Who are you talking to? The libs I talk to have a hard time breaking free from "hey, this is the best Democrats can do," and would reject the controlled opposition line out of hand. The apolitical people I know might be more willing to agree with it, but it wouldn't make them politically active (which is the goal, at least in the short term).
And it's not true, or at least not so inarguably true that you can make a clear case for it to people who are highly skeptical. The closest you can get is the fact that many big donors give to both Republicans and Democrats, and (1) most people don't care about that, and (2) there are all sorts of plausible justifications for that which don't amount to "Democrats are controlled opposition."
Mostly working class mexican and black people in my neighborhood. Some white people but they just moved in and I think they're libertarians.
The closest you can get is the fact that many big donors give to both Republicans and Democrats
you're thinking too hard about it. Yes that stuff is true, but you're also right people don't care about that shit (yet). Point out obvious contradictions like the stimulus check stuff first, it's immediate and speaks to the average person since we all need money. You have to walk before you can run. They need to distrust the Democrats plan of action first before flirting with the idea that they are a controlled opposition.
If it's working for the folks you're talking to, absolutely keep at it. I'd just be wary of it "working" in the sense that people agree with it and then do nothing -- the goal isn't just agreement, the goal is motivating people to take political action. One criticism I have of the controlled opposition line is that it can create the impression that everything is so hopelessly rigged it's not worth the effort to try and change it. "Here's what Democrats could be doing; they're just incompetent and unprincipled" seems more likely to feed into action.
They need to distrust the Democrats plan of action first before flirting with the idea that they are a controlled opposition.
If you've gotten them to distrust Democrats you've already won. That person is open to alternatives to mainstream Democrats (or to electoralism in general); there's no need to spend more time and effort going farther, and you don't want to undo the progress you've made by delving into conspiracy-adjacent stuff that isn't on much of a realistic footing.
I’d just be wary of it “working” in the sense that people agree with it and then do nothing
There isn't anything super large right now, but currently there is a group fighting against gentrification of my neighborhood. It's not a vanguard or anything, but people around me are getting nervous they won't be able to afford their houses and business anymore (don't laugh you gotta work with what you have)
there’s no need to spend more time and effort going farther, and you don’t want to undo the progress you’ve made by delving into conspiracy-adjacent stuff that isn’t on much of a realistic footing.
It all depends on what's going on around you my friend. You have to understand who you're talking to and I have to say the exit polling that said minority males were more likely to vote Trump is real. Latinos for Trump is real and too a lesser extent blacks for Trump too. I can't just shit on Democrats and stop there, it doesn't work.
As of right now America is a binary, you are either a democrat or republican. In my experience if you just shit on one party all that happens is they are more likely to vote the other one in. Doing that is a disservice to people who are just looking for answers.
currently there is a group fighting against gentrification of my neighborhood
Good shit.
I can’t just shit on Democrats and stop there, it doesn’t work.
I agree, but jumping from "you can't trust Democrats" to "Democrats are controlled opposition" is still just shitting on Democrats. The way to give people answers is talking about how non-electoral action can address their problems, or talking about how non-mainstream Democrats have policies that are way better than what the Democratic Party as a whole offers.
The way to give people answers is talking about how non-electoral action can address their problems, or talking about how non-mainstream Democrats have policies that are way better than what the Democratic Party as a whole offers.
Everyone I've told this to has been pretty receptive to the idea, especially over the stimulus bills.
The upside is it's true and it's pretty obvious when you point it out.
Who are you talking to? The libs I talk to have a hard time breaking free from "hey, this is the best Democrats can do," and would reject the controlled opposition line out of hand. The apolitical people I know might be more willing to agree with it, but it wouldn't make them politically active (which is the goal, at least in the short term).
And it's not true, or at least not so inarguably true that you can make a clear case for it to people who are highly skeptical. The closest you can get is the fact that many big donors give to both Republicans and Democrats, and (1) most people don't care about that, and (2) there are all sorts of plausible justifications for that which don't amount to "Democrats are controlled opposition."
Mostly working class mexican and black people in my neighborhood. Some white people but they just moved in and I think they're libertarians.
you're thinking too hard about it. Yes that stuff is true, but you're also right people don't care about that shit (yet). Point out obvious contradictions like the stimulus check stuff first, it's immediate and speaks to the average person since we all need money. You have to walk before you can run. They need to distrust the Democrats plan of action first before flirting with the idea that they are a controlled opposition.
If it's working for the folks you're talking to, absolutely keep at it. I'd just be wary of it "working" in the sense that people agree with it and then do nothing -- the goal isn't just agreement, the goal is motivating people to take political action. One criticism I have of the controlled opposition line is that it can create the impression that everything is so hopelessly rigged it's not worth the effort to try and change it. "Here's what Democrats could be doing; they're just incompetent and unprincipled" seems more likely to feed into action.
If you've gotten them to distrust Democrats you've already won. That person is open to alternatives to mainstream Democrats (or to electoralism in general); there's no need to spend more time and effort going farther, and you don't want to undo the progress you've made by delving into conspiracy-adjacent stuff that isn't on much of a realistic footing.
There isn't anything super large right now, but currently there is a group fighting against gentrification of my neighborhood. It's not a vanguard or anything, but people around me are getting nervous they won't be able to afford their houses and business anymore (don't laugh you gotta work with what you have)
It all depends on what's going on around you my friend. You have to understand who you're talking to and I have to say the exit polling that said minority males were more likely to vote Trump is real. Latinos for Trump is real and too a lesser extent blacks for Trump too. I can't just shit on Democrats and stop there, it doesn't work.
As of right now America is a binary, you are either a democrat or republican. In my experience if you just shit on one party all that happens is they are more likely to vote the other one in. Doing that is a disservice to people who are just looking for answers.
Good shit.
I agree, but jumping from "you can't trust Democrats" to "Democrats are controlled opposition" is still just shitting on Democrats. The way to give people answers is talking about how non-electoral action can address their problems, or talking about how non-mainstream Democrats have policies that are way better than what the Democratic Party as a whole offers.
Absolutely 1000% agree.