|
The pressures that contribute to the differentiation of the parties are less based on an actual bipolar demographic in this country but the fact that a credible ideological alternative, be it in a socialist state or a robust socialist party, exists to force the supposedly more "capitalist-adverse" party from not just conceding to capital. Capital inherently runs conservative - things such as a war state, a robust prison-industrial complex, a stratification of society that promotes anxiety all benefit capital, with the only drawback being a curbing of appeal to minority communities. The current "two-party" system benefits from the illusion that capital is having an internal conflict over whether to absolutely marginalize or include minorities, when it really promotes a slim margin of minorities to create the idea of mass progress that simply isn't there. Olufemi Taiwo's work shows good examples of this. Arguments that capital is not monolithic should be summarily dismissed - the rich have class solidarity, making their public differences slight. To quote renowned scholar George Carlin, "It's a big club, and you're not in it!" with my only added exception being that it's a club that constantly looks to downsize. Even as Barack Obama diversified the elite tier of American rulers, black people collectively lost wealth. This is important to understand why the "sizable policy" difference parties have ultimately amount to little. Even when communism's appeal forced America out of their Gilded Age conservatism, there was still disappointment with how little difference there was between the parties. It's clear a credible alternative must be offered against, to paraphrase Julius Nyere, a one-party that in its typical extravagance has two. The Democratic Party, for example, until recently had used for a half-century superdelegates to prevent candidates who were not establishment from securing the nomination. These superdelegates still have power now, though it can only be invoked after the first ballot. In 2024, the president, Joe Biden, used his power to move the start of the primaries to South Carolina, a state that favored him and other conservative establishment candidates despite the state not going Democrat since 1976. The party is institutionally resistant to change and as such, cannot be considered a true vehicle for grassroots operations. It is specifically designed not to be that. The only true strategy would be through a party that favors direct action. This has precedent in other regions and is not the "revolution or bust" strategy that many of its detractors insist upon. While the Nordic Model is far from perfect, the alternative is a party that continues to resist reform and actively wages war on the very "third parties" that could pressure it into change. Even if one is an incrementalist and still believes the Democratic Party can be reformed into a party of change, they should entertain third party voting as a pressure gauge. Not doing so effectively means negotiating intentionally without leverage. People who continue to advocate for party solidarity at any cost should be viewed the same way as a publication expressing concerns about how Hollywood strikes may delay the release of precious blockbusters, as the electoral equivalent of scabs. Their criticisms should be viewed as feints and summarily ignored. There is no law saying that people can't vote for third parties, so nothing really stops them from being the first past the vote other than public perception of them as unfeasible. There is, however, no guarantee the establishment liberal candidate will win either. Odds are, you will likely vote for a loser either way, so why vote for the loser who makes you feel nauseous after voting for them? Individual votes don't matter in our system. They should be viewed as speech rather than power. Power comes from labor and the continued operations of governance/commerce/etc. Thanks for having me, Go Jayhawks.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2024 02:57
|
|
|
There is no Republican governor candidate yet as the primary is ongoing, but I assume you mean the frontrunner. As there is no Green Party candidate at all due to only person running and that primary being canceled, I'll likely vote for whoever is the Democrat. It's unlikely North Carolina will go for a culture warrior conservative for governor as those have not fared well in recent years, with the only Republican who's taken the governorship at the time doing so as a pro-business moderate whose spending scandals cost him his base and made him panic-push anti-trans laws that lost him the state even more. But again, this all goes into the concept of "enough people," which I personally think is a bit of megalomania and misplaced sense of responsibility. If a solid blue states goes to the Republicans, is that the voters' fault or the party's fault for not appealing to voters? At a certain point, one should view themselves as separate from the party or risk being incapable of negotiating power with that party. I would point to the fact that the libertarian party routinely outperforms the Green Party and it was in fact a libertarian candidate who last made an impact on presidential elections with Perot, and yet, there is constant "concern" expressed about the Green Party costing the Democrats victory. So are otherwise willing Democrats who "protest vote" the cause for losses, or is it more a failure to garner independent moderates whose concerns aren't the same concerns as the average Democrat? The math does not actually back up the constant left-punching the Democratic Party engages in. It looks like what it is - a prebaked excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2024 03:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You repeatedly insisting that democratic government is a religion does not actually make it so. You're going to have provide proof to the negative then. Many who are rightwing Christians routinely mix their nationalist symbolism with their religious symbolism, as if God and America are synonymous. Liberalism is also not immune to this bias - Biden speaks of the country "not going backwards" as if America consistently bends towards good the longer time goes on, mimicking Barack Obama's thoughts on a moral arc of history. But there's no reason for there to be a moral arc of history unless one assumes that evil only comes from ignorance, good from knowledge, as if evil is not perpetuated knowingly. That would itself not be religious thinking, would just be a sort of technocratic fetishism, except the emphasis on campaigning at the moment isn't outreach and education but instead vote shaming those who wish to abstain or vote third party. This lends itself to the notion that voting Democrat is a kind of absolving act, a Day of Atonement, for all the evils of prior American history. Jon Stewart called the Democratic Party the "party of history." The Democratic Party routinely honors the sacrifices of the past while ignoring the sacrifices of today. This type of act can only be framed as religious observance since there's no expectation placed on the Democratic Party to deliver on its promises or indeed to perfect the country - it is only the support of it that matters, a way to show that whatever genocides or civil rights abuses or whatnot cannot be pinned on a voter because they voted for the Lesser Evil and therefore can only be praised, not criticized.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You're using the fact that a Democratic politician is trying to get people who are not voting or voting for someone else to vote for his party as your evidence that democratic government is a religion. That's pretty nonsensical. It's eight sentences, give me a break. There's multiple definitions of religion, and to a point, religion is nigh undefinable, but I made a point of comparing it implicitly to the atonement practices of Abrahamic faiths. Apparently I'll have to make that more explicit - it's secular atonement. The "counterfactual" is actually very provable! Biden said that his administration was going to make a push to cure cancer, not within his term as was admittedly falsely supported, but that was the end goal. That goal was dialed back fairly quickly. Biden also gave up on the public option The list goes on of unkept promises from the Biden administration, but that's less important than the fact the overwhelming sentiment from liberals is that Biden should not be held accountable for these promises, neither at the polls nor even in public remarks, lest it bring Donald Trump into power. I'm going to need a more substantiative response from you in the future other than throwing counterfactual around about easily provable claims.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Okay, so, from a personal perspective here, what's a promise Biden would break or an act he could do that would make you not vote for him?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 22:10
|
|