Meanwhile, Democrats are moving to the right, very obviously because of who showed up to vote. They aren’t searching through internet forums, they are looking at exit polls. So that big threat, take away all the democrats power, resulted in them drifting further from progressive values, as well as, ya know, taking away all their power. So what the fuck was the point?
Personally, I advocate for voting third party rather than abstaining, which provides a quantifiable data point that there are votes to be won on the left.
The widespread protests over Palestine on campuses and elsewhere also help establish that this contingent of voters exists.
The Democrats calculus was that they could win by moving right and picking up moderates and centrists, and so they attempted to “call the bluff” of the left, on the assumption that for all the noise we were making, at the end of the day, we would fall in line behind the lesser evil, as has often happened in the past. The attempt to win over centrists failed, and the assumption that the left was bluffing also fell through.
The party may have an understanding of why they lost, even if they won’t say it because it makes them look bad and admitting it would strengthen the left’s negotiating position. If they genuinely still don’t get it, and aren’t going to, then they obviously aren’t useful as a vehicle to get policy enacted, and we should focus on building an alternative from the ground up, no matter how difficult it may be.
The policies I believe in are not merely “preferences” or things that I think are good ideas. There is a certain minimum set of policies that need to happen. The planet is dying, and the economy is getting worse all the time, the fascists are the only ones offering any sort of “alternative” to the status quo, and so long as that’s true and the status quo is declining, their victory is assured.
The gulf between what has to happen and what politicians tell us is “allowed” to happen is widening further and further. If they refuse to do what’s needed and cannot be pressured to, then they need to be replaced.
Giving fascists four years to fuck shit up is quite a gamble in my opinion. I think Trump would’ve been distanced by most Republicans if he had lost, and the party would eventually move toward courting Latinos and diversity in general like they said they wanted to before Trump took over in 2016.
If it were a mitt romney situation or something I may feel better about a third party vote. We knew, because of Jan 6, that he was a threat to democracy, which of course includes third parties as well. So I’m concerned we won’t ever get to test your theory, and that none of your red lines are going to be respected.
I think Trump would’ve been distanced by most Republicans if he had lost, and the party would eventually move toward courting Latinos and diversity in general like they said they wanted to before Trump took over in 2016.
I completely disagree, and this is a crucial point. Trumpism is here to stay. His success was not a fluke or a one-off, but a product of existing trends and conditions, which are on track to get even worse.
People only like moderate politicians when things are going well. When things are going badly, people want change and they want explanations for why things went wrong. This is doubly true if things are going badly while a moderate figure is in charge.
The “moderate” establishment wing of the Republican party started a decades long war in Afghanistan that was extremely costly, accomplished nothing, and was a national humiliation. At the same time, economic growth (especially as perceived by the average person) has been slowing, due to income inequality and the difficulty of sustaining endless growth in an already developed economy. Bush failed so hard and became so unpopular that Democrats even got a short-lived trifecta in the backlash.
Liberals seem to be still clinging to what was “normal” 20 years ago, when there was bipartisan consensus (at least among politicians) regarding neoliberalism and things like invading Afghanistan. They see Trump’s deviation from that consensus as some kind of massive strategic error, alienating countless Republicans who still believe in that consensus, and the fact that it’s worked is some improbable fluke. That’s why they trotted out Dick Cheney of all people, a guy who is very directly tied to that consensus (and it’s failure), thinking he’d pick up support rather than alienating people. Because they don’t understand how the failure of the wars in the Middle East has changed the political landscape.
Trump provided a simple explanation for that failure that fit in with the right’s preexisting beliefs - the US failed because we had become “too woke,” and the solution was to double down on right-wing beliefs to fix the problems. The left could provide another explanation that’s actually based on reality, but the left has very little voice in politics. Instead, we get, “We failed because we were too woke” vs, “We didn’t really fail.” And people can see the failure (in both foreign and domestic policy), and many will sooner accept a wrong explanation for failure than an outright denial of it.
Obviously, Trump isn’t actually a real alternative or outsider, and this is evidenced by him going right back to starting stupid pointless wars in the Middle East. As he fails and becomes unpopular, it’s likely that his failure will be contextualized within the right-wing beliefs structure. You can look at Tucker Carlson or MTG to see that happening in real time. As long as there isn’t an alternative explanation provided, and as long as conditions continue declining even when the Democrats win, over time more and more people are going to look to the far-right.
That seems a little American-centric to me. Other countries have successfully voted themselves out of fascism. France with Le Pen, Hungary with Orban, I might even count Ukraine and Poroshenko, although that required a war too. We will see about the AfD in Germany and others of course, but Europeans clearly haven’t given up with democracy and still believe that fascism can be kept at bay through coalition building, compromising, and keeping the public informed.
Other countries have successfully voted themselves out of fascism. France with Le Pen, Hungary with Orban, I might even count Ukraine and Poroshenko, although that required a war too
There are left-wing parties in Europe that are able to present alternate explanations and a wider range of policy solutions. To defeat fascism through electoralism requires that, and that has not been permitted within the Democratic party.
There are left leaning blocs within the Democratic party too. The coalition governments that formed as a result of voting against fascists, Magyar, Zelenskyi, Macron, even Merz were all centrists leading a large coalition of pro-democracy politicians.
They have moved to the right every single election since Jimmy Carter, win or lose.
This election did not make a difference in that regard. FFS Bill Clinton’s ENTIRE FUCKING CAMPAIGN AND PRESIDENCY, was bending over backwards sucking off the conservative voting base trying to convince them the ‘southern democrats’ have risen again.
I know you’re not the original replyer, but they were making an argument for how to move the party to the left by not voting, and you’re saying that’s impossible anyways.
I guess I kinda agree with you more, politics is about making the best possible choice, and sometimes that means voting for a conservative when the alternative is fascist. If everything is fucked and there’s no way for the dems to move left like you say, then the only option is to slow down the collapse into fascism. Harm reduction. But I don’t know if I agree things are so hopeless, I believe in pushing socialism 24/7 up until about October of an election year.
Actually I’m not suggesting not voting. I’m suggesting not voting for genocidal fascists because they have a different tie. We have tried your way for LITERALLY OVER A CENTURY. IT DOES NOT WORK.
Meanwhile, Democrats are moving to the right, very obviously because of who showed up to vote. They aren’t searching through internet forums, they are looking at exit polls. So that big threat, take away all the democrats power, resulted in them drifting further from progressive values, as well as, ya know, taking away all their power. So what the fuck was the point?
I just explained this. You’re treating this as if it were a forgone conclusion.
You’re either pretending or just choosing not to understand this concept. It’s really not that difficult.
Ok I’ll remove that part
Personally, I advocate for voting third party rather than abstaining, which provides a quantifiable data point that there are votes to be won on the left.
The widespread protests over Palestine on campuses and elsewhere also help establish that this contingent of voters exists.
The Democrats calculus was that they could win by moving right and picking up moderates and centrists, and so they attempted to “call the bluff” of the left, on the assumption that for all the noise we were making, at the end of the day, we would fall in line behind the lesser evil, as has often happened in the past. The attempt to win over centrists failed, and the assumption that the left was bluffing also fell through.
The party may have an understanding of why they lost, even if they won’t say it because it makes them look bad and admitting it would strengthen the left’s negotiating position. If they genuinely still don’t get it, and aren’t going to, then they obviously aren’t useful as a vehicle to get policy enacted, and we should focus on building an alternative from the ground up, no matter how difficult it may be.
The policies I believe in are not merely “preferences” or things that I think are good ideas. There is a certain minimum set of policies that need to happen. The planet is dying, and the economy is getting worse all the time, the fascists are the only ones offering any sort of “alternative” to the status quo, and so long as that’s true and the status quo is declining, their victory is assured.
The gulf between what has to happen and what politicians tell us is “allowed” to happen is widening further and further. If they refuse to do what’s needed and cannot be pressured to, then they need to be replaced.
Very well stated.
Giving fascists four years to fuck shit up is quite a gamble in my opinion. I think Trump would’ve been distanced by most Republicans if he had lost, and the party would eventually move toward courting Latinos and diversity in general like they said they wanted to before Trump took over in 2016.
If it were a mitt romney situation or something I may feel better about a third party vote. We knew, because of Jan 6, that he was a threat to democracy, which of course includes third parties as well. So I’m concerned we won’t ever get to test your theory, and that none of your red lines are going to be respected.
I completely disagree, and this is a crucial point. Trumpism is here to stay. His success was not a fluke or a one-off, but a product of existing trends and conditions, which are on track to get even worse.
People only like moderate politicians when things are going well. When things are going badly, people want change and they want explanations for why things went wrong. This is doubly true if things are going badly while a moderate figure is in charge.
The “moderate” establishment wing of the Republican party started a decades long war in Afghanistan that was extremely costly, accomplished nothing, and was a national humiliation. At the same time, economic growth (especially as perceived by the average person) has been slowing, due to income inequality and the difficulty of sustaining endless growth in an already developed economy. Bush failed so hard and became so unpopular that Democrats even got a short-lived trifecta in the backlash.
Liberals seem to be still clinging to what was “normal” 20 years ago, when there was bipartisan consensus (at least among politicians) regarding neoliberalism and things like invading Afghanistan. They see Trump’s deviation from that consensus as some kind of massive strategic error, alienating countless Republicans who still believe in that consensus, and the fact that it’s worked is some improbable fluke. That’s why they trotted out Dick Cheney of all people, a guy who is very directly tied to that consensus (and it’s failure), thinking he’d pick up support rather than alienating people. Because they don’t understand how the failure of the wars in the Middle East has changed the political landscape.
Trump provided a simple explanation for that failure that fit in with the right’s preexisting beliefs - the US failed because we had become “too woke,” and the solution was to double down on right-wing beliefs to fix the problems. The left could provide another explanation that’s actually based on reality, but the left has very little voice in politics. Instead, we get, “We failed because we were too woke” vs, “We didn’t really fail.” And people can see the failure (in both foreign and domestic policy), and many will sooner accept a wrong explanation for failure than an outright denial of it.
Obviously, Trump isn’t actually a real alternative or outsider, and this is evidenced by him going right back to starting stupid pointless wars in the Middle East. As he fails and becomes unpopular, it’s likely that his failure will be contextualized within the right-wing beliefs structure. You can look at Tucker Carlson or MTG to see that happening in real time. As long as there isn’t an alternative explanation provided, and as long as conditions continue declining even when the Democrats win, over time more and more people are going to look to the far-right.
That seems a little American-centric to me. Other countries have successfully voted themselves out of fascism. France with Le Pen, Hungary with Orban, I might even count Ukraine and Poroshenko, although that required a war too. We will see about the AfD in Germany and others of course, but Europeans clearly haven’t given up with democracy and still believe that fascism can be kept at bay through coalition building, compromising, and keeping the public informed.
Please tell me this is a bit
There are left-wing parties in Europe that are able to present alternate explanations and a wider range of policy solutions. To defeat fascism through electoralism requires that, and that has not been permitted within the Democratic party.
There are left leaning blocs within the Democratic party too. The coalition governments that formed as a result of voting against fascists, Magyar, Zelenskyi, Macron, even Merz were all centrists leading a large coalition of pro-democracy politicians.
They have moved to the right every single election since Jimmy Carter, win or lose.
This election did not make a difference in that regard. FFS Bill Clinton’s ENTIRE FUCKING CAMPAIGN AND PRESIDENCY, was bending over backwards sucking off the conservative voting base trying to convince them the ‘southern democrats’ have risen again.
I know you’re not the original replyer, but they were making an argument for how to move the party to the left by not voting, and you’re saying that’s impossible anyways.
I guess I kinda agree with you more, politics is about making the best possible choice, and sometimes that means voting for a conservative when the alternative is fascist. If everything is fucked and there’s no way for the dems to move left like you say, then the only option is to slow down the collapse into fascism. Harm reduction. But I don’t know if I agree things are so hopeless, I believe in pushing socialism 24/7 up until about October of an election year.
Your daily reminder that liberals don’t consider Palestinians human
Actually I’m not suggesting not voting. I’m suggesting not voting for genocidal fascists because they have a different tie. We have tried your way for LITERALLY OVER A CENTURY. IT DOES NOT WORK.