|
assuming the next dem is macron-like (and why wouldn't I? democrat supreme obama endorsed macron) and wants to dismantle every social program he/she can the second they hit office, should i bother voting for this lesser evil? seems to me like lesser-evilism is just being a loving idiot and supporting evil is there a reason i should vote for the new, extra-racist, extra-elitist dems?
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:assuming the next dem is macron-like Manchin-senpai?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:assuming the next dem is macron-like (and why wouldn't I? democrat supreme obama endorsed macron) and wants to dismantle every social program he/she can the second they hit office, should i bother voting for this lesser evil? seems to me like lesser-evilism is just being a loving idiot and supporting evil Well, you make sure you don't get to a position where the choice is between an awful right wing social liberal & an awful right wing fascist. Obviously if it does happen you have to judge just how lesser that evil is. If it's a Trump vs Clinton type of deal again you probably have hold your nose and mark the Clinton box because accelerationism just isn't something the poor can afford to deal with. But the best bet is to make sure you never get in that situation. Work for people trying to primary terrible incumbent Dems. Accept that you'll lose more than you win in the short term, but build the ground game up, have a generation of younger activists with experience of campaigning for genuinely progressive candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Yes Why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Electoral politics are not the only form of politics, there is nothing wrong with not voting as long as you are engaging in politics in other ways you think are more meaningful or effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Why? also your lack of voting will have no positive impact, only a possible negative impact pretty straightforward
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Well, you make sure you don't get to a position where the choice is between an awful right wing social liberal & an awful right wing fascist. Obviously if it does happen you have to judge just how lesser that evil is. If it's a Trump vs Clinton type of deal again you probably have hold your nose and mark the Clinton box because accelerationism just isn't something the poor can afford to deal with. Yes, but that sidesteps the question. I can go ahead and get involved with good dems like the DSA, and choose to only vote for good dems. Lesser-evilism demands I vote for dems always, regardless of how terrible they are, and that conflicts with entryism because I'm just giving my enemies more power to lock my ideology out if I vote for the "lesser evil"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
The dirty secret is that one vote literally doesn't matter, yet we put on this kabuki show of pretending like convincing one person how they vote will change anything. It's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Relin posted:we're locked into a two party system How does voting for either of the kill the poor parties helping? Seems more that working from the outside of the dems and voting only for good dems would more quickly change the dems for the better than blindly voting for the "lesser evil"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:How does voting for either of the kill the poor parties helping? Seems more that working from the outside of the dems and voting only for good dems would more quickly change the dems for the better than blindly voting for the "lesser evil" Then again, if you split the Democratic party vote, the Democratic party leadership would probably look at the GOP and see how they've maintained a plurality/majority of the voters and pick up those characteristics (see triangulation and Blue Dog/Southern democrats). I'm pretty confident they will never learn the lesson you intend by voting third party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Yes, but that sidesteps the question. I can go ahead and get involved with good dems like the DSA, and choose to only vote for good dems. Lesser-evilism demands I vote for dems always, regardless of how terrible they are, and that conflicts with entryism because I'm just giving my enemies more power to lock my ideology out if I vote for the "lesser evil" Don't vote for terrible candidates. Terrible candidates who do nothing to win your vote because you've got no alternative don't deserve your vote, it's as simple as that. But you have to find where the line is between terrible and "bad but still noticeably better than the alternative". I can't tell you where that line is for you, but I do think the line probably moves in a Presidential race as opposed to a more local one, just because stopping Republicans from appointing Supreme Court Justices is such a big deal. Clinton was a lovely candidate with lovely beliefs and yet even as a socialist a vote for her was easily justified because of dead Scalia along with a bunch of other aging judges. What I'm saying is the American system is loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Then again, if you split the Democratic party vote, the Democratic party leadership would probably look at the GOP and see how they've maintained a plurality/majority of the voters and pick up those characteristics (see triangulation and Blue Dog/Southern democrats). I'm pretty confident they will never learn the lesson you intend by voting third party. They're already doing that with a non-split vote. They've had plenty of time to triangulate to the left and with few exceptions (Ro Khanna) they refuse to triangulate leftward, instead moving rightward to pick up Romney voters Also, I'm not talking about voting third party, more talking voting only good dems and leaving bad dems to their fate. forkboy84 posted:Don't vote for terrible candidates. Terrible candidates who do nothing to win your vote because you've got no alternative don't deserve your vote, it's as simple as that. But you have to find where the line is between terrible and "bad but still noticeably better than the alternative". I can't tell you where that line is for you, but I do think the line probably moves in a Presidential race as opposed to a more local one, just because stopping Republicans from appointing Supreme Court Justices is such a big deal. Clinton was a lovely candidate with lovely beliefs and yet even as a socialist a vote for her was easily justified because of dead Scalia along with a bunch of other aging judges. That line is at loving over the poor to enrich the ultra-rich, and the dems are dancing all over that line right now. Also, the dems practically gave away that SC seat to the republicans
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:That line is at loving over the poor to enrich the ultra-rich, and the dems are dancing all over that line right now. Also, the dems practically gave away that SC seat to the republicans Not sure how they 'gave away' the seat since the Republicans have controlled the Senate since 2014 and therefore controlled the ability to seat a justice by refusing to vote on a candidate (as the US Constitution doesn't mandate that they have to do anything with a prospective candidate).
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
I know Hillary was a very flawed candidate, but her platform for the 2016 election didn't seem very gently caress the poor to me. Higher minimum wage, paid maternity leave, much cheaper/more subsidized state college, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:assuming the next dem is macron-like (and why wouldn't I? democrat supreme obama endorsed macron) and wants to dismantle every social program he/she can the second they hit office, should i bother voting for this lesser evil? seems to me like lesser-evilism is just being a loving idiot and supporting evil So you don't like democracy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I know Hillary was a very flawed candidate, but her platform for the 2016 election didn't seem very gently caress the poor to me. Higher minimum wage, paid maternity leave, much cheaper/more subsidized state college, etc. Hillary's message was essentially that the status quo was fine, it just needs tinkering with via a few schemes. $12.50 minimum wage, cheaper college etc. "America Is Already Great", after all. There are masses of poorer Americans who feel, very justifiably, that the current system is completely stacked against them. A candidate that basically only appeals to people who are doing OK right now is not going to win the votes of the the massive numbers of disillusioned poor people out there, as Hillary didn't (in the right states) in 2016. The test for the Democrats being a true party of the poor instead of the least-bad option will be the minute they actually go against corporate and wealthy interests to implement something that benefits working class people. So far that hasn't happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Hillary's message was essentially that the status quo was fine, it just needs tinkering with via a few schemes. $12.50 minimum wage, cheaper college etc. "America Is Already Great", after all. edit: also the poor people that are really screwed are the ones in rural areas, and as discussed in the rural poverty thread there's no obvious solution there for their economic woes (other than 'move somewhere else') from either the left or right. Cicero fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Jul 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Not sure how they 'gave away' the seat since the Republicans have controlled the Senate since 2014 and therefore controlled the ability to seat a justice by refusing to vote on a candidate (as the US Constitution doesn't mandate that they have to do anything with a prospective candidate). They hardly fought for it cause they figured they'd get re-elected and then the republicans would just have to give them the SC seat. Just sad as hell. asdf32 posted:So you don't like democracy? Where do you get that idiotic idea?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I know Hillary was a very flawed candidate, but her platform for the 2016 election didn't seem very gently caress the poor to me. Higher minimum wage, paid maternity leave, much cheaper/more subsidized state college, etc. Hillary rarely discussed her platform and she clearly had a public and a private face. Plus, you have to figure in her rightward shift from her campaign to the presidency(like Obama), making her already sparse platform look even worse. Add on top her obvious love of the banks who've been literally robbing the poor with dems doing nothing. Nothing says gently caress the poor like embracing institutions doing just that. Factor in macron, a guy Obama loved enough to interrupt his vacation to endorse is definitely gently caress the poor, and it's hard not to see the current prevailing dem philosophy as anything but gently caress the poor Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jul 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:That line is at loving over the poor to enrich the ultra-rich, and the dems are dancing all over that line right now. Also, the dems practically gave away that SC seat to the republicans Yeah, cool, sounds like you know where the line is and have already made your mind up. That's fine. I'm sure as poo poo not going to try & convince anyone to vote for more neoliberalism. Voting for the lesser evil over the actual pure, undiluted evil is a totally defensible position to take though. It's not like your own vote legitimises them any more than you abstaining delegitimises them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Yeah, cool, sounds like you know where the line is and have already made your mind up. That's fine. I'm sure as poo poo not going to try & convince anyone to vote for more neoliberalism. It doesn't legitimize them, but it does give them power over the dem party, which they then use to block any shifts leftward. For example: Obama helping install empty suit Tom Perez as DNC chair so that a bernie endorsed choice who was and still is way more qualified doesn't get any power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:They hardly fought for it cause they figured they'd get re-elected and then the republicans would just have to give them the SC seat. Just sad as hell. Canditades moving towards the center to maximize votes, incrementalism and an opposition trying to do things you don't want is what democracy looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Canditades moving towards the center to maximize votes, incrementalism and an opposition trying to do things you don't want is what democracy looks like.  no that's what centrist ideology looks like and it's idiotic as helli'm a leftist. oddly enough that doesn't mean i'm anti-democratic, nor are centrists the party of democracy you loon
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:It doesn't legitimize them, but it does give them power over the dem party, which they then use to block any shifts leftward. For example: Obama helping install empty suit Tom Perez as DNC chair so that a bernie endorsed choice who was and still is way more qualified doesn't get any power. Mate, they do that whether or not you vote. The only way one lone individual will ever have an impact on a democratic system is through an act of terror. How does your vote stop Obama shilling for the lovely empty suit neoliberal? That's what he's going to do, support other neoliberals, can't envisage a scenario where the Democratic establishment don't do what they can to stop a populist taking over the party establishment. asdf32 posted:Canditades moving towards the center to maximize votes, incrementalism and an opposition trying to do things you don't want is what democracy looks like. What garbage. Just because it is doesn't mean it has to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Mate, they do that whether or not you vote. The only way one lone individual will ever have an impact on a democratic system is through an act of terror. How does your vote stop Obama shilling for the lovely empty suit neoliberal? That's what he's going to do, support other neoliberals, can't envisage a scenario where the Democratic establishment don't do what they can to stop a populist taking over the party establishment. it stops him by he might not get elected to a higher position of power, denying him more power over the dem party. I doubt senator obama would have as much sway as president obama does. like I said, it doesn't seem to help the left at all to help centrists have greater power over the party, as they sabotage the left and screw over the poor and helpless to help the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Canditades moving towards the center to maximize votes, incrementalism and an opposition trying to do things you don't want is what democracy looks like. If moving to the centre and incrementalism are how you win votes, why is Donald Trump president?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:If moving to the centre and incrementalism are how you win votes, why is Donald Trump president? Because he ran a very centrist campaign in a lot of respects, which consisted largely of lying about things that he either would not or could not actually do. Remember "we're going to replace Obamacare with something so much better, and everyone's going to be covered?" And how the rich were going to be taxed more, and he was going to deal with Wall St. fat-cats (unlike Crooked Hillary)? He was lying, we're all smart enough to know he was lying all the way along, but a lot of people took him at his word. The only thing he was unapologetically not-centrist on was Supreme Court nominations (because he knew he needed support from bible kooks) and nativism/white-supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:It doesn't legitimize them, but it does give them power over the dem party, which they then use to block any shifts leftward. For example: Obama helping install empty suit Tom Perez as DNC chair so that a bernie endorsed choice who was and still is way more qualified doesn't get any power. It also doesn't help that one of the main things to getting people elected to executive posts is "executive experience", which leads to all their cronies getting executive experience, making them the only pragmatic choice next election...
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:What garbage. Just because it is doesn't mean it has to be. Yes it does. First I should have specified constitutional democracy. Your counterparts on the right just got their dream and elected a guy who wants to ban immigrants, build a wall and repeal obamacare. He's trying to do all three but is so far failing because of the constitutional checks in the system which are specifically designed to constrain change and we should all be counting our blessings that they're there. And they have to be for a real life system to function. Second the will of 300 million people doesn't change rapidly. Condiv posted:
When you think huge swaths of your fellow citizens are evil that's not really democratic. MikeCrotch posted:If moving to the centre and incrementalism are how you win votes, why is Donald Trump president? Trump is a threat to democracy and also isn't succeeding at the things voters want him to be doing (except the mental adolescents who voted entirely to stick it to the elites'). Hence why I'm against naive populism which the left seems to be looking at and saying "I want that too".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it stops him by he might not get elected to a higher position of power, denying him more power over the dem party. I doubt senator obama would have as much sway as president obama does. like I said, it doesn't seem to help the left at all to help centrists have greater power over the party, as they sabotage the left and screw over the poor and helpless to help the rich. I'm pretty sure Obama became President by virtue of more than 1 vote. And yeah, liberals will never do anything for the left, that's the nature of that particularly lovely beast. But do you really think accelerationism is the answer? Coz just gifting Republicans the White House until the Dems stop with lovely mediocre candidates is going to be far loving worse for the people you want to in the short to medium term. You might be able to survive it but lots won't so be mindful of that. All you can do is keep working to prove socialism benefits the majority while still being fully compatible with democracy and social freedoms. It'll be a long slog because you are starting from nowhere. Whether or not you vote in Presidential elections is just a bit of a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I'm pretty sure Obama became President by virtue of more than 1 vote. Well yeah, but that's just another flaw in the theory of lesser evilism quote:And yeah, liberals will never do anything for the left, that's the nature of that particularly lovely beast. But do you really think accelerationism is the answer? Coz just gifting Republicans the White House until the Dems stop with lovely mediocre candidates is going to be far loving worse for the people you want to in the short to medium term. You might be able to survive it but lots won't so be mindful of that. Unfortunately I do at this point cause I'm certain the dems are doing their damnedest to slice a chunk of centrists and right wingers large enough that they won't have to bother regulating banks or megacorps anymore. It's either eject these smoothbrained morons asap or watch them throw away years and years chasing a center that no longer exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:When you think huge swaths of your fellow citizens are evil that's not really democratic. Oh ok. I'll try to think nicer thoughts about the worthless, racist aristocracy in this country
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Oh ok. I'll try to think nicer thoughts about the worthless, racist aristocracy in this country you live in france
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
stone cold posted:you live in france Don't worry, macron hopes to bring French aristocracy back in a big way. He's also gonna go hog wild on the social safety net, rip away labor protections, and clamp down on muslims! Oh, and he's gonna hang out with trump on Bastille day! Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
stone cold posted:you live in france https://twitter.com/jrhennessy/status/881989353253163008
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
the answer to your question is 'yes' and the reason is that because otherwise the greater evil wins, and that is by definition the worse outcome. you should also do other stuff that you feel will bring about the outcomes you want (being active during primaries, donating to causes you care about) but the answer to your question is yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:When you think huge swaths of your fellow citizens are evil that's not really democratic. Okay, but. ..when they are? Seems to me that 65 mill of my fellow citizens, a fifth of the population of this country, voted to put a candidate in office who hates me, and wants to torture me until I die. How is that not evil? Fwiw, I wrote in in the last election, I believe my exact write in was "none of the above, they are all terrible. " I live in a deep red state, so my presidential vote doesn't matter anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:the answer to your question is 'yes' and the reason is that because otherwise the greater evil wins, and that is by definition the worse outcome. but then the dems use what power they get with my vote to supress the left. plus they're defending banks robbing us blind, and that's not gonna stop as long as we keep voting for them for it. imo seems like a worse outcome to me. supporting politicians who support leftism seems like a better bet
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Condiv posted:but then the dems use what power they get with my vote to supress the left. plus they're defending banks robbing us blind, and that's not gonna stop as long as we keep voting for them for it. sure, except you've admitted in the premise that the other option is worse. The left gets suppressed harder with republicans; banks rob people blinder. the alternative is worse. Youve also presented your "supporting leftist politicians" as an either/or when a it's a both. at every point, you vote for the person who is least far from your views. That way you get the best outcome given your options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 23:20
|
|