly debated and the method by which the funds are dispursed should be scrutinized heavily.
>The problem wasn't really the bad debt.
No, it was a problem of bad debt, poorly managed securities specifically MBS lead to a Ponzi like situation that should have been allowed to wind down instead of propped up. Lenders should have bit the bullet and lessons should have been learned. The political fallout from the decision to put off the the inevitable are only starting to become manifest in current politics.
I live in Canada where atypical interest rates as a result of lockstep CB policy with the US has completely distorted our real estate market. The result is going to be a lost generation that lives at home for a decade longer than their parents. This is all the result of fiscal policy trying to hold up the remains of the 2008 crisis instead of raising the problem to ground and starting again with a more humbled outlook. The Piper will be paid, it's just a matter of when, and who will be paying.
They always say they can't get young people to vote. They always complain about losing to their opponents or what not.
Rolling back copyright is not exactly a great rallying cry for a politician. Out of all of the things that most young voters care about, that’s not on the top of their list.
Also unlike American/UK first-past-the-pole voting most(?) of Europe uses a fairer (IMO) approach with multiple representatives from each district meaning more opinions gets heard instead of just two parties like in US.
The pirate party wouldn't stand a chance in the US IMO.
The story is that there is no story. They have no seats, no news, I don't really hear about them at all, good or bad.
People just pirate instead of making a political statement out of it. Sometimes they justify it in terms of how they're broke anyways, or support creators in other ways, or in terms of how ridiculous copyright law has gotten... but none of it really rises to the level of a significant political movement. Maybe it's the usually toothless enforcement, or the general lack of will to sue 5 year olds for millions over singing happy birthday, or just enough settlement NDAs to hide the lawsuits under the rug, but I guess it just isn't seen as much of a political issue.
I suspect it's seen as a theoretical problem more than a practical one. When specific instances of draconian abuse of IP law do rise to being a visible practical problem (company vs company doesn't count), eventually enough political pressure mounts that one of the parties might fix it. But there are "bigger" issues, so it's usually pretty quiet, with neither party having clean enough hands to score any easy points, so they just settle for not kicking any more puppies.
While copyright reform gets little traction, mucking with the ability to pirate will stir up enough of a hornets nest to actually be a political issue (cough Net neutrality cough), which is currently generally "fixed" by the more regulation-happy Democrats than the business-friendly Republicans.
We really only have 2 parties here. Sure, independent parties have held office, but the people in the US really only vote red or blue. Other parties don’t really get national coverage either. When it comes time for presidential debates you’ll only ever see 2 parties represented. No one can take a different option seriously because we’re not really giving a different option ground to stand on.
"Red or blue" is too reductive. Trump and Romney were both "team red" but could not be more different as candidates.
While the US has only two major parties, these parties are unusually flexible and can accomodate major shifts: the Reagan revolution, "third way" Bill Clinton, Trump... The intra-group conflicts do get played out in the primaries.
Hollywood and associated content creation/monetization businesses are historically strongly aligned with the Democrats - though I agree with your ideal, it is not likely that the party will bite the hand that feeds it.
Something something about biting the hand that feeds you. Not a critique against the left, more like the system as a whole seems more and more about pandering to special interests and corporations.
> this is exactly what the 'left' wing political parties should be doing about now
I could imagine someone like Trump, but smarter, doing it. Big tech and big content are aligned with the Democrats. So why should the Republicans care about pissing them off?
On the other hand, perhaps it provides an opportunity for people to learn what the terms actually mean. (It took a Canadian to help me realize just how confused we Americans are on this topic.)
This claim crops up a lot, but the counting only seems to work out if we either put a finger on the scale for European standards, or perhaps if we count nominal communism in its traditional place on the far left.
Which parts of the global south do you find comparatively left-leaning?
By comparison, the majority of the other top ten most populous countries in the world are notoriously right of typical Western. (A crude measure, granted.)
"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left."
...
"Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives"."
...
"The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs"
...
"The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable."
...
"The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the Right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the Left). During the 19th century, the cleavage was between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the Right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the Left"
...
"The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States, but as on the global level there is no firm consensus about their meaning."
...
"Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world"
...
"In 2006, British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the main cleavage in politics as not left versus right, but open versus closed.[54] In this model, attitudes towards social issues and globalism are more important than the conventional economic left–right issues: "open" voters tend to be socially liberal, multicultural and in favour of globalism, while "closed" voters are culturally conservative, opposed to immigration and in favour of protectionism. This model has seen increased support following the rise of populist and centrist parties in the 2010s."
if only left didn't have enough people calling 'em communists. I'm all for rolling back copyright extensions waaay back, but politically this will draw a giant target on your forehead, and aiming assist powered by Disney's billions.
From other hand, deep frustration with such situation leads to the populism we see around us.
Sad that you got down-voted, because you're 100% correct on this point. "Left wing" and "right wing" are totally meaningless terms in modern times. Neither describes any consistent, principled ideology, but rather they each just refer to a cribbed together hodgepodge of different ideas, loosely related at best, and contradictory at worst.
Mostly "left wing" and "right wing" exist now just to serve as pejoratives to refer to people in "the other camp" relative to whichever label an individual has chosen to identify with.
A simple one-dimensional model like "left <-> right" cannot adequately represent the varieties of political thought in existence.
I don't think they are completely meaningless: Wikipedia manages to give a definition. However, I think they are often misused, misunderstood, and not very useful in practice.
OK, to be fair, maybe I should have said "almost totally meaningless". But I still contend that they are terms that convey very little intrinsic meaning, and have become pejoratives more than anything else.
I agree 100%. Political terms of today only serve a purpose of saying "them, not me", often with disrespectful connotation.
I believe the same with the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative', and I've been interested in writing a blog to explain myself. Essentially, everyone is both liberal and conservative. Every day we make decisions that stereotypically fit both of these labels, yet we entirely ignore it.
If a "conservative" is someone who conserves product and tradition and resists change, then wouldn't a a hippy protecting a forest from bulldozing be a conservative? Portland OR is going through growing pains right now because the locals (majority self proclaim as 'liberals') are being kicked out due to high rent. Wouldn't resisting this change be a conservative move?
If an overweight 'conservative' buys a pallet of soda because Walmart has a bulk sale, are they liberal because they're buying a lot, or conservative because they're getting a slight discount thus saving money? If neither political parties (D/R) want to actually reduce our debt, aren't they both 'liberal'?
[Edit: and if defining a person as (l/c) simply means they live a life that's more than half one or the other, then that will beg the question: how do you even begin to quantify this crap? Simply put... You can't. Use better words.]
My point is that these terms don't make as much sense as we like to think they do. We need to start using better and more descriptive terms to describe our politics.
Really you think with all the challenges that the young generation rent faces copyright extension is going to be the key motivator to vote out trump etc?
Nobody would have ever heard of, nor care about Mickey Mouse if it weren’t for that evil Disney corporation. Those corporations often fund and create the very IP you want to copy. If someone creates something, it’s weird that people feel entitled to it.
I think a point to make here is that the creative output of someone is often unrelated to other aspects; I know of many artists online, for instance, who are very skilled but have insane (relative to modern Internet conventions) restrictions, such as that you can't even re-share the picture with credit and a link to the artist.
I also take issue with framing this as entitlement, since copyright only exists due to the idea that content producers are 'entitled' to restriction on what they release to the public. I'd also argue that all members of society should have some entitlement to re-use and re-mix the social product. This isn't such a popular idea in late hyper-commodification, but I think it's an important one nevertheless, just as the creators of the material felt entitled to use society's abstract product (ideas and support) maybe it's right for me to feel entitled to use their abstract product - the idea of Mickey Mouse and Batman.
Well, maybe actually saying they'll fix copyright laws, throw large corporations to the curb and actively fighting to reduce the term to a reasonable length may help with that. Show they're not corporate shills, and do something that younger people may actually support them with.
Is that enough on its own? Hell no, there are tons of things these parties need to do to win trust back. But it would be a great rallying point for them, and get a decent amount of support from internet folks and younger people.