Former democratic party activists are organizing Muslims and Arab-Americans in Swing states to vote against Biden with the demand that he support a ceasefire in Gaza.
I'll allow them a little bit of electoralism this time.
Former democratic party activists are organizing Muslims and Arab-Americans in Swing states to vote against Biden with the demand that he support a ceasefire in Gaza.
I'll allow them a little bit of electoralism this time.
Good lord, so the plan is to vote for Trump? The guy who has a pattern of simping for right wing authoritarian fuckheads like Nettanyahu?
Honestly, their efforts would be much better spent trying to get election reform like ranked choice voting up as local election issues in order to break the two party system's kneecaps.
This guy?
holy shit when did we get this?
Did you read the article? They specifically say they won't vote for him and would organize for a candidate that was willing to stand up to US Islamophobia. He's not gonna vote for Trump.
And who exactly is simping for who? At least Donny and Bibi liked each other, Joe is the one pathetically prostrating himself for a guy who openly dislikes him.
Read the fucking article mf
How do you interpret "I have and will never vote for Trump" to be an endorsement of voting for Trump? this is just someone refusing to vote for anyone but a third party unless the democrats put forward a candidate who isn't Genocide Joe or Kamala Harris
Removed by mod
Well if Genocide Joe wants to not throw away the election then he'd better stop supporting the Israeli military in its ethnic cleansing.
Like I cannot believe the level of pure fucking entitlement to claim that a man who's been actively campaigning for the democrats since 2008 is a stupid trump supporter when finally, after 15 years of supporting the democrats under the promise of "the lesser evil" and then watching them repeatedly commit horrific crimes against the Arab world, he says he won't vote for the democrats until they change how they act after the president announced that he proudly endorses the apartheid state of israel while, under his watch, the US is funding an active genocide against the Palestinian people.
To give a sense of scale, the Israeli government has killed 2,360 children in the last 3 weeks in gaza, the Russian government has killed 1,700 in the last 2 years in Ukraine. Biden is endorsing a far right fascistic murderer who's easily outpaced Putin in just a few weeks and you're sitting there pearl clutching that Muslim democrat voters are turned off by Biden when he's been pretty much making it clear that the lives of Muslim children from Gaza are worth less to him than white European children from Ukraine.
And like, the author of the article's not even refusing to vote for the democrats again, not even point blank saying he won't vote for biden again, all he's saying is that either the democrats need a new candidate or Biden needs to change his stance if they want his vote and the vote of many other Arab American democrats who swung the election for Biden back in 2020.
Like this is the textbook purpose of democracy, that if Biden wants to win then he has to oppose fascism, and if he refuses to do that then what the fuck where so many Americans turning up to vote for in 2020?
"Yes Biden may be bathing in the blood of the innocent, but at least he's not Orange Man. This is what the adults in the room do sweaty."
"In North Korea you have to vote for one party, if anything bad happens they blame you and tell you fascism is your fault. This is what they mean by democracy. "
You're asking people to vote for a guy that is actively supporting an oppressive apartheid state in carrying out what may very well turn into a full on genocide.
Does this really not make you pause?
Attn shitlib, this will be news to you but guess what? Neoliberals like Biden are fucking right wing. That's what makes them NEOLIBERALS.
Weird how you choose to endorse them, curious even, while asserting that choosing to support only actually leftist candidates is, somehow, a right wing thing to do.
According to you we have to abandon our principles and support for people whose policies would actually help things and support your right wing candidates or else we're "far right." Either way we'd still have a fucking right wing government!
If voting for someone who is not Trump is by default a vote for Trump, then is voting for Trump equal to 2 votes for Trump?
We're reaching areas of mathematics never dreamed before!
By not voting for Biden you are voting for Trump. But, because of symmetry, by not voting for Trump you are voting for Biden.
Therefore, by not voting for either you are voting for both and committing voter fraud, which is cool and good
did you miss last week where Biden/Dems were "simping for rightwing authoritarian fuckheads like Nettanyahu?"
everyone at any level of politics in the US does that tho
Biden has given Netanyahu and Zelensky countless billions of dollars. Trump would not have done anything differently.
There is no "reform" to be had; the Democrats will never peaceably give up their power over the US and the world as a whole.
Removed by mod
If he sided with Russia would have faced pushback from many directions, and I'm not convinced he would have cared enough to fight them on it
Me when I think I have the right to speak without investigating first
Congratulations on telling the uppity muslims how to best proceed with their struggle
Get fucked lib
Read the article.
Yeah, I fucked up.
Removed by mod
No kidding! When Trump was in charge, we had complete legislative gridlock, a nonfunctional administrative state, kids in cages, accelerating environmental destruction, and support for genocidal dictators. Thank god we've been able to vote him out of office and restore complete legislative gridlock, a nonfunctional administrative state, kids in cages, accelerating environmental destruction, and support for genocidal dictators.
Damn, it sounds like the DNC should try harder in 2024 then.
It’s cool, I fucked up once too. Horrible creature…
Fucking Biden is hugging Netanyahu what the fuck are you ranting about?
"Fight the two party system" "No, not like that"
I'm gonna vote for Trump 5 times with my fake voter ID's Soros gave me.
the plan is not to vote at all.
I'm failing to understand this POV. Even if you think neither outcome is good why wouldn't you do what minimal thing you can to keep the worse option from happening?
The vote is performative.
At this point, you're voting for the window dressing.
Which bill was it where dems legalized gay marriage?
Which bill was it where they protected abortion rights?
Which bill was it where they protected the right to marry other races?
etc.
Basing your record on a few supreme court decisions, which can (and have) get overturned is fatuous.
Aside from taking a slightly less shitty stance on things, you'll find that for the most part, the dems, when they had full government control, did fuck all to enshrine minority rights, provide a living wage, or make steps towards universal healthcare.
I used to think like this, I'm 50 and voted like my life depended on it since '92. All I've seen since then, are conditions getting worse and worse, regardless of who was in office. I bought Obama's schtick and watched as he did half assed measures and frittered a majority away.
And by the way "b-b-but conservative democrats" line has been used as far back as I can remember. If you consistently see members of a party blocking vital legislation over and over and over again. Maybe that shit is performative too.
This country needs a reset.
Shit, is this not actually the law, just another SC ruling?
Loving v Virginia
Look if Genocide Joe wants my vote, he could try doing something to earn it instead of just saying "I'm not Trump".
I can agree Joe is a genocider and still vote for him instead of trump*.
Trump is happy to apply his genocidal ideals to his own countrymen. Biden, less so - mostly directed outward/foreign. If my vote has influence on this matter, even slightly, who am I going to choose?
Moreover, I'm not pretending my vote is some sacred gift I can only give to the most perfect candidate. Rather, I am happy if my trash vote can negate a even more-trash vote.
* I predict being the_dunk_tank material and I accept my fate.
Also I want to say, I am really trying to understand this. even if I say wierd/bad faith/something stuff it's an accident and I want to understand the point of view of "anti electoralism" -- if that's the right term.
I can't. It should be an easy red line to have
Maybe this is what's hard for me to understand about the anti-electoral stance. From what I've gathered in this thread, my vote is simultaneously completely worthless and inffective, yet also the most precious thing I should only give to the most worthy.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how to word this comment to sound less snarky, but I am legitimately interested in your thoughts on this dichotomy. Or if you think this is not a good interpretation of your+other commenter's comments, I'll be happy to be corrected. Thanks.
It's pretty simple, if your vote is for a 'lesser evil' that is a negative choice proposition, hardly worthy of the word 'choice' or 'democracy'. Two bad choices are still two bad choices, even if one is marketed as slightly less bad. The entire Dem strategy for like decades now has been this prisoners dilemma proposition. They never provide federal protection enshrined in law because that would take away the leverage of this strategy. The only way to break out of this pattern is to really threaten it directly by not acquiescing to it like good little liberals. That is why you have cognitive dissonance over this topic. The social pressure of 'lesser evil' is so deeply embedded in the liberal worldview that any questioning of it is adjacent to being a terrible right-winger.
The cultural war divide benefits Dems, so they do everything to perpetuate it instead of reconciling it. You need to comprehend this to have a realistic understanding of US political economy.
I can acknowledge all of that, and understand it intellectually, and still see that a vote can reduce the speed of encroaching facism.
Trump lost Georgia by 11k votes, Bush won Florida by 537 votes -- sometimes meaningful things do happen with relatively tiny margins and if they can be swayed in a preferred direction, I'll take it.
How is this a threat? This is, I think, core to my failure to understand your position. To me that sounds like giving up and giving free rein to continue rolling back abortion rights, lgbtq protections, etc. This sounds completely irrational to me so if I've misunderstood you (or others, or this position in general) I am happy to be corrected on my assumptions. Thanks!
show me where any of this has stopped or slowed under Biden please. that is the issue.
give your vote away to a party that does not fight for these things but only uses them to receive your vote because you have no other option. that is the problem with continuing to vote for them without any real commitments or guarantees that they will do anything material to make things better or even stop the rightward momentum. if you can't understand that, then you should really learn more about political history.
Of course I can't :) unfortunately all I can say is that I believe it would have been (or will be) even worse under a second trump term, or many of the other republicans making a name themselves on the national stage. Lately, Joe sure is making your case a hell of a lot more clear.
I believe I understand this point and why it is important. A few others have pointed it out as well. I think I am drawing different conclusions from it though.
Of course you're right, always room to learn more. And by no means am I claiming advanced knowledge :)
One thing I regret about the way this discussion* has gone, is that the conversation has trended towards presidential and/or national elections. But, I guess it is a common touch point many people have a frame of reference for, and it was easy for me to go along with for that same reason. I wish we talked more about local organizing, alternative parties, and different aspects of election processes such as voting methodologies, primaries, ballot access.
* broadly throughout the entire thread; not specifically between you and I.
worth a read: https://mronline.org/2020/09/12/the-insidious-workings-of-the-political-ratchet/
once you understand the ratchet, it becomes more difficult to support the Dems that foreclose any real leftward movement in US politics in favor of centrist triangulation that moves the discourse further rightward
The USA is not a victim of encroaching fascism. The USA was fascist before it was even founded. Everything you can be that is "fascistic" was done by white European settler colonists before the Third Reich did it. Gas chambers, concentration camps, eugenics, wars of extermination, etc.
The Democrats aren't against this stuff. Ruth Bader Ginsberg relied on and reinforced the reliance on the Doctrine of Discovery for the legal basis of the USA. The Doctrine of Discovery is part and parcel of the religious decrees that demanded European settlers murder, rape, enslave, and break every non-European they came across.
The USA is the reservoir of fascism. In Mein Kampf, Hitler explicitly details how the program of the USA was what he wanted to emulate and apply to the Slavs. His entire leadership team studied the USA to base their program on it, everything from apartheid to propaganda.
The USA ruling class supported the ride of fascism in both Italy and Germany. When the USA finally entered the war it wasn't to end fascism it was to stop the growth of communism. The USA collaborated with the Vatican to bring Nazis to safety all over the US sphere of influence. They created NATO and staffed it with Nazis. They worked with NATO through Operation Gladio to reinforce and support Nazi partisans all throughout Europe.
Every time a vote comes up in the UN to condemn the glorification of Nazis, the USA votes against it.
Fascism is a Euro-settler phenomenon. It predates the US. It was perfected in the US. It emerged in Europe from the reservoir of the US. It returned back to the US when it failed to defeat communism. The US maintained it the entire time.
The idea that fascism is encroaching is a lie. It's always been here. The only solution is revolution.
I think of it like this. In an ideal society (or at least vaguely functional political system), your vote would and should be precious. Yet in our shithole nation, this precious thing of yours is forced to be given to one of two genocidal evils.
is the face of a party who pretends like they'll take your vote and do something useful. Stand up for minorities, do something about climate change, maybe reduce the mass social murder in this country, or just do fucking anything at all. Yet time and again, they only make things worse. If your vote is precious and should only be given to the most worthy, why give it to a racist, senile, sex offending, warhawk?
And we all know that to vote for anyone other than the two candidates is a useless gesture, accomplishing nothing. So in practical terms, voting in this nation is voting for one of
this guy's two masks. Why fucking bother?
Edit to add-
Why? Why the shitting fuck would you decide "This genocider is deserving of my vote". That is a physical manifestation of your thought that this man should lead our country. You're not just passively thinking it, you're taking an active step to make sure that happens. If a daycare was trying to choose between John Wayne Gacy or Albert Fisch to be its director, it would be fucking insane to give it serious thought and then vote on one of them. You should demand to know why this is the choice in the first place, and not shrug and vote for one of them like a browbeaten little b----
Thanks for the emoji, I was starting to think I was doing something wrong if no hexbear folk would use emoji with me
The short answer is, one of the masks is attacking lgtbq and women's rights domestically, and the other isn't. I understand that their complicity- doing nothing to stop this or actually enact protections - is also part of your point.
I'm not well-versed in the specific meanings of your emoji, but I take
holden-bloodfeastthere to be an old dying capitalist whose bank account can never be sated no matter the cost. I don't think that type gives a shit about lgbtq issues one way or another. R's do it for culture war bullshit, and holding on to their christian voters. But it is possible for them to simply stop pursuing those goals and keep their voters, and its not like the D's will suddenly "step up" as the other mask of Mr Holden to start oppressing these groups. As long as the almighty economy keeps going and his bank account grows it doesn't matter one way or another to his kind. So when it comes to voting for one mask or the other, if one is going to win anyway, why not nudge things towards the one that is more humane, even if its just a drop in the bucket?Isn't part of your point that it will happen no matter what? If its going to happen, regardless of my vote, is it really an active step? This sounds like I'm being purposefully obtuse, but I'm not trying to be. I think maybe we're just going in circles.
Anyway, to address your addendum differently-- lately it seems on any given election cycle it's the last gasp of hope that we can keep a semi-functioning democracy. Other activities happen before that, in which I am not taking active steps to elect a ghoul (or sometimes we can even take active steps towards a non-ghoul!).
In that aspect, I think your serial killer daycare analogy is a bit weak, in that there are many more steps to electing someone to office than there are to hiring someone for a daycare; and the processes in place whittle the electoral field down to a very small group which would not be the case for hiring someone for daycare. When it comes to US electoral process, I understand it well enough to see how we got to that point, and recognize that even if the outcome is horrible I should use my tiny bit of influence to nudge us towards the less-successful serial killer. (err... tried to go back to the analogy, didn't work so well. leaving it in lmao)
Like I said, materially supporting genocide is a red line. The GOP is working to strip rights and protections from women and LGBT populations. Yeah, the Dems aren't actively participating. They are doing sweet fuck-all about it though. Their inaction on minority protections does not justify their culpability in genocide. Not to mention how many times the Dems have refused to codify such protections into law when they had the chance. They know for a fact that they're allowing the GOP to get away with their shit once the GOP is elected, and they just don't care. This lack of active attack means that people such as yourself can see them and say "well at least they're not the ones actively hurting me" and still ensure that nothing is actually done. The "attack - standback" cycle is endless, and each party benefits from not actually helping these minorities. It's like I was saying earlier, the Dems will absorb votes from people who think they'll help. And they'll never help. They don't want to. If you care about women and gay people, why vote for a party that willingly participates in that disgusting cycle?
Yes. You are taking the time out of your day to expend energy and thought into marking your ballot and getting it filed. In some states, a substantial part of your day. That is actively deciding to use your limited impact on this system to vote for the genocide guy.
Don't be a nerd about this. Of course there are more steps. It doesn't change the choice's similarities.
Anyway, other people smarter than I am seem to have a lot more energy for the Q&A session so I'm tapping out. My point was and is that Dem's "pretending to give a fuck" act about minority protections does not excuse them from participating in genocide. The fact that we're at this point shows that democracy has blatantly failed. Good luck with your inquiries
I'm sure people like me can be draining sometimes. I hope I haven't been too egregious in that regard. Thank you for your time and patience, & enjoy your day!
That's relatively straightforward. Elections are a distraction, they redirect energy into a form the political order can digest without changing. The more you invest in them the less you are putting into alternatives that are more useful. Vote, if you want, it might do marginal good in an infinitesimal scale, but agonizing over voting is playing into a system that exists to funnel all your energy into itself.
I guess this is where I'm lost. They mail me ballots, I fill them out and mail them back. It's almost the least I can do. If every person opposed to fascism did the same, I believe fascism's encroachment would be slowed.
I don't know what you mean. Democrats keep winning by the numbers. Fascism is still encroaching. It's been encroaching my entire life, and Republicans have won the popular vote once in that time. People do vote. And this still happens.
I'm not telling you not to, I keep saying it's fine to do if you feel like it. So is watching a movie or getting a snack at 3 in the morning. You do you. But don't act like it's fixing anything. It clearly isn't. That's why you get to keep doing it.
I'm not sure I understand your point. The way the popular vote influences the result is a travesty. But that doesn't mean that voting (or not) in a way that encourages anti-suffrage is better. There's no way things will improve by walking away - that just hands control to fascism faster.
By that same token, if it doesn't do anything then why are some states working to expand voting and ease-of-voting versus some that are trying to restrict it in various ways? There's a clear party divide on this topic in the US and one side is more fascist than the other.
Oh I see, yes I should clarify. Democrats keep literally winning elections, in addition to sometimes not winning them. Regardless of the result fascism gets no further away.
Let's not forget Obama, drone striking American citizens and their children without trial or warrant. Or all the money and weapons he gave the Saudis and Israelis to continue the project of violent extermination they were both embarked on. Or the way he aggressively pursued whistleblowers like Manning and Assange who tried to warn the public about the things the government was doing. Nobody forced him to do those things, he did them voluntarily.
Let's not forget that he rode into power in control of the entire government, both houses of congress, the Court and the executive, and did nothing to enshrine any protection against the reactionaries that he ostensibly dislikes. Why didn't they codify abortion protections into law? Or take steps to secure voting rights, if those are so important? Why did they piss away their control of, again, ALL of the government? For what, Obamacare?
Why is Joe building the wall for Trump, overturning regulations that protect sacred indigenous sites and wildlife to do so? Why the fuck are the cages still there? Why are we flying Venezuelans back to a country that our country's policies have turned into a humanitarian disaster?
I cannot reiterate enough how much it's totally fine if you feel like voting for these people. Do it, if you want, you'll contribute in an imperceptible way to the total vote count at the end, and that might be satisfying for you or, as I've acknowledged a few times, it might even mean some marginal benefit happens sometimes. I mean, not literally, your vote still doesn't matter, whether you did or not would not have made the difference. But sometimes an okay thing might happen.
I think it's fine to do that. I think if you want things to change you should look at historically what sorts of things actually had to happen to defeat reactionaries. It's basically never voting.
(Well I wrote out a whole thing but then the lemmy web UI disappeared it somehow 🤦 ... I'll try to rewrite some variation of it)
I understand and agree with your assessment of the dems, but to me this is exactly why the "lesser evil" argument sways me. Republicans would be doing all the same things, and worse - e.g., "don't say gay" bills and other anti-lgbtq policies, rolling back abortion access, etc. Are dems wrong for not protecting those things when they had the chance? Yes -- But Reps are the ones actually doing it.
From my casual bystander reading of hexbear/lemmygrad content over the past few months, "totally fine if you feel like voting" was not a part of my understanding of the anti-electoralism sentiment I've read. My impression was more "that's dumb, you're dumb, anyone who votes is dumb" and no one with a conscience should vote. Which, to me, seems like simply handing over the keys to drive us off a cliff.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to write everything you have, and trying to help me understand. Cheers
That should be true. Its totally sound reasoning. Except the system in the US is designed to frustrate popular will and facilitate minority rule. Individuals simply voting their conscious will never solve anything within this system.
Liberal democracy and the spectacle of the election, is a perfect vehicle for the rise of fascism, but it actively hinders what is needed to stop it
Even if it's designed to "frustrate popular will", isn't not voting frustrating that will even further? That just seems to be playing into their hands.
To me, the question is accentuated further when considering those people who willingly give up their suffrage which many others fought and died for. And further with the sentiment of "If voting didn't do anything, they wouldn't try to stop certain people from doing it".
I can't shake any of that when the barrier is so low and the stakes can (occasionally) be so high.
No. And that's not even what I'm saying. I'm saying individuals voting individually is pointless. Voting can only really matter as a collective action as part of an organized group or movement. In short, exactly what the people in the article are doing. Organizing to withhold votes in key districts unless demands are met is far more powerful and a better expression of democracy then what you're talking about.
This is just lib shit. You're not really engaging with what any of us are bringing up, especially if you think these silly clichés are worth mentioning. I'm sorry for being harsh, but i feel the need to be direct here
No one is saying its hard to vote or cares if you or anyone does it. The larger point people here are making is that the spectacle of electoral politics and the illusion that individuals can engage in this low effort behavior and actually effect any meaningful change is a distraction that steals energy form organization and movement building which is the only way to effect change, and the only way that any political action, even electoralism, can accomplish anything.
Certainly last night with my first few rounds of comments, it was hard(er) to do so since I was a little drunk which is what got me posting in the first place. I don't mean that as an excuse, just by way of explanation.
I want to engage and I am trying to understand your (and others') perspective on this topic. I acknowledge that I am not as educated on the general topic and certainly not on the specific aspects that you and others have raised. I apologize for making my lack of education other people's problem -- though I am thankful everyone has been patient and generous with their time.
Despite my intoxication, I knew what I was getting into. And I appreciate your honesty and taking the time to try to help me understand.
Thanks for emphasizing this point, which I did not grasp at all yesterday. After continuing the discussion today and reading what you and other have written, I feel have a better handle on it and understand this point of view better.
Totally fair, that makes a lot of sense. Yeah i wanted to be direct but i don't really want to be harsh, since i think you're asking genuine questions.
I'd also say like others have, that it's fine if you vote. Some of us vote, and under certain circumstances some who generally don't would, especially locally.
But we're mostly communists here, so we reject capitalism and liberal democracy, and through historical example know that you can't use liberal democracy to stop the oppression of the ruling class that controls liberal democracy. They won't let their power be voted away, so that's why we have the general attitude we do toward voting especially in national elections in the US.
Anyway, thanks for asking genuine questions. We can be a rough bunch, but we don't have a problem explaining ourselves to people who genuinely want to understand. No one is born a communist and we were all ignorant of the things we know now at one time.
You should be embarassed to have written this. Withholding votes is only a strategy when you are able to vote. A person with no access to food cannot go on a hunger strike.
Also, the saying that you are butchering was originally "If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal".
Yes, I understand that - for the most part I am trying to understand the general consensus around here that "voting is silly lib behavior", so we as I understand it we are inherently talking about people who are able to vote, and the general recommendation that they should withhold their vote. If you want to include people who are not allowed to vote in a certain jurisdiction, I feel like that is a different conversation that I might not be equipped for (not to say I am feeling very equpped for this whole convo in the first place ;p ). But I'm happy to hear your thoughts regardless.
Yes, I'm aware of that as well, others have riffed on it (or butchered, sure) to suit themselves and I was aiming for one of those variants I've heard in the past. Since it's a pithy aphorism, I don't find one particularly more true than another, nor that any should necessarily be taken literally. (I did say the "sentiment of" and I don't mind sticking with it)
Cheers
While you will get different responses, generally the consensus is "Voting for dems as well as worry about voting on a personal level is silly lib behavior" Voting for a third party and being involved in some organized effort to extract concessions are both fine.
I see, thanks. That was not a distinction I was aware of; it really did seem to me like third parties are also generally eschewed by this community.
Well, the community has open contempt for the Libertarians and the Greens, and which third party is best is a matter of conflict, but we have many supporters of the PSL and other socialist parties that do run for office (and I do indeed vote for them, personally).
As we all know, power comes from the barrel of a vote.
Biden has Trump beat on deportations, police funding, military funding, and he's completely unwilling to stand for abortion right, trans rights, and debt forgiveness
And now he's a genocider, so what actually are we supposed to be afraid of from Trump? At least with Trump most of the media and 50% of the establishment will oppose him, unlike with Biden where the 90% of the media backs him and 80% of the establishment cosigns his genocidal ideals
I fear Biden and his ilk more than I fear Trump and his incompetent clown show, because at least with Trump I can be confident most of the country will oppose him
I can't even be confident that so-called "leftists" will oppose Biden, because here you are arguing we should vote for a man who's committing genocide
I'm not going to defend Biden or dems in general, but part of your point that I want to address directly is this:
While he and other dems are "unwilling to stand", they are also not actively working against those or certain other causes. If everyone who believes in these causes chooses to not vote because they're not being addressed, republicans will win and do their damndest to stomp all over marginalized groups even more. This is why I vote (against them).
Oppose him verbally, sure. But that has no effect, and actually sometimes emboldens him and other R's as they do stuff to "own the libs". Why is opposing him like this good, but opposing him with my vote bad?
I think my stumbling block in trying to understand this POV is that I do believe there is inherently a difference between voting for someone and voting against someone else. I'd rather not freely cede anything to those I consider to be worse. I understand you may see the outcome as "the same" and for some people, it is. But I do believe that there are people where a difference between the parties exists and is important in their lives.
To address your last point, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, certainly not against their conscience. I'm trying to understand why walking away from elections is (or at least seems to be) the general consensus amongst this community.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Why did you zoom in on the "completely unwilling to stand for abortion right, trans rights, and debt forgiveness" part, but completely ignore the "Biden has Trump beat on deportations, police funding, military funding" part? BIDEN IS DOING his damndest to stomp all over marginalized groups, even more then Trump when it comes to those specific areas of contention
Also not being willing to stand up to republicans in terms of abortion rights IS the same thing as "actively working against those or certain other causes", in fact false alliance is worse than outright hostility, because it confuses and disarms marginalized people who look for allies
Really? An entire country with every liberal and leftist org united against Trump and the only opposition would be verbal? And I thought I was a doomer
Because your vote strengthens the Ratchet Effect, as we've seen with Biden's rightward shift
If the person you're voting FOR is doing the same or worse things than the person you're voting AGAINST, then your politics are frankly incoherent and insincere, and you'll end up valuing the lives of certain people over the lives of others, and at that point you might as well just become a republican
I didn't ignore it to be purposefully obtuse or willfully ignorant. Sorry if it came off that way. Perhaps I should have addressed that specifically; poor communication on my part. Also I know I've said it somewhere/elsewhere in the thread, but I'm not here to defend Biden or the Dems.
The reason I didn't address that part directly is because I agree with your assessment and conclusion on those matters. I focused on the other parts because I see those as part of the few differentiators between the parties.
This is an interesting point and one I'll carry with me. Thanks.
I mean, what happened last time? We spent four years screaming about all the bullshit he and his allies (and/or those that saw his shitstorm as useful cover for their own agenda) and what was the effect? I really believe it was harmful even; emboldening him, his allies, and the next wave of republicans emulating his style on the national stage.
We can have a doomer-measuring contest if that's what you're into :)
I've never heard that phrase, usually heard it called "shifting the overton window" but I do like the graphic. I guess it places more focus on the action and actors than the nebulous "general political climate".
So, with our ratchet, isn't it helpful to stop turning the crank? Isn't it worthwhile to cast a ballot or two if it keeps from moving a notch?
I'd also add that I'm not saying casting a vote is the only action to take -- and I'm not saying that you're saying this about my position, either. But I'm picking up the impression throughout this thread that maybe folks think I'm only in favor voting and no additional action, which is not the case. Anyway, just something I thought I'd clarify.
Maybe this is where the disconnect is. In the sum total, I see one pile of shit to be slightly smaller than the other. That's part of why I focused on the differentiating aspects between the parties that you mentioned.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/298.html
Linked elsewhere in the thread, but W.E.B. Dubois explains it here, in ways that still ring clearly today.
Thanks for pointing out the discourse from elsewhere in the thread (and from history) , I'll give it a skim-read soon and an honest sober read tomorrow
So the part of this that stood out to me the most is this:
Now we have ~80 million people abstaining in the 2020 elections (per NPR: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/945031391/poll-despite-record-turnout-80-million-americans-didnt-vote-heres-why), and yet the dumb farce goes on. If people continue removing themselves from the voter pool, it'll still continue on. I'm failing to see the hope here. Maybe that's why I'm having a hard time understanding this point of view.
Thanks again for pointing me to that link.
The problem here is that enabling violence in any form outside, leaks right back in. You don't think the Anti-China rhetoric ramped up Anti-Asian violence in the United States? The Dems' unconditional backing of the Israeli "human animals" treatment got a Palestinian boy and his mother stabbed to death in Chicago. Your vote is the ONLY bargaining chip you have in this "democracy" in North America. If you fail to apply conditions, you're just rubber stamping any horrific policy that the administration enacts.
If neither party represents your interests, what's your vote doing? Making sure that they can both ignore your interests even more?
The US two-party system is a complete and abject failure of democracy.
If a fascist finds it important to vote, I intend my vote to counteract theirs.
It's less important that someone "represents my interests" than it is that overall suffrage and equity is reduced at a slower rate. It's sad, but that's what it seems we're up against in the modern republican party.
The two party system IS a failure, and I have a laundry list(*) of electoral changes I want throughout the country, some of which are already in place in a few voting districts including my own. How is not voting going to improve any of that?
(* If you're interested I can add them tomorrow when I'm more sober and at a keyboard)
If you're forced to vote for a party to avoid the collapse of your democracy, that's no longer a democracy. That's a one-party state with a few more steps.
That's a fair point - in that event, is it still not an improvement to keep that bare-bones separation from a one-party state rather than run headlong into it? Worded differently- if there is ostensibly a revolution brewing, would the revolutionaries benefit from the additional time granted by the dysfunction of the almost-one-party ? Or are we talking accelerationism?
I guess I'll also ask, at what point of a democracy-in-decline is it "ok" to vote for a person or party en masse to turn that decline around? As an analogy I'm thinking of like, a car teetering on a cliff. This sounds like sitting in the car with arms crossed saying "you're just a few steps from falling to your death, no point in getting out of the car now". Sorry if that's hyperbolic; I'm trying to give a clear example and that's the first thing that came to mind.
This is, in my view, the real issue. Statistically, anti-electoralism is in no way functionally different than accelerationism. Both have the exact same outcomes as right-wingers, especially the far-right vote consistently and toe the line.
I've not seen an ounce of evidence that accelerationism actually works to achieve its stated goal, which on some level makes me suspect that the whole lot of anti-electoralism and accelerationism is encouraged by authoritarians on the far-right to further disenfranchise any ideas left of center from having representation. That and there's real harm to LGBTQ+ folks, indigenous peoples, minorities, and their allies caused by empowering the far-right more.
Might that lead to an actual revolution at some point? Maybe. There's not yet any evidence to say that it will that I've seen in historical data, however. And I cannot ethically agree with "end justifies the means" thinking as it nearly always results in increased suffering for workers and "common" people to whom I owe my allegiance.
Now to wait for my anarchist self to be flamed as a "shitlib". (I hope not because this is supposed to be a leftist unity instance but, it's happened to me before over misunderstandings).
If you are doing this at the expense of not taking even a chance at stopping the reduction of equity, you are in fact helping the reduction of equity even as you are slowing it.
Maybe this is a disconnect in the conversation. It'm not considering this at the expense of other actions -- I am very much in favor of other activities besides voting as well; I am not saying voting is the silver bullet to bring us all to a just society.
We probably have other disagreements as to what those other activities are or should be (...we probably have a few agreements too!). In this conversation I am specifically trying to understand the rejection of voting. Though as you pointed out elsewhere, it is not all-encompassing, often only in regards to the establishment parties.
BTW as I'm trying to give all comments the attention they deserve I see you all over the thread and have replied to you a few times already (and probably some more I haven't gotten around to yet!). Thank you for participating and trying to help me understand better.
I am probably being inadequately explicit at some points. Voting unconditionally for the Democrats definitionally comes at the expense of extracting concessions from them by withholding your vote from them on some grounds (e.g. reversing their stance on Palestine). To support the Dems on the basis of lesser-evilism is to directly undermine any possibility of getting something out of them beyond them not being identical to Republicans.
Thanks for sharing in good faith.
If they want my vote they've got to do something to earn it
I was willing to vote for Bernie Sanders in 2020 for harm reduction reasons. He was the compromise. Dems rejected it.
It's a pressure campaign. They're offering to stop if Biden backs a ceasefire.
I don't follow - this seems to be about a very specific thing; I was speaking very generally trying to understand the anti electoral stance.
Maybe I missed the demonstrative nature of your example - if you're willing to explain further, I'm happy to read/learn.
Thanks for your perspective and time.
Sorry, I assumed you were talking about the article. I'm not anti voting, I'm against using running for office as a strategy for social change.
No worries, that's a reasonable assumption. My apologies for being off on a tangent here in the comments :)
Thanks for inspiring me to be conversational
I think it boils down to a few factors.
Why would they ever change if people keep supporting them?
It seems to me that when it comes to the late late late point of who to vote for president, the time to change them has passed.
I'm my mind, the time for a "change" vote comes during primaries. When it comes to the official vote (especially presidential), I vote for the least fascist candidate... who has a chance at winning, I suppose.
And there lies the rub. Bernie was ratfucked during the primaries so that Joe could get the nomination. The machine would rather be in control and lose than let the popular candidate win.
Yes, I voted for Bernie in the primaries and then Biden in the general. I'm pissed about how Biden became the candidate. I still voted to negate a Trump vote. What am I missing?
That your unconditional support is the sort of thing that makes the ratfucking a viable strategy. Just look at that fucking interview where a reporter points out that most voters don't want Biden to run again and he counters that they also said they would vote for him if he was the general candidate. This whipped attitude is openly being cited by these monsters as being what enables them even among populations that hate them. They have long given the game away and you keep fucking falling for it irrespective!
Materially all you are doing is helping the Democrats keep being shit because they believe they are entitled to the vote of every decent person on the basis of this lesser evilism. Breaking their base, even if it lets the Republicans win one cycle, would actually pressure concessions out of them.
I appreciate what you're saying, but its not resonating with me.
"This is the most important election of our lifetime" -- yes, I know you all make fun of people for saying that, and I am mostly quoting it because I know I'll get called out if I try to dance around the wording. But, that sentiment seems true to me based on what R's have been getting up to lately. They seem poised to take over if they win one more cycle.
I appreciate your attempting to exercise self-awareness, but I am again asking you to step back and look at the bigger picture: Let's say there is validity to the claim "This is the most important election of our lifetime." I reject that claim, it seems to have no material basis, but let's say it is real. What is this really saying? "This is the most important election you have encountered yet" This is a critical distinction that is never articulated because the simple fact of the matter is that what you are saying didn't become a meme this cycle, it became a meme -- being generous -- in 2016 (less generous would put it in the mid-20th century). 2016 got this treatment, 2020 got this treatment, 2024 is getting this treatment, and can you tell me with a straight face that 2028 won't be treated the same way?
So we have a pattern of crisis being proclaimed, where each one is said to be worse than the previous crises, and there is absolutely no model to stop it except by being so myopic you can't see the future 3 inches past your nose. Let us say that it is "the most important election of our lifetimes [so far]," that's because it beat out the previous crises, but the ones after will surely be worse. Even giving what I view as an unreasonable amount of leeway to your hypothesis, the calculus of risking Trump winning in order to actually make positive change and develop a means to break this vicious cycle of ever-greater threat of catastrophe. You are sinking and debating that we should spend forever slowing how quickly we sink instead of trying to get out of the water.
Lol! I appreciate your well-crafted backhanded compliment :)
To lay it bare, why do I think this election (and the previous two, and the next) are so important? I think there are two major crises facing us simultaneously. One is the climate crisis. The other is the web of corruption, subversion of truth, weaponization and/or crippling of institutions, and legalized bribery -- a nebulous but worsening condition that I believe started with Reagan but has continued relatively unabated for 50 years and took off like a rocket under Trump and has metastasized to all levels of government, and shows no signs of stopping.
In the case of climate, every year that passes without remediation is bringing us closer to hell on earth and there may be no going back. In the case of corruption etc - US democracy is eroded faster and faster if unaddressed and it might already be too late to save it. You might even agree with me there -- except on the point that it makes each upcoming election "important", of course.
IMO these are two different forms of existential crisis and until they are addressed -- seriously addressed, not just assuaged out of the public consciousness -- the conditions are getting worse and worse and the possibility of resolving them shrinks. Every other problem we face takes a back seat to these order-of-magnitude-larger issues, and no meaningful progress can be made on the lesser issues.
So I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say each election is the "most important of our lifetime". With the magnitude of these crises, why wouldn't the importance of these choices be outsized compared to other points in recent history?
In all honesty, I think the most important presidential election of my life was 2000. Not only do I believe that the country could have been a leader on climate issues under Gore, Bush's War on Terror response would've been different/less-bad (maybe not, I'm sure folks around here will argue), we also would've had a completely different supreme court and all that comes with that.
I probably have a few more things I could add to that paragraph but to continue with my attempted self-awareness, I realize now that I'm probably just spewing standard lib talking points that don't bear repeating, so I'll knock it off.
Good analogy, and you're 100% right. I won't deny it because that is exactly what I am arguing for and I'm trying to understand the other viewpoint(s). IMO the longer we have (i.e. the slower we sink), the more time we have to figure out how to get out of the water, or how to execute the get-out-of-the-water plan. But also, the impression that I get from this community - the one I'm trying to get clarity on throughout this discussion - is that we should stop treading water and get on with the sinking already. Or, that shouting "get out of the water" constitutes a plan of action. (Note: this sounds overly dismissive, and I don't mean it that way - following along the analogy brought me here)
After a few mishaps I've now learned to write my responses in a different editor so lemmy-web doesn't eat them, and when I pasted this from my text editor into lemmy I realized this is my longest response yet. So, I want to say thank you again for the spirited discussion and your patience with me throughout. Hope you're having a good day despite (what I assume is) an exasperating online discussion!
This web of corruption you are refering to is capitalism and liberal democracy itself. It did not begin with Reagan, its always been this way. What you view as it "starting" with Reagan is the ascendence of neoliberalism which is still just capitalism and liberal democracy.
The idea that any of this became worse with Trump is ludicrous and massively ahistorical. You could say it became more visible because libs chose to examine it more closely and because Trump is more transparently corrupt. But its hard to argue he's more corrupt than other admins lor politicians. The main reason Trump was not impeached on emoluments was because congressional dems are guilty of the same shit.
I think this is your stumbling block to understanding our position. Sink-more-slowly by unconditionally voting for one of the people pushing you into the water is not a plan. We already know how to get out of the water. Other people have done it, other countries are not in the water because they've had revolutions against liberal democracy. And that is the problem - liberal democracy can not stop this, because liberal democracy is the sustem which maintains capitalism and the oppression of the ruling class.
Your example of the 2000 presidential election should give you a bit of insight into why voting at a presidential level is pointless. Gore won, but the Supreme Court interfered and put the guy they wanted in place.
There will always be some equivalent force to prevent any real change at the presidential level. See also the DNC rat-fucking Bernie in 2016 and 2020 and the DNC pied-pipering in trump in 2016
Since I have been procrastinating on giving you a proper response, I will point you to a thread full of people discussing the issue who hopefully won't bite your head off. Feel free to tag or dm me or whatever.
https://hexbear.net/post/957255?scrollToComments=false
We make fun of it because its been an excuse for like 40 years if not more
i cant wait to not vote
I can rank my choice of genocidal leaders. This is a civil society.
Exactly. Libs love to feel like they can just fix a rule and be saved.
Ranked choice won't matter if the bourgeois still control the choices
You can just vote away their power. I don't think them literally owning the means of production will be a problem.
Maine has RCV and just suffered a mass shooting because the Democrats and Republicans are one party.
I live in an urban center and do not have a single GOP official as a representative for any level of government whatsoever; my election is the primary. Go pester the shitty suburbanites with your, "A vote for third party is a vote for Trump!". They're the ones that need to hear it.
DAE BUT WHAT ABOUT TURMP?
Reddit ass comment.
Yes. All of us communists are really into Trump.
I asked this question and apparently now vote for genocidal maniacs. It was a weird experience.
I don't think that the people here plan to vote for genocidal maniac Joe Biden
deleted by creator