Electoral Politics and Political Strategies

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Electoral Politics and Political Strategies

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Gnumonic posted:

You're equivocating here (and you basically admit it).

Given that the president has the capacity to (almost) unilaterally set foreign policy, that local/state governments have no say at all, and that the senate has a very limited say only in some specific circumstances, it follows that the mechanisms you are proposing for effecting bottom-up change only apply to domestic policy. If those mechanisms are only operative with respect to domestic policy, then it is in fact the case that the only (significant) chance to impact foreign policy is a vote in the presidential election. Ergo, if one wants to effect change in foreign policy, withholding one's vote or voting for some alternative in the presidential election is - and this basically follows from what you've said - the only way to exert any kind of leverage over foreign policy.

But what if you have other policy goals? How does withholding your vote/voting third party help with those? Like, I'm not a single issue voter. I care about multiple things. If one candidate is the antithesis to all of my goals, why would I want to withhold my vote over one issue while endangering my other issues (that are currently being addressed satisfactorily)?

EDIT: One more question. You say that threatening to withhold your vote/vote third party exerts leverage. How? It's not like a union negotiating with their company. The threat of a strike has immediate material consequences for both parties. The company could lose profits and the workers could lose wages. There's a motivation for both parties to quickly come to an agreement. The consequence for the Democrats is that they'd lose an election and the voters would live under the effects of a Republican president that could extend for decades. How is that balanced? The Democrats would just go home. The DC consultants and campaign managers would still have their jobs. Meanwhile, everyone in the country and our allies abroad would be turbofucked.

And what if the Democrats win? What leverage would we have in the next election? It'd be clear that they don't need us. And people who might sympathize with us and form coalitions with us could tell us to go to hell.

I think that "not voting/voting third party as leverage" is a faulty premise. To change things on a national scale you need national attention and that takes effort, time, devotion, and it doesn't happen overnight.

volts5000 fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Feb 14, 2024

# ¿ Feb 13, 2024 23:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 02:44

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

BRJurgis posted:

That's it though isn't it.

It's not being addressed satisfactorily for some people. With the perverse feedback loop between capital/the market and ~~voters~~people, itself seeding and feeding political ignorance, complacency and greed (yes its here in the room with me). "We" seem to have won a terribly short sighted game. Some think there is little reason to believe we can reform by voting. If I can brevity at climate change, and that our system has trump as one of our two teams. We don't have all day yknow.

I don't even think people should have to provide an answer or solution, when confronted with this failed trajectory. It's good to be able to recognize the failure. Especially if you are still interested in direct action one way or another.

So when forced to come up with an alternative to voting (whether or not one goes to vote against the loving republicans once again), I just think of maybe spreading (passing down) a spirit of community and resistance and actual smaller scale humanity. And terrible terrible burden and responsibility.

This is what needs to be done. 100%. No doubt at all.

Now, what political environment is this outreach and resistance being done in? Is the environment neutral (as in government officials are not actively helping you but passively allowing you to do it) or is the environment hostile (as in government agencies see you as a threat and try to stop you through law enforcement). That�s what voting can change.

Political movements of the past didn�t have government actors to actively boost them. They needed actors that�ll, at the very least, allow them to affect change on their own. It would be nice if we could always vote for candidates that could boost the outreach you describe, but we could at least have a candidate that will stay out of your way.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 01:29

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Probably Magic posted:

The truth of the matter is, your vote will matter but it will matter less and less the broader the responsibility of the representative is. Though I find the Democratic Party deplorable, I still feel somewhat comfortable voting straight ticket for them on small positions such as city council, school board, etc. because they don't have much sway over things that are very fait accompli to me (foreign policy, national monetary policy, etc.) but can make a credible difference on conservation efforts, academic standards, etc., all of which is very important to livability for local marginalized groups and the like. There also, sadly, is rarely an "alternative" to the major party in these groups, and quite a few of them are nonpartisan and therefore party affiliation doesn't matter anyway. I still believe in voting so that people have agency on those matters.

But when it comes to broad, national-based politics, your vote is a shot in the dark anyway. It has little power on its own, and even if you're canvassing, it probably won't move enough populace to matter. I've largely voted blue straight ticket the past two elections on everything except the presidency only to watch those candidates on a senate level fail not because of their poor messaging on healthcare (though that probably didn't help), but something dumb like, "Had an affair." Part of me despairs at how little my vote matters, but it's also liberating - there's no reason to think my vote will be the one that decides things. I can recognize that it's simply speech, that I vote not to win or even effect policy but because I'm a goblin who likes researching candidates for fun.

There's no guarantee of what's a swing state. My current state, North Carolina, has commonly been described as a swing state because of Obama victories here, but that seems a collapsed coalition and the state has largely been red since, both because of gerrymandering but also a general disinterest in the Democratic Party at large except as a stopgap against, like, the far-right of the GOP. (Regular GOP ghouls are apparently fine though.) One of my previous states, Indiana, was also described as a swing state, except it contributed Pence to Trump's campaign and is unlikely to turn blue this election or probably many subsequent ones. Florida's a swing state until it's not. It's a lot of calculus, to me, that ultimately burns out and retroactively becomes insolvent.

I bring these up to say, as badly as it may initially feel, it's unlikely your vote will mean anything. But! That means your vote will never give the election to Trump nor would it be needed by Biden to maintain power. That will be decided by people with the dumbest ideas ever, who want free weed but also think we need to re-invade Japan to get our jobs back, people who can't be reasoned with and very much will swing the election over false information. People who think Obama is a Muslim and that was a good thing, that kind of thing. So vote for who you want! If you really don't feel great voting for Biden, he probably doesn't need your vote! He didn't need mine to win. He's expressly said, multiple times, he doesn't want the votes of people who disagree with his border policy or think he's a rapist or etc. You're under no obligation to hand your vote to a guy who doesn't even want it. I don't know if that's helpful, but hopefully it's some food for thought.

That's kinda why I can't ever subscribe to that attitude. "Don't worry, I live in a solid blue state. It's not like my vote counts." Goes from blue to red. "Well, I live in a red state now. My vote's gerrymandered now, so it really doesn't count." Everything's fine until it's not.

The people you mention always vote and they don't always outnumber me and people who share my values. I live in North Carolina as well. The republican candidate for governor is a bigoted, antisemitic pastor who will push to outlaw abortion and reform education so it doesn't include history or science. If too many people share your view, then my sons may have to reevaluate their college careers. I'm not ready to do that.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 03:15

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

BRJurgis posted:

I think putting all of our focus on voting diminishes other direct action. Not necessarily by discussing it here, but for example there are plenty of folks whom I could never convince to vote dem, and only maybe hope to get them to not vote republican/trump.

But given your county and state,the outcome may be a foregone conclusion anyway. If I choose not to focus on voting as a serious relationship with power I can convince otherwise partisan people of other things. If my friends homesteaders husband will NEVER vote dem because he's afraid of communism, that is already a loss. But maybe I can convince him to boycott Amazon because he's afraid of the "global elite".

I guess when my anecdotal experience has far more people whose political views are incoherent and impossible, it's hard to see how stressing the importance of a vote that I don't believe in (in a system I don't believe in) is itself coherent.

I'll never forget this interview that was done during the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus. This group of ladies were all in for Pete Buttigieg. They were decked out with shirts, flags, pins, etc. The reporter asked the ladies if they thought Pete being gay was going to be a factor in the general election. They were gobsmacked to find out that he was gay and dropped their support. This, of course, led to so many questions. What did they learn about Pete that made them support him? How, in the course of learning about him, did they miss the one major aspect of his life and campaign? It's not like he hid it. If they're so turned off by gay people, what in the gently caress were they doing in the Democratic caucus, where the party platform is pro LGBTQ?

This is electoralism. If you're looking for consistency and moral certainty, you've come to the wrong place. You have to make a decision that is lumped in with the 300+ million other people that have just as much consistency and morality as the Mayor Pete supporters above. The system that we all participate in, regardless of action or inaction, contains 300+ million people with their own ideas and agendas which intersect and diverge with everybody else's ideas and agendas. It may sound nihilistic, but it is chaos!

So what do I do? I volunteer. I encourage my kids to be politically engaged, or at least aware of what's going on. And I vote. I know that if Biden wins in November, the outcome will be a net positive. I know that if Trump wins in November, the outcome will be a net negative. I know that I can prove that assertion. I know I have no control over the outcome. All I can do is contribute to the outcome, however small my contribution is. I know that, if I volunteer at a soup kitchen, I'm not single-handedly saving the lives of the people coming in needing help. But I am contributing to the outcome where they get help. That's all it is for me.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 17:24

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

BRJurgis posted:

For one sorry I didn't answer your earlier post. I'll cover that shortly. I know there's a conversation about morality going on but I'm focused more on the effective aspect. The effectiveness of voting and of viewing that as our main relationship with power.

For me, it's not a political action. I'm pushing/preparing for a paradigm shift. I think this system has, will, and has to fail. Things will have to get worse before there's a chance for them to be different enough that things have a chance to change for the better. There's no guarantee of better here either. But I think the vote (certainly in the US) gives people a false sense of control and operates as a pressure release. Things are well in hand, we have democracy, and we can blame this leader or group of voters for what's happening. It staves off people having more direct action. Now is the guy afraid of communists and globalists gonna help build a better world? Having chickens and produce and knowledge of the land will sure be helpful, so long as he's not convinced to try and murder my brother.*

*to be clear, I think our politics and democracy funnel people into poo poo like this. Will somebody hate their gay or Trans neighbor without "their team" constantly megaphone it at them? Some will, but we have direct action to answer that too.

I have to disagree with you there. The system we live in is a "Ship of Theseus" construction that was first built in 1776. Over the last 250 years, our political system (and society as a whole) has just been a continuous series of this board getting replaced and that board getting replaced and this mast getting added and so on. There is no action or inaction that will lead to us getting another boat entirely. There's also no guarantee that this system will fail. It may get better. Call me a naive optimist if you want. I've got kids and I believe they have a future somewhere. If the system does fail, there's no guarantee we'll be the ones deciding what it's replaced with. I'm not ready to take that risk. Voting is just a small contribution to an outcome. It's hoping the right boards get replaced.

As for voting staving off direct action, that's another area I disagree with. With political news and politicians all in our faces and social media, it can be easy to think that voting is the end-all-be-all of political engagement. It's not. Like I said before, voting is a small contribution to an outcome, but it's not the only one and it's not exclusive to other contributions. Direct action is a must. For example, Democrat Tom Suozzi won the NY-03 special election last night. Given that we are well aware of the collective goals of House Republicans, his win was a good thing. The House Republicans have lost a member of their coalition and their collective action will be impeded as a result. That's good. However, Tom's district is very very pro-Israel and Tom reflects their pro-Israel views. That's bad. I was happy to see that his acceptance speech was interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters. That's good. That direct action against Tom will probably not change his views on Israel, but it might embolden other protesters elsewhere to follow suit and protest their representative. THAT may lead to a representative second-guessing their stance on I/P (because their stance may not have been as strong as Tom's). Again, their protest is a contribution to a better outcome and is not cancelled out or invalidated by voting.

is pepsi ok posted:

quote:
By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of �median voter� and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

I think the situation we find ourselves in is in fact the exact opposite of what you state here. If you're an average adult American you have no control whatsoever over the American government. It feels to me that the nuanced discussion around just how much responsibility the average voter bears is an effort in deflection from this reality.

I think that this feeds into this toxic ideal of US individualism. That you and you alone are responsible for everything that happens to you, your community, and your country. "If you're poor, that's because you made bad decisions. And don't ask me to pay for your welfare check. And why should I wear a mask? Like I alone will be responsible for giving everybody COVID? I can make my own decisions about my health, right? Why do I need to join a union? I don't want anybody holding me back while I run up the company ladder! I'm going to make it big like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Henry Ford! Nobody ever helped them make their wealth!"

This whole discussion is just focused on us as individuals. As if our decision to vote blue/third party/not at all only effects us individually. "What is the burden that I have to bear? How can I and I alone change the system? Maybe if I opt out, the system will crash. Then I will have done a good deed." A business doesn't close because "you" stopped shopping there. A labor union doesn't collapse because "you" decided you didn't want to pay your dues. A pandemic didn't spread because "you" didn't wear a mask. It was a collective action.

This whole discussion feels like it's just individuals trying to justify their individual action in a group dynamic.

volts5000 fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 14, 2024

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 19:16

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

World Famous W posted:

collective action still has to start at individual action. if you aren't taking the actions you desire a group to take how the hell are you supposed to move the group there in the first place?

Because there's no talk of collectivizing. What organization are we forming? How are we making our demands known to the political parties? There's none of that! It's just people saying "Oh I'm totally voting for Cornel West. That'll show 'em!"

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 20:07

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I would really love to see the development of "voter's unions" who don't run candidates but do make demands of candidates in exchange for guaranteeing to provide/withhold their votes.

I would too. I wonder if there's a precedent for that. I know that different organizations endorse candidates which *might* mobilize they're members to vote for them, but that's secondary to their mission.

World Famous W posted:

i am a loud and annoying dude about my politics whether it's a convient time or not, does that count?

more serious, i do explain my reasoning and the problems as i see them to whoever will listen to me at the food bank before and after we hand food out

This is America. We are in no shortage of loud annoying dudes. In fact, a bunch of them stormed the Capitol on Jan 6 2021.

I am all for being vocal about politics. You might change someone's mind or gain insight to your own view through discussion. Plus, volunteering at your local food bank is something that I wish we could encourage more people to do.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 20:22

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Vire posted:

To me this kind of hits on what the issue is to me that this is more a philosophical problem and people will feel differently about it depending on their own moral maxims. Even just looking at it from a consequentialist perspective the answer might be different if you are evaluating it with act consequentialism where you would weigh the consequences of individually voting for a candidate or rule consequentialism which would view the morality of voting as a rule. I lean towards it would be better if everyone voted as a rule holding their nose for the least bad candidate.

We could talk about how individually that is not effective and that I could certainly agree with but let's not pretend like we have tried the alternative where we have the majority of the American voting population actually vote for their interests. We see constantly that there are tons of issues that the American population approves of in super high percentages like legalizing weed, background checks for guns, universal healthcare ect the list goes on. I can see the argument that if we had higher voter engagement from disaffected or apathetic voters we may be able to move the parties left to address these issues so I am sympathetic to go to vote campaigns. I think this is a large reason why places like Texas tries to do voter suppression so hard because if they are able to make you feel like none of this matters in a state like that they can hold on to reigns of power and makes sure that politics are broken. I don't think this solves any of our problems over night but I guess it just depends if you believe if slow incremental change is possible or if that even if we did everything we where suppose to do and consistently gave democrats super majorities for long periods of time like the Tories have had in the UK that they will never pass popular legislation or police themselves with corruption (might be a whole separate conversation or topic however like what would it take to get citizens united changed.)

All social progress is slow and incremental. Think of all the people who lived and died before the Civil Rights movement grew in the 1950's. Now, think of all the poo poo that still hasn't been fixed since the movement. It's still progress, but it's loving slow. Voting is only one part of the equation. If all we did was vote, and nothing else, then the people who get elected rest on their laurels. They think the status quo is fine and dandy. That's why direct action has to go hand in hand with voting. Direct action alerts other voters to the issues people are facing and how they can be addressed. However, there are voters out there who may be threatened by your direct action. That's why voting is important. You want the people hostile to your direct action efforts to be elected. It not guaranteed to work. Nothing is ever guaranteed. But like I said before, small contributions to the outcome.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 20:37

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Halloween Jack posted:

I don't think that this idea is bad per se, but it strikes me as a bizarre alternative to having real political parties where the voters are actually members and have a say in its internal organization and direction.

No, it isn't. Depending on what you mean by this, it's either flatly untrue or equivocal to the point of meaninglessness. There are many historical examples of the social environment changing rapidly or top-down changes in policy spurring social change to happen much faster than it would have otherwise.

Well, there's always a catalyst that starts a change, but it's usually after decades of hard work. Like, the Stonewall riot gave LGBT people more visibility in America, but you shouldn't forget the people who worked hard to get that visibility prior to the riot.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 20:54

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Is it a democracy? You just said:

That's not a democracy, right? Democracy means the people are in control.

If it's only nominally a democracy, and people don't have any control over the government, then I don't see how it being a nominal democracy causes actual moral responsibility.

If it's a real democracy, where an ordinary person can have some control over what the government does, they're obviously responsible for what's within their control. All of what's in their control, and nothing more.

They do have control. How do politicians get elected? Where do the votes come from? Or is there a random person somewhere picking winning candidates?

Yes, the fact that we share this country with millions and millions of other people does blunt the impact of our single vote. That�s why voting itself isn�t enough. Organize, protest, what whatever form of direct action you want to take is what makes the difference.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 04:29

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Halloween Jack posted:

So there are decades of "hard work" but the Hard Work is not the same thing as Change. Then an event happens, known as the Catalyst, which leads to Change, which happens slowly.

This is just working backwards from a conclusion, which is that we shouldn't expect the Party we vote for to accomplish anything in a reasonable timeframe.

Wow! So all the LGBTQ people who protested, did sit-ins, engaged in riots, organized political movements prior to Stonewall deserved to be erased from history and don't count because they weren't successful. Only winners matter here. Gotcha.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 15:14

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Halloween Jack posted:

Yes, that's precisely the point I was making. Great job.

You're the one who said that their "decades of hard work" didn't count as "change."

(The actual point is that you're arguing from your unquestioned assumptions and rationalizing them as some sort of theory of change after the fact.)

I'm not really sure I can argue this. I wouldn't know where to begin. The Homophile movement, Josie Carter, etc. don't deserve to be in the dustbin of history because they didn't spark a national movement. Your lesson here for everyone is "Unless you can 100% guarantee that your actions will be successful on a broad scale, don't bother. It's not worth it. Even if your failure could lead to future successes." With attitudes like that, I can see why people are bitchy about voting and organizing.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 16:03

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Halloween Jack posted:

To be frank: What the gently caress are you talking about?

I made the point that social changes are made incrementally through hard work (a series of minor successes and failures) that take decades.

You refuted that by saying that social changes only happen when one big thing happens and that one big thing changes everything very quickly.

I conceded that, yes, a lot of social movements do have one big success that has far reaching changes, but pointed out that the one big success is built on the smaller efforts made before it.

Maybe I wasn't being clear, but with the LGBTQ rights example, you seemed pretty dismissive of the activism prior to Stonewall.

Halloween Jack posted:

So there are decades of "hard work" but the Hard Work is not the same thing as Change.

When I pointed it out that you were being dismissive, you agreed.

Halloween Jack posted:

Yes, that's precisely the point I was making. Great job.

You're the one who said that their "decades of hard work" didn't count as "change."

Then, you accuse me of saying something I didn't say. I was saying that the hard work WAS the change.

Halloween Jack posted:

(The actual point is that you're arguing from your unquestioned assumptions and rationalizing them as some sort of theory of change after the fact.)

What assumptions am I making?

EDIT: I think we're getting way off the thread topic.

volts5000 fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Feb 15, 2024

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 16:37

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

The user didn't say all social change works this way, the user said some social change works that way - "There are many historical examples of the social environment changing rapidly or top-down changes in policy spurring social change to happen much faster than it would have otherwise."

Here the user was very obviously being sarcastic.

You're misreading their posts in a bizarre and uncharitable way.

Social change is sometimes very rapid and not gradual, even though decades or centuries of prior work enabled that rapid transition.

Maybe you're right that I was being uncharitable. When you do academic research into the history of social movements, it can make you resentful of the reductive way history is taught to some people. "Slavery was a thing. Then Civil War. No more slavery." "Jim Crow racism was a thing. Then MLK. No more racism." "LGBTQ were hated. Then Stonewall. LGBTQ are ok now."

I feel like I see that kind of attitude with the issues were facing now. "We just need that one big thing to fix Gaza" or "We just need that one big event to ensure trans rights" and everybody's waiting around for it to happen while being completely blind to all of the little victories that've happened in the meantime. I also feel like this goes back to the "no voting/voting third party" thing. It's either "Voting isn't going make the one big thing happen, so it's pointless!" or "The Democrats losing will be the one big thing. I just know it!"

Also, my brain goes way faster than my fingers (thanks ADHD), so maybe some points did get lost. It's why I don't get involved in a lot of debates.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 17:16

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

I won't be able to devote the time and engagement necessary to this discussion, so I just want to put this out there.

My wife has health problems. Our last kid put a strain on her body. That was 16 years ago. If she gets pregnant again, and is forced to carry, she will very likely die. We've taken all the necessary precautions, but nothing is 100% sure. I know for a fact that there are millions of other women out there in the same position as her.

gurragadon posted:

Edit: The reason I think like this is I see the trolley problem or "lesser evil" discussions to be misleading. We don't have enough information on the future to know what our actions will result in, especially for large scale events like voting for president.

We don't know the future with 100% certainty, but we can make educated guesses. If Trump is re-elected, he'll nominate judges who are anti-abortion zealots (just like he did in his first term). If Biden is re-elected, he'll nominate judges who are pro-choice (just like he did in his first term).

I work with colleagues who are trans and my friend has a kid who is non-binary. The conversation we had after Nex's death was not pleasant at all. If Trump is re-elected, he'll choose anti-LGBT activists for his cabinet and DOJ (just like he did in his first term). If Biden is elected, he'll choose people who will care about trans people, or at least let them be, to serve in his cabinet (just like he did in his first term).

If Trump is re-elected, the genocide of Palestinians will continue (just like it did in his first term). If Biden is re-elected, the genocide of Palestinians will continue (just like it did in his first term).

Voting can't change what's happening in Gaza, but it can change other things for the better. That's why people like the one's in this thread piss me off. The amount of smug self-righteousness on display in this thread would put any Southern Baptist preacher to shame. And just like a Southern Baptist preacher, the only help the "no voters" are willing to offer my wife, my friend's kid, my colleagues, and people like them is "I'll pray for you!" "Sorry, I have to keep my integrity regarding an issue that can't change. That's why I have to throw y'all under the bus."

You're not just voting for Biden, you're voting for his cabinet, his judges, his voters, etc. Remember Trump's cabinet? Betsy DeVos, Jeff Sessions, Stephen Miller, etc. The SCOTUS judges that ended Roe. Trump did that! Nobody here can make an argument that Trump's cabinet and judges were better or similar to Biden's (Except Blinken. He does suck.)

I know my one vote isn't going to shift the entire election. But on the other hand, no snowflake thinks they're responsible for the avalanche. It's not hard to vote (but there is one group trying to make it harder and it ain't the Dems). Plus, it doesn't stop you from doing other forms of direct action, which is absolutely necessary. You cannot do one without the other.

# ¿ May 8, 2024 19:58

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Kraftwerk posted:

I agree with all off what you said this but small correction here.

Roe v Wade was a multi generational project led by the religious right and the GOP. They've been trying to get this decision overturned since the day it happened and much of the "judicial activism" that led to Roe being repealed was the shoe falling off the other foot when more liberal judges of the era brought Roe into force.

Trump in this case is the patsy.

Maybe it�d be more accurate to say that Trump was the final key piece in the plan.

# ¿ May 8, 2024 20:32

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Gnumonic posted:

You're a German in the 1930s who's been drafted. You receive an offer to become the administrator of a concentration camp. You are personally opposed to the holocaust, and you know that if you don't take the position, it will go to someone else who would enthusiastically murder as many innocents as possible. You reason that if you were to take the offer, you could prevent more death than anyone else likely to take the position, but you would still be forced to order the deaths of a large number of innocent people. Let's just assume that if you try to defect or desert, you will likely be killed, and a more committed Nazi will run the camp anyway. (This is a riff on one of the most famous objections to consequentialism)

Watching Schindler's List and arguing that Oskar Schindler is the obvious bad guy.

With all of this talk about morality and culpability, why do the people who argue "no vote" never acknowledge trans people, women's rights, labor rights, or Ukraine. Everybody who has taken the position of "yes vote" acknowledges that the genocide is bad while explaining that other human rights issues are at stake. Every person arguing "no vote" for the last couple of pages have failed to engage with trans/women/labor rights. Why the silence?

# ¿ May 9, 2024 04:00

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Halloween Jack posted:

Not targeting you specifically, but it's very strange to me that some people will draw a line in the sand over voting for a rapist, and a lot of other people will respect that even if it's not their own stance. But try telling them that a politician is a war criminal, or responsible for mass death and absolute poverty, and it just doesn't register beyond "Okay, fair point, but..."

I suppose that a lot of people in the political center don't really have ethical principles. They see credible accusations as points scored in a debate; the actual impact doesn't mean anything to them.

Still don't see any mention of trans rights, abortion rights, labor rights, or Ukraine. Unless you're taking a principled stand against those. If that's the case, then I totally understand not voting for Biden.

BRJurgis posted:

I keep trying to write an effort post of sorts and it results in me burning out, but I've been thinking about a post for days so I'll try to summarize.

The "results based/consequentialist" thinking would make sense to me, I've made the same argument until recently. No longer though.

Our politics is an impediment to a better world. The two party system does not represent what the views and needs of Americans necessarily are (or could be, anyway), rather it shapes them into an ongoing culture war that simply pivots around what we are allowed to fight about. What the status quo needs us to fight about. It's a successful project, and while there is enormous money and propaganda networks set against us it seems our political culture is such we'd carry on the fight willingly.

It's not a real fight to me, electoralim. We already lost.

I've said it before, electoralism should never be considered as a tool by itself. It has to work in conjunction with other forms of direct action. Also, pretty rich talking about "the culture war is what they allow us to fight about" when there are people actually dying from that culture war.

BRJurgis posted:

My goals, my ideals, are sustainability and justice. These will not be accomplished or even meaningfully approached within predictable conditions. Incremental progress in the face of climate change is a trap, a lie. Our peace and prosperity is ill-earned and it's more clear than ever that the exploitation and genocide will not stop. It's bipartisan because it will always be what this needs, what we need to live like this.

The only power that exists to change this is masses of people with incredible resolve and a sense of self sacrifice. We'd have to be willing to do without the benefits of the systems we've built if we're to challenge and regain control of them. IF the people of the USA are capable of that, it seems things would have to get far worse to spark that paradigm shift.

Until then our unjust unsustainable system will chug along towards certain collapse, dooming the natural world and the future.

I don't know how to be constructive in the face of this. But I want to fight against it, and that fight starts in my heart and will be on my terms. And I'll thank folks not to start telling me who I do and don't care about when I refuse to vote for people who have been willfully aiding a broad daylight genocide. A damning indictment of our free speech and democracy. I'd rather pull the whole machine down right on my head than cling to my own comfort, waiting for my turn to be fed into the gears of the Machine that ends the world.

I've voted my whole life and i used to be proud to do so.

Nobody is asking you to be proud or enthusiastic or patriotic. We just want you to vote. And I will say it again, not one mention of trans rights, abortion rights, labor rights, or Ukraine.

EDIT: "Only worry about how you personally feel. Never make any compromises, especially if it might save lives. Collective action is completely pointless." And it's a wonder why leftism is completely isolated and powerless in this country.

volts5000 fucked around with this message at 19:17 on May 9, 2024

# ¿ May 9, 2024 18:33

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Halloween Jack posted:

I'm sorry. I'll change my forum signature to a list of issues that I care about, so that you can know that I care about them. That will save time vs. typing them out in every reply.

When you respond to people speaking out on an issue with "But why aren't you talking about..." you're just trolling them from the Right. You forgot to include the violence in the Sahel in that list! BOOM, OWNED! You didn't mention climate change either, OWNED AGAIN! This is stupid.

Are you actually incapable of understanding or believing that someone can care about civil rights without believing that #VoteBlueNoMatterWho is a worthwhile route to achieving them? Do you understand that if #VoteBlueNoMatterWho is your bare minimum requirement to believe that someone is progressive at all, you can only ever preach to the choir, or just annoy people?

I'm trans. Thanks for presuming to speak on my behalf, but my identity isn't a tool for you to whip votes for Racial Jungle Joe. I'm not at all impressed with e.g. a set of Title IX regulations that leave out trans athletes. You seem to have a hard time getting it through your head that a lot of people aren't impressed by promises of incremental change on an absurdly long timeline.

Actually I am incapable of understanding the argument. You got one side holding steady/advancing civil rights (albeit slowly) and the other setting up the pieces to rapidly take them away and the conclusion is "Meh, it's all the same." I don't understand that! That makes absolutely no sense to me! And I'm sorry I'm bringing up those issues. "No voters" seems to be very proud of their ethics and moral principles. But when someone points out that their decision either does nothing or potentially hurts people, they just keep talking about their ethics and their feelings and their moral principles like that somehow protects them from real world consequences.

Halloween Jack posted:

I'm not asking people like you to stop voting. I'm asking you to shut up and stop trying to shame people into voting for your preferred war criminal.

Yeah, no shaming coming from you there. You come off as completely neutral and passionless.

# ¿ May 9, 2024 19:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 02:44

volts5000: Apr 7, 2009; It's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.

Josef bugman posted:

No you don't? You have one side saying, out of the corner of their mouth about civil rights whilst doing very little positive to change things. You have another side that are howling bigots, but who we are expected to treat as if they are worthy opponents and capitulate to if they win electorally, regardless of if they win a mandate from the majority of citizens. Now, ultimately, this is the overarching problem with electoralism. It is that we need to accept the wins of fascist whilst they do not do the same back and, instead of this being treated as a threat to things, is instead treated as normal.

I never treated Trump as normal when he was in office. People resisted him all the time. Who is treating him as normal? How is he being treated as normal? And how does not voting fix that?

Josef bugman posted:

If you are not proud of your ethics or moral principles, what are you proud of? Do you think that ethics should be discarded or put to one side before making any choice, or just ones that effect people a long way away and not you.

Judge not, lest you be judged.

I am proud of my moral principles. I can look back and say "I did what I could" instead of "I didn't get my hands dirty". That's ok for me. I just can't understand any scenario where I would see Betsy DeVos revoke Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ and say "Well, I can take comfort in the fact that I didn't vote for Hillary".

# ¿ May 9, 2024 20:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Electoral Politics and Political Strategies