Don't you think normal people, who're not in to poltics as much as you and I might be, might be outraged if they saw congres vote against medicare for all during a deadly pandemic which made millions of people lose their employer-based healthcare?
And wouldn't you agfree that such acts are important in building the left?
Doesn't the bi-partisan shoot-down of the $2K stimulus... plus the fact that everyone's going to be getting a comically low $600 check after 9 months of waiting accomplish the same thing?
And if people aren't paying attention to the thing which is literally - "here's some money," what makes you think they'll pay attention to the comparitively less-easy-to-understand (but still pretty simple) universal healthcare stuff?
Doesn’t the bi-partisan shoot-down of the $2K stimulus… plus the fact that everyone’s going to be getting a comically low $600 check after 9 months of waiting accomplish the same thing?
Sort of, but not to the same extent, primarily because the left doesn't "own" the $2000 checks: people think it's Trump and some ad hoc coalition.
That being said, even if the left would "own" the issue of the $2000 checks, it still would be worthwile to do #forcethevote, because the fight never stops. We can't show ourselves to be the better side on one issue, and leave it at that. The left needs to fight for the interests of the working class on all the fronts it can, and only in that way will it be able to organise broader sections of the population.
Normal people just elected Joe Biden, who said during the campaign that he'd veto M4A if it came to his desk.
It's a winning issue for the left, but a lot of people who like it in a vacuum aren't single-issue M4A voters. And I think the number of people it would resonate with would be low because (pick one) it's lame duck season, Trump is probably going to do something outrageous a day or two later that will drive it from the news, the news isn't going to give this wall-to-wall coverage anyways, and even people who tune in recognize it has zero chance of going anywhere.
Because their most important concern was getting rid of the "orange mussolini" in the white house. We weren't able to let the election centre around issues, which is what objective should be when engaging in electoralism.
And I think the number of people it would resonate with would be low because (pick one) it’s lame duck season, Trump is probably going to do something outrageous a day or two later that will drive it from the news, the news isn’t going to give this wall-to-wall coverage anyways, and even people who tune in recognize it has zero chance of going anywhere.
There will always be reasons like this. We'll never have perfect circumstances, but millions of people losing healthcare during a pandemic is very close to what I'd describe as being ideal for a vote on medicare for all.
That being said, Chris Hedges has this quote he uses all the time which I think is correct: "I don't fight fascism because I know I'll win, I fight fascism because it's fascism". Such an attitude should be how we approach things. Even if we lose, we should engage in the fight because it is morally just. But it's beside the point I'm making, that this is not just good policy, it's good politics. People want fighters. They hate Congress and Pelosi, they'd love someone who's sticking it to them for whatever reason. Blocking Pelosi from becoming speaker for an issue they like is just extra bonus.
Even if we lose, we should engage in the fight because it is morally just.
This is similar to Mao's "call out liberalism whenever you see it, especially among your friends" line. It's a good principle, but if you take it 100% literally you end up spending a ton of time and energy on losing fights and people stop wanting to work with you. Everyone has met that One True Leftist who starts ideological fights at the drop of a hat, and the electoral equivalent of that is small leftist parties who are ideologically pretty good but who never engage with existing political structures enough to even consistently win seats (much less influence any actual policy).
You have to pick you battles -- fighting at every possible opportunity is not a winning strategy. And the battles you should pick are ones where there's a decent chance of accomplishing something.
You have to pick you battles – fighting at every possible opportunity is not a winning strategy. And the battles you should pick are ones where there’s a decent chance of accomplishing something.
That's completely fair, but I completely disagree that this would be a moment where nothing would be winnable. If a socialist organisation has electing members in to parliament as it's strategy (and I believe that should be part of it's strategy), then it should use those people as megaphones for the ideals of the party and the broader movement. They should use their fame to agitate for social improvements in a way that people think is credible, but that also gives them the impression that their lives will improve. In the US context, I'm convinced that medicare for all is such a "big ask" that's worthwile in the eyes of the people, and also realistic (because so many other countries have it, as opposed to for example socialing all industries, where people won't take you seriously at this moment). If the elected socialists don't use their leverage during a deadly pandemic where millions have lost their health insurance, they're just useless.
If the argument were to be: "I believe your strategy is wrong, and we should be doing X instead", that would be a worthwile discussion, but the only arguments I'm hearing are that it's impossible to achieve medicare for all and it's impossible to popularise the idea of primarying right-wing democrats trough engaging in the process of agressively agitating for medicare for all. That sounds like defeatism, like the people who're making those arguments have already given up on the idea of achieving any political goal at all, and that's a very dangerous idea to let spread in our movement. It's untrue, and it's exactly what our opponents want us to think.
They should use their fame to agitate for social improvements in a way that people think is credible, but that also gives them the impression that their lives will improve.
I'm all for using congressional seats to agitate. They should be constantly talking about M4A and other good policies, and they usually are (although I'm all ears on more/better ways to do this).
But you also mention credibility and giving people the impression that their lives will improve. How does a vote that's sure to fail fit either of these criteria? If you tell someone who's not super involved in politics that progressives want to force a vote they know won't win, that person will call that vote useless grandstanding, and ask you how progressives are different from any other politician who says nice things but doesn't get anything done. I don't see people taking this strategy seriously, and I don't see people connecting it to a material improvement in their lives.
the only arguments I’m hearing are that it’s impossible to achieve medicare for all and it’s impossible to popularise the idea of primarying right-wing democrats trough engaging in the process of agressively agitating for medicare for all
I haven't seen anyone on the left who opposes the strategy of primarying politicians opposed to M4A. That is the alternate strategy here -- win more seats, and make it so that the politicians you don't primary feel an urgency to support M4A lest they get primaried next. Then, when you have the votes to pass the thing, make it happen.
They're tweeting about it, but I don't think that's enough. There's no doubt that AOC was more radical before she was elected. She used the language of a disrupter, now she sounds as someone who's playing the tit-for-that-game inside DC.
But you also mention credibility and giving people the impression that their lives will improve. How does a vote that’s sure to fail fit either of these criteria? If you tell someone who’s not super involved in politics that progressives want to force a vote they know won’t win, that person will call that vote useless grandstanding
It's not certain that such a vote would fail. Given enough public pressure by progressive organisations and the fact that millions of people lost their employer based insurance during a pandemic, it might succeed. That being said, if it does fail, people who're in favor of M4A will lay the blame with politicians who've voted against it, not with the the people who faught to make it a reality.
how progressives are different from any other politician who says nice things but doesn’t get anything done
Ironically, that's the crux of my argument. The difference I'm advocating for (but not seeing, or at least not seeing enough), is that elected socialists should connect with movements outside of congress and use them to put pressure on their collegues. If AOC's millions of followers would be activated to bombard the offices of congresmen- and women before such a vote, that would have an impact.
The fact that I'm not seeing elected socialists use their strongest asset in such a way, is exactly the reason why I fear that over time, when the novelty of their presence in congres has wained off, people will start to see them as just another politician. Engaging in very active struggle is exactle the remedy for such a perception.
I haven’t seen anyone on the left who opposes the strategy of primarying politicians opposed to M4A. (…) and make it so that the politicians you don’t primary feel an urgency to support M4A lest they get primaried next. Then, when you have the votes to pass the thing, make it happen.
That’s exactly what I’m proposing, but #forcethevote is a way of putting pressure on politicians to support it. If you don’t do actions like that, you’ll end up waiting until you’ve primaried every democrat, which isn’t fast enough. The process of primarying as it currently exists isn't going fast enough for that strategy to be effective among all democrats, so we have to escalate the proces trough actions like #forcethevote.
Don't you think normal people, who're not in to poltics as much as you and I might be, might be outraged if they saw congres vote against medicare for all during a deadly pandemic which made millions of people lose their employer-based healthcare?
And wouldn't you agfree that such acts are important in building the left?
Doesn't the bi-partisan shoot-down of the $2K stimulus... plus the fact that everyone's going to be getting a comically low $600 check after 9 months of waiting accomplish the same thing?
And if people aren't paying attention to the thing which is literally - "here's some money," what makes you think they'll pay attention to the comparitively less-easy-to-understand (but still pretty simple) universal healthcare stuff?
Sort of, but not to the same extent, primarily because the left doesn't "own" the $2000 checks: people think it's Trump and some ad hoc coalition.
That being said, even if the left would "own" the issue of the $2000 checks, it still would be worthwile to do #forcethevote, because the fight never stops. We can't show ourselves to be the better side on one issue, and leave it at that. The left needs to fight for the interests of the working class on all the fronts it can, and only in that way will it be able to organise broader sections of the population.
Normal people just elected Joe Biden, who said during the campaign that he'd veto M4A if it came to his desk.
It's a winning issue for the left, but a lot of people who like it in a vacuum aren't single-issue M4A voters. And I think the number of people it would resonate with would be low because (pick one) it's lame duck season, Trump is probably going to do something outrageous a day or two later that will drive it from the news, the news isn't going to give this wall-to-wall coverage anyways, and even people who tune in recognize it has zero chance of going anywhere.
Because their most important concern was getting rid of the "orange mussolini" in the white house. We weren't able to let the election centre around issues, which is what objective should be when engaging in electoralism.
There will always be reasons like this. We'll never have perfect circumstances, but millions of people losing healthcare during a pandemic is very close to what I'd describe as being ideal for a vote on medicare for all.
That being said, Chris Hedges has this quote he uses all the time which I think is correct: "I don't fight fascism because I know I'll win, I fight fascism because it's fascism". Such an attitude should be how we approach things. Even if we lose, we should engage in the fight because it is morally just. But it's beside the point I'm making, that this is not just good policy, it's good politics. People want fighters. They hate Congress and Pelosi, they'd love someone who's sticking it to them for whatever reason. Blocking Pelosi from becoming speaker for an issue they like is just extra bonus.
This is similar to Mao's "call out liberalism whenever you see it, especially among your friends" line. It's a good principle, but if you take it 100% literally you end up spending a ton of time and energy on losing fights and people stop wanting to work with you. Everyone has met that One True Leftist who starts ideological fights at the drop of a hat, and the electoral equivalent of that is small leftist parties who are ideologically pretty good but who never engage with existing political structures enough to even consistently win seats (much less influence any actual policy).
You have to pick you battles -- fighting at every possible opportunity is not a winning strategy. And the battles you should pick are ones where there's a decent chance of accomplishing something.
That's completely fair, but I completely disagree that this would be a moment where nothing would be winnable. If a socialist organisation has electing members in to parliament as it's strategy (and I believe that should be part of it's strategy), then it should use those people as megaphones for the ideals of the party and the broader movement. They should use their fame to agitate for social improvements in a way that people think is credible, but that also gives them the impression that their lives will improve. In the US context, I'm convinced that medicare for all is such a "big ask" that's worthwile in the eyes of the people, and also realistic (because so many other countries have it, as opposed to for example socialing all industries, where people won't take you seriously at this moment). If the elected socialists don't use their leverage during a deadly pandemic where millions have lost their health insurance, they're just useless.
If the argument were to be: "I believe your strategy is wrong, and we should be doing X instead", that would be a worthwile discussion, but the only arguments I'm hearing are that it's impossible to achieve medicare for all and it's impossible to popularise the idea of primarying right-wing democrats trough engaging in the process of agressively agitating for medicare for all. That sounds like defeatism, like the people who're making those arguments have already given up on the idea of achieving any political goal at all, and that's a very dangerous idea to let spread in our movement. It's untrue, and it's exactly what our opponents want us to think.
I'm all for using congressional seats to agitate. They should be constantly talking about M4A and other good policies, and they usually are (although I'm all ears on more/better ways to do this).
But you also mention credibility and giving people the impression that their lives will improve. How does a vote that's sure to fail fit either of these criteria? If you tell someone who's not super involved in politics that progressives want to force a vote they know won't win, that person will call that vote useless grandstanding, and ask you how progressives are different from any other politician who says nice things but doesn't get anything done. I don't see people taking this strategy seriously, and I don't see people connecting it to a material improvement in their lives.
I haven't seen anyone on the left who opposes the strategy of primarying politicians opposed to M4A. That is the alternate strategy here -- win more seats, and make it so that the politicians you don't primary feel an urgency to support M4A lest they get primaried next. Then, when you have the votes to pass the thing, make it happen.
They're tweeting about it, but I don't think that's enough. There's no doubt that AOC was more radical before she was elected. She used the language of a disrupter, now she sounds as someone who's playing the tit-for-that-game inside DC.
It's not certain that such a vote would fail. Given enough public pressure by progressive organisations and the fact that millions of people lost their employer based insurance during a pandemic, it might succeed. That being said, if it does fail, people who're in favor of M4A will lay the blame with politicians who've voted against it, not with the the people who faught to make it a reality.
Ironically, that's the crux of my argument. The difference I'm advocating for (but not seeing, or at least not seeing enough), is that elected socialists should connect with movements outside of congress and use them to put pressure on their collegues. If AOC's millions of followers would be activated to bombard the offices of congresmen- and women before such a vote, that would have an impact. The fact that I'm not seeing elected socialists use their strongest asset in such a way, is exactly the reason why I fear that over time, when the novelty of their presence in congres has wained off, people will start to see them as just another politician. Engaging in very active struggle is exactle the remedy for such a perception.
That’s exactly what I’m proposing, but #forcethevote is a way of putting pressure on politicians to support it. If you don’t do actions like that, you’ll end up waiting until you’ve primaried every democrat, which isn’t fast enough. The process of primarying as it currently exists isn't going fast enough for that strategy to be effective among all democrats, so we have to escalate the proces trough actions like #forcethevote.