It doesn't really need to be said here because I think we're all on the same page, but felons and excons should both have full enfranchisement. On the level of what constitutes a felony, about half of people serving a felony sentence were only convicted for a drug or property crime and were not violent. Regardless of that, the state of capitalism right now drives people to desperation - desperation all the way up to murder or robbery in an attempt to make a living in an increasingly desperate society. None of that should mean stripping people of the right to vote - if we're going to disenfranchise people for the harm they cause, then strip the right to vote from billionaires, landlords and cops before you disenfranchise a homeless person or a drug dealer.
Link to tweet: https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1366824014145064964
convicted for a drug or property crime and were not violent
Arguing for the rights of "non-violent" criminals is a decent talking point, but a bad principle, btw. You steal a wallet with a knife - you're a violent thug facing years in jail. You steal millions with fraud - you're an entrepreneur who succumbed to temptation and will maybe get away with public service. You're a junkie who passes a note to a bank saying you have a knife - you get charged with armed robbery. Not to mention how cops/security commit violent crimes on behalf of the rich.
I think there's value in having it as an easy sell, but I think we can easily go further:
What is a felony isn't absolute, it changes over time with our laws. There are a number of people serving felony sentences (or who have completed felony sentences) for non-violent marijuana offenses, for example, but largely, people today don't think marijuana should be illegal at all -- let alone strip you of your voting rights. And because these people are disenfranchised, they aren't getting a say in this matter, and they are the group most affected by this policy -- they're literally the ones who have had their rights stripped away because of it. And if people largely think marijuana shouldn't be illegal, then if we're being consistent in our moral judgement, we should also be saying that being charged for it is wrong. And if we continue to be consistent, we should conclude that disenfranchising people for it is wrong.
There is only one way to prevent this. End felony disenfranchisement, whether the person is serving a sentence or has already served. Anything less risks people being denied their political participation for wrong reasons.
Personally, I'd go a step further and say "there is no valid reason why any adult citizen should be denied the right to vote", but that is a bit of a hard sell because people might say "well what if someone has severe dementia", and you'd probably have to supplement it with "we shouldn't trust the state to be the arbiter of who does and does not get to vote" which is just a better argument on its own.
I think people mention the non-violent part because they've gotten fed up with discussions getting to a dead end because most people close their minds as soon as the concept of 'violent criminals' enters the discussion. I don't like violent criminals either, but I don't like the 'non-violence' of the millionaire/billionaire class(es) either, nor do I have any understanding for the 'non-crime' of political parties that should've never been voted into power (for instance the 'non-crime' of declaring war or crippling sanctions, or the inevitable war crimes that follow on the heels of wars, or the hushing up or pardoning of war crimes). Unfortunately it's pretty hard getting through to libs unless you can swing them left, and having these discussions with conservatives is a waste of time (as evidenced by the 0-209 Republican vote).
I agree 100%. If we want to disenfranchise people who cause harm, we should start with landlords, billionaires and cops. But it isn't strictly necessary to do that just by how much more numerous workers are and especially if they have some class consciousness.
oh so you think bad people should be allowed to vote?
How you gonna :vote: them out of power when they make it a felony to not lick cops' boots?
Democrats voting against democracy. What a joke of a sentence.
You're going to use an example of how they aren't the same to argue that they are?
Democrats 97-119
Republicans 0-209
That's not the same. Every single House Republican is against bare minimum decency stuff like this. With Democrats, though, you can find a significant chunk who will at least do some decent things, at least occasionally. And some Democrats (Cori Bush, for instance) will go a step farther and actively push a great deal of good things.
"Both sides are the same" is lazy and inaccurate, and decades of third parties have gotten nothing accomplished with that line. The take here is that Republicans are obviously worse, but Democrats are still bad enough that most need to be replaced if we want to fix any of a dozen enormous problems.
“Both sides are the same” is lazy and inaccurate,
Absolutely agree.
and decades of third parties have gotten nothing accomplished with that line.
Slow your roll a bit. 119 Democrats are - at least in this instance - indistinguishable from their GOP peers and indie activists have every reason to point that out. If you're running against Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey or Jim Clyburn in South Carolina, you should absolutely call out their shit-tier conservative politics.
We can point out that a bunch of Democrats are shit without falling back on lazy, inaccurate statements like "both sides are the same."
And we know for a fact that the "both sides are the same" line doesn't work. For decades it's been rolled out by third parties of all political stripes, and not one of them has made an appreciable impact. What has made an impact outside of mainstream politics are movements that criticize one major party but do entryism into it all the same. The DSA isn't telling people both sides are the same; it's telling people that some Democrats are decent but others need to be primaried yesterday. This strategy has produced some success because (many) people can tell the difference between Cori Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and Marjorie Green. They can see that Republicans are totally overrun by ghouls, that even conservative Democrats can sometimes be browbeat into doing something decent, and that an appreciable number of Democrats are actually OK. "Both sides are the same" just sounds absurd when people can see vote totals like the one here.
I think "party leadership is the same" might be closer to the mark.
Bagging on Cori Bush for showing Dem colors, when she's doing legitimately good work, is dumb.
Bagging on Pelosi for enabling Trump and McConnell is absolutely deserved.
Focusing on party leadership is better, but it's still not great. People can just (justifiably) point at Obamacare as a real difference between what party leadership will support.
Maybe something like "party leadership on both sides is afraid to challenge corporate interests."
People can just (justifiably) point at Obamacare as a real difference between what party leadership will support.
Ah yes. The Heritage Foundation proposal that Mitt Romney signed in Massachusetts under Bush. Classic example of a divergence in thought between the two parties.
And didn't John McCain famously vote to defend it during the Trump Administration?
Maybe something like “party leadership on both sides is afraid to challenge corporate interests.”
That's Obamacare in a nutshell. Profits first, provision of health care somewhere far down the line.
All of your criticisms of Obamacare are correct, and I share them, but it also led to millions of people getting healthcare who didn't have it before. Mitt Romney and John McCain are clearly in the minority among Republicans on the issue -- there have been countless challenges to every aspect of Obamacare, and it's been hollowed out by a bunch of Republican states. Hell, look at the votes for and against Obamacare when it passed -- literally zero Republicans voted for it in both the House and Senate.
Think of how libs view Obamacare. The persuadable ones will have some issues with it, but they'll generally view it positively. And if you try to sell them on "both parties are the same" they'll point to the vote totals, the legal challenges, and all the votes to repeal and look at you like you're from Mars. You'll get the same response if you try "the leadership of both parties is the same."
it also led to millions of people getting healthcare who didn’t have it before
So did Bush Jr's Medicare Plan D extension.
Mitt Romney and John McCain are clearly in the minority among Republicans on the issue
They play the same role for the GOP as Sinema and Manchin play for the Dems. They throw cold water over the leadership, every time it starts talking about doing something to undermine Capital. And Obama/Romneycare was, at the end of the day, all about propping up Capital. The private insurance industry needed big subsidies to remain solvent or premiums would continue to spike and millions more people would lose access to private insurance. At a certain point, this would undermine the entrenched industry over the long term.
Hell, look at the votes for and against Obamacare when it passed – literally zero Republicans voted for it in both the House and Senate.
So long as the bill had the votes to pass, Republicans didn't have to sully themselves by breaking ranks.
As soon as Obamacare was in serious threat of repeal, Murkowski and Collins and McCain jumped ship.
As soon as Obamacare was in serious threat of repeal, Murkowski and Collins and McCain jumped ship.
The fact that there was (another) serious attempt to repeal it shows that these politicians are the exception, not the rule.
There's just no way you're going to get an appreciable number of people to look at any of a thousand party-line votes and convince them that the two parties (or even just their leadership) are the same. This isn't even debatable -- it's empirical. We know that approach doesn't work because all sorts of fringe parties have tried it for decades and every single one of them failed. That approach will fail for us, too.
On the other hand, the DSA has been growing and winning elections with an approach of "Republicans are obviously worse, mainstream Democrats are bad enough that we need to force them out, but some Democrats we can work with." There's evidence people will actually buy into that.
The fact that there was (another) serious attempt to repeal it shows that these politicians are the exception, not the rule.
The attempt wasn't serious. Republicans leveraged reactionary sentiment to capture Congress and the WH, then did everything except what they'd promised to do while running for office. You'll notice Mitch's hand-picked Federalist Society judges also aren't racing to repeal Obamacare from the bench.
There’s just no way you’re going to get an appreciable number of people to look at any of a thousand party-line votes and convince them that the two parties (or even just their leadership) are the same.
People don't pay attention to the votes, they pay attention to their personal lives. One of the fictions of modern America is that "my home town is nice and good unlike the scary state full of Other Team people". But as shit like the Texas power grid failure start looking the same as the California power grid failure, or the New York COVID fuckups strongly resemble the Florida COVID fuckups, it does become easier to sell the idea that both parties are staffed by corrupt, incompetent, elitist assholes all running from the same CYA playbooks.
Abbott and Cuomo have far more in common than anyone would care to admit. And if you don't believe me, forget the party-line votes. Look at the donor lists. They're all taking money from the same people.
On the other hand, the DSA has been growing and winning elections
DSA is good and they're doing good works. But they're going to keep coming up against the glass ceiling imposed by the Democratic Party leadership. Eventually, they're going to have to branch off of the Dem Party and run candidates from the outside if they want to take big statewide offices like Governor or Senator.
As soon as Obamacare was in serious threat of repeal
The attempt wasn’t serious.
Which was it?
Abbott and Cuomo have far more in common than anyone would care to admit.
Sure, but "more in common than you'd think" doesn't mean "the same." People are smart enough to pick up on that.
Eventually, they’re going to have to branch off of the Dem Party and run candidates from the outside if they want to take big statewide offices like Governor or Senator.
Maybe, or maybe they'll get enough power within the party that Democratic leadership has to accommodate them.
Which was it?
As soon as the party ostensibly in favor of repeal was in power, you ran into these defectors who made repeal impossible. Thus, repeal was never under serious consideration, any more than a full blown Public Option was on the table for Obamacare.
Sure, but “more in common than you’d think” doesn’t mean “the same.”
No. Cuomo has nipple piercings and a pair of functional legs. He lives in New York. And his greasy accent causes my skin to crawl in a slightly different manner than Abbott's grating drone.
maybe they’ll get enough power within the party that Democratic leadership
Can fuck the DSA just like Blairites fucked Corbyn, sabotaging their own party for a decade rather than risk another FDR.
Vote blue no matter who = any person you vote for will make you depressed
