In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.
Well, she didn't say that. She said something closer to "the chances of me quitting and the chances of me running for higher office are about 50/50." That doesn't say electoralism is hopeless, it says that it's frustrating and difficult (and any possible path to socialism will be frustrating and difficult).
Electoralism is hopeless. Dems do not have any kind of ideological project, they are paid opposition. They do not influence opinion or drive narrative like the Republicans, they do not engage in politics. Their ideology is apolitical. And that's the party we have to work with?
It's not happening. Local races, DAs, sure, go hog wild. But at some point a party needs a national strategy that pursues long-term ideological goals. That very idea is anathema to national Democrats.
Mainstream Democrats don't do this, but the left-ish/DSA/Berniecrat wing of the party does.
I don't think "electoralism is hopeless" is accurate or a good message if many elections matter.
National electoralism is hopeless. The media + donor apparatus will crush any kind of left movement. We just saw it happen.
But your right, local electoralism is not hopeless. I was speaking strategically as to an ideological project - in that regard there is no hope.