I hate this stupid vein of "left-wing" media discourse that pretends like the main thing preventing socialism or whatever is that left-wingers aren't "strategic" enough with the power they have, despite the fact that they have no power.
But as usual, the headline is far worse than the article.
If we on the Left really want to build a popular alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties and the Freedom Caucus, we need to create as much daylight between us and them as possible. Using high-profile leadership fights to draw out the lines of division between us and Democratic leaders is one very appealing tactic for doing so.
Not bad advice, too bad every "left-wing" person in Congress sucks, because they wouldn't have made it there if they didn't.
lol "the left" that totally exists in congress
ah i just realized it's a jacobin article, of course it's like this
I mean, this is a website based on a subreddit about a podcast that talks about electoral politics
Yes. this definitely not belongs to the politics comm since this isn't about politics.
Isn't this game already played by the Democrats under the "designated villain" trope in the forms of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema?
Isn't it done to get us to :vote: harder and funnel more money to the Dems?
Maybe. But the GOP "rebels" didn't really want anything substantial from McCarthy and they don't threaten capitalism in the slightest. On the other hand, the few left-wing Congressmembers playing hardball would get crucified by the mainstream media and by the Dem primary voters. Remember, when a pollster asks a Dem primary voter about good policy, the Dem primary voter will generally be in favor of it - first because they want to look like a good person to the pollster and because they want the Dem party to look good in "Dem primary voters polls" that get published everywhere in mainstream media. But when it comes down to it, they will vote for the Iraq war-supporting neoliberal candidate. And they will do it multiple times in a row!
A lot of Warren voters I've met seemed to think she supported M4A. People really belive that the neoliberals have their back. It's not about looking like a good person, it's about misjudging the neoliberal warmongers.
I hate warren libs with the fury of a thousand suns. Yeah whatever Bernie turned out to be a damp squib and now I'm a tankie, but her absolutely shameless betrayal with that sexism shit was jsut incredible.
idk if this is a vindication of FTV, but I think for the left to make something of this strategy it would have to be tied to some movement demands and it probably wouldn't result in them actually coming to fruition, but it would galvanize the movement. If a major union were to come up with demands for instance it might work.
Forcing the vote on M4A wasn't really a good idea, it wouldn't have done much. But the using their marginal power part absolutely was. What they should have done is oust Pelosi or at least get rid of PAYGO.
lol it was a great idea. detrators at the time said we would be far closer to getting m4a if we didn't. Feels close now, doesn't it? /s
Honestly whether it would've worked or not doesn't really matter to me, we need actual left wing politicianswho are willing to fight the establishment tooth and nail regardless of the odds
Even if they can't win, I don't want to see them go down without a fight
This. Winning is never going to happen, you're goal is voting no is not to fucking decide policy, it is to stand as a constant. If it is useless then why not do it? Unless one still accepts electoralism. Per Luxemburg
In principle – as everyone is familiar with our programme knows – we are against all militarism and protective tariffs. Does it follow from this that our representative in the Reichstag must oppose all debate on bills concerning these matters with an abrupt and blunt no? Absolutely not, for this would be an attitude befitting a small sect and not a great mass party. Our representatives must investigate each individual bill; they must consider the arguments and they must judge and debate on the basis if the existing concrete relationship, of the existing economic and political situations, and not of a lifeless and abstract principle. The result, however, must and will be – if we have assessed correctly the existing relationship and the people’s interest – no. Our solution is: not a man and not a penny for this system! But, given the present social order, there can be no system which would not be this very system. Each time tariffs are increased we say that we see no reason for agreeing to the tariff in the present situation, but for us there can be no situation in which we could reach a different position. Only in this way can our practical struggle become what it must be: the realization of our basic principles in the process of social life and the embodiment of our general principles in practical, everyday action...
The assumption that one can achieve the greatest number of successes by making concessions rests on a complete error. Here, as in all great matters, the most cunning persons are not the most intelligent. Bismarck once told a bourgeois opposition party: ‘You will deprive yourselves of any practical influences if you always and as a matter of course say no.’ The old boy was then, as so often, more intelligent than is Pappenheimer.[A] Indeed, a bourgeois party, that is, a party which says yes to the existing order as a whole, but which will say no to the day-to-day consequences of this order, is a hybrid, an artificial creation, which is neither fish nor flash nor fowl. We who oppose the entire present order see things quite differently. In our no, in our intransigent attitude, lies our whole strength. It is this attitude that earns us the fear and respect of the enemy and the trust and support of the people.
Precisely because we do not yield one inch from our position, we force the government and the bourgeois parties to concede to us the few immediate successes that can be gained. But if we begin to chase after what is ‘possible’ according to the principles of opportunism, unconcerned with our own principles, and by means of statesmanlike barter, then we will soon find ourselves in the same situation as the hunter who has not only failed to stay the deer but has also lost his gun in the process
We do not shudder at the foreign terms, opportunism and the art of the possible, as Heine believes; we shudder only when they are ‘Germanized’ into our party practice. Let them remain foreign words for us. And, if occasion arises, let our comrades shun the role of interpreter.
I think that point that I bolded is the most significant. That NO is a weapon in and of itself
Part of it was explaining why it wouldn't work and who the enemies were. But would the media actually carry those messages even if the Squd said it during the roll call vote for speaker?
Did they have the proportions to oust Pelosi? I was under the impression that they didn't. Getting rid of PAYGO would have been good though.
They had enough to block the speakership vote the way these Republicans did. A marginally better speaker (Barbara Lee maybe) would have been a good demand.
They kept saying “We have no other candidates lined up!” And I was just like “Well pick literally anyone wtf are you doing”
they had enough people to do what the "Freedom Caucus" just did.
Man, you gotta keep a heavy fashionable cane for just such a thing, swagger with it
"This bathrobe and this fifth of whiskey are symbols of the degree of respect this august body deserves Mr Speaker!"
lol the entire "left" in the house voted for hakeem jeffries, who literally set up a PAC to destroy the "squad"
I love that Gen Z saved the dems from being annihilated and their reward is a Hakeem fucking Jeffries, who in the same election cost the Dems NY with his red scare bullshit and has made it very clear that he has complete fucking contempt for everything Millenials and Zoomers value. And all the libs on twitter won't shut up about how great he is.
Not reading the article, but this is something I don't think is true. For the "far-right Trumpists" or what ever you call these hold outs, showing that they are dissatisfied with the party mainstream and are rebels that will stand up to the Republicans is the point. They don't have a positive, coherent agenda they are advancing beyond this grift. For the squad or whoever to do this to force a vote on M4A or something else, it would likely backfire. Because the party could easily give in to it and then, rather than showing who is actually for or against "progressive good thing", like M4A, they could let several non-squad members vote for it and just make sure there are enough votes against it that it has no chance of passing. Then the party can say "look, these socialists are ideological and unrealistic. The Democrats want good things, we just never have quite enough votes/power to get it" and advance the moderate's own rhetoric. Muddying the waters and accomplishing the opposite of what "force the vote" was supposed to be about. It is a stupid strategy if you are advancing an agenda, rather than a grifter that is advancing their own career by showing their dissatisfaction with the mainstream party. And even concessions McCarthy gave were due to Republicans trying to appeal to the most extreme part of their base, were Democrat's base are conditioned to accept that "we are the best possible, the people more progressive than us are helping the Right by being unreasonable".
Yes, it means until we have an organized mass base and some forms of dual power progressive politicians are useless. But I am saying that I thing that the disruption and media ruckus would have the opposite effect. Because of the media's right wing bias and the Democrats messaging (as opposed to the Republican's) is based around "we want good progressive things, but the only real way to attain it is through incremental moderate reform" means that that media backlash will harm left/progressives in a way that it doesn't for the far-right. It wont really be that much of a mask-off moment, because they can even let party mainstreamers vote for it if there is still no hope of it passing. Same Manchin/Lieberman/Sinema type bullshit.
I think the hope was always that ‘progressives’ get targets to challenge in primaries based on the machin/sinemas of the house. Keep in mind the elections are every 2 years for the house, as opposed to 6 for the senate.
There's a huge shit flinging match on twitter right now. All the people who were against force the vote are telling us how the sedition caucus was effectively using their power and "the left" should do that too, the squad is pretending they'd ever actually flex despite never having done so, and the people who were actually advocating for "force the vote" are screaming and pulling their hair out in frustration.
Yeah this is what i see about this, the people who were shitting on Dore then are very loud now.
