I think this might be the third (or maybe fourth?) time i’ve responded to this question from you, but since you keep asking it I will continue answering it for others (since I think you either don’t care what I think, you keep forgetting somehow, or you’re not asking it for the benefit of your own understanding)
What would you want to do?
First I will make it known: go and vote for harm reduction. If you personally feel incapable of voting for Biden for reasons relating to Israel I think that’s valid, but still go vote for every other position at the very least. If your concern for politics starts and ends with federal election day then you are then free to check-out. The following applies for every other day except election day itself.
but
Putting pressure on democrats1 is broadly the only way to stir action (in my opinion). So long as the electoral status-quo denies any platform for meaningful dissent then the only way remaining is to focus your energy outside of that electoral system. I do not think campaigning for a third party is a worthwhile effort (because electoral pressures still limit what even a third party can do, and because our capitalistic system effectively kneecaps any actual short-term successes). I think engendering dissatisfaction with democrats is the most effective strategy, not only because it would push them to move their platform to keep their coalition, but it also increases the body of people willing to spend effort outside of elections for direct action. At least in online spaces, the only effective strategy is agitation.
There is a spectrum of agitation that I think is effective, I won’t pretend to be the expert, but I think democratic apologia is generally unhelpful because it provides a feeling of reassurance that the limited involvement liberals have is sufficient to drive progress. Continual progress requires continual pressure, and giving a pat on the back because some policy or other is ‘more than nothing’ provides reason to feel good about what’s been done and gets in the way of higher aspirations. (If you didn’t catch it, this is a bit of a dig at you. I don’t think modest progress is anything to celebrate about when the bigger issues are still looming). There’s also a bit of self-selection here, because this obviously doesn’t work for a bunch of people (and as I continue beating that drum more people start muting me). But the people who happen to agree that more progress is needed are likely to push back against attempts at solidifying that partisan consensus, and that’s valuable.
The existence of Trump simultaneously complicates things and makes things easier, because on the one hand the threat of his existence is real (i do not deny that threat), but it also raises the urgency for action. Targeting agitation at the people who exist in the overlap between extreme concern over the rise of fascism and people who broadly agree that change is needed is the sweet spot. I don’t feel bad about hammering on that sweet spot, I think it’s created enough friction for some with more modest political leanings to find more ways to engage. There’s an honest concern that Biden cannot win on a pro-israel platform, so that’s the most urgent issue that needs addressing (it also makes the message clear so it can be addressed: address this issue or risk losing needed support). A more broadly anti-Democrat message would be more likely to inspire apathy, not action. If the Israel-Palestine conflict did not exist then a different one would be the target (you constantly point to this as evidence of bad-faith argumentation, but there’s a well of policy that needs changing so of course there’d be something else to push on).
Hopefully that answers your question. Maybe i’ll make this a copypasta for future questions along a similar line.
1: I mean democrats broadly, not just democrats in power. pressure on political actors involves engendering discontent among their base, otherwise agitation is ineffectual
Yeah, fair enough. I keep forgetting I think partly just because of my own brain, and partly because the logic of it doesn’t make sense to me.
Basically, directing the energy at pretty-left voters, turning them off from Democrats, and hoping that it will influence them before the election and they’ll be vocal about that and Democrats will pick up on that disaffection (with their super competent responsive intel operation about what voters want), and respond to it, and the voters will pick up on that and get un-disaffected and start supporting Democrats again, that’s what will produce a more lefty Democratic Party which appeals to the electorate better - like it doesn’t seem like it would work that way. It seems like the lesson of 1968 and 2016 is that when voters get disaffected from Democrats, the Democrats stick to their Republican-lite guns anyway and lose elections, and then we get Republicans in charge and sometimes also the Democrats tack to the right.
It seems like supporting a third party, or targeting the Democrats with specific demands about what you or your coalition wants, or directly supporting a non electoral solution which could produce good things - all of those would be way better than just kneecapping the Democrats to the voters based on (perfectly valid in this case) criticisms of their positions.
Idk, I’m not trying to go in circles and I apologize about being thick on picking up on it - but that’s the point of me talking about the 1932 German elections and Ralph Nader and all that, previously. I get what you are saying but I am having trouble envisioning your agitation producing the result that you say it is intended to produce.
Yea, I get it. I’m in too deep with being a relentless prick that I can’t really turn it off, and honestly the more resistance I run into the more blinded by indignant fury I feel. I’ll acknowledge there’s an emotional dimension to this that may defy logic.
It seems like supporting a third party, or targeting the Democrats with specific demands about what you or your coalition wants, or directly supporting a non electoral solution which could produce good things - all of those would be way better than just kneecapping the Democrats to the voters based on (perfectly valid in this case) criticisms of their positions.
In order for any IRL direct action to have the legs to be meaningful, there needs to be enough discontent for people to join that cause to begin with. For what it’s worth, i feel pretty confident i’ve been very clear about what i’m critiquing, and what response would be acceptable to stop agitation. Taking it directly to democratic leadership happens everywhere but here, so that’s why it seems like i’m just making noise for the hell of it. The more direct action happens in other forums, via other means. But creating a demand within the base validates those voices that are speaking to leadership, too. They both need doing, but only one happens here.
I also think i’ve made my perspective on the 1932 German elections clear elsewhere, so I’ll let those other comments to speak for themselves. Having a loyal coalition is not enough, we have to accomplish more if we’re interested in more than just kicking the can.
I feel somewhat comforted by this being a pretty small space filled with otherwise perfectly motivated democratic voters, I don’t think i’m doing a noticeable amount of damage to democrats (in terms of how people end up voting in november). Nothing I can say is going to make people feel less motivated by trump’s fascistic rhetoric, so I imagine the most i imagine myself really doing is pushing a handful of people into further-left political spaces. If people vote in november but are furious about having to do it, that might be the best-case scenario. People deciding it’s completely pointless would be worst-case, but I’m sure that if that was happening I’d have already been kicked out, or at the very least it would be limited to a pretty small group.
Even if it’s ineffectual it’s at least a little cathartic.
I don’t think there is any level of shortage in America of people who are disaffected with the Democrats. I think mostly what they need is something to vote for, and a realistic organization that can give it to them.
I don’t think there is any level of shortage in America of people who are disaffected with the Democrats. I think mostly what they need is something to vote for, and a realistic organization that can give it to them.
Aren’t those kind of the same thing? Like, wouldn’t we see some realistic organization that they can vote for, manifesting out of that level of people being disaffected?
I just don’t think that’ll happen all on its own for a variety of reasons, I think a lot of people have to decide they’re upset enough to do something all at the same time.
More people than I think is reasonable are comfortable with politics as something like a performance you make on social media and then pick the least terrible flavor on election day, and idk how else to push those people into the real world of organizing without making it too uncomfortable to hide behind that performance.
I think this might be the third (or maybe fourth?) time i’ve responded to this question from you, but since you keep asking it I will continue answering it for others (since I think you either don’t care what I think, you keep forgetting somehow, or you’re not asking it for the benefit of your own understanding)
First I will make it known: go and vote for harm reduction. If you personally feel incapable of voting for Biden for reasons relating to Israel I think that’s valid, but still go vote for every other position at the very least. If your concern for politics starts and ends with federal election day then you are then free to check-out. The following applies for every other day except election day itself.
but
Putting pressure on democrats1 is broadly the only way to stir action (in my opinion). So long as the electoral status-quo denies any platform for meaningful dissent then the only way remaining is to focus your energy outside of that electoral system. I do not think campaigning for a third party is a worthwhile effort (because electoral pressures still limit what even a third party can do, and because our capitalistic system effectively kneecaps any actual short-term successes). I think engendering dissatisfaction with democrats is the most effective strategy, not only because it would push them to move their platform to keep their coalition, but it also increases the body of people willing to spend effort outside of elections for direct action. At least in online spaces, the only effective strategy is agitation.
There is a spectrum of agitation that I think is effective, I won’t pretend to be the expert, but I think democratic apologia is generally unhelpful because it provides a feeling of reassurance that the limited involvement liberals have is sufficient to drive progress. Continual progress requires continual pressure, and giving a pat on the back because some policy or other is ‘more than nothing’ provides reason to feel good about what’s been done and gets in the way of higher aspirations. (If you didn’t catch it, this is a bit of a dig at you. I don’t think modest progress is anything to celebrate about when the bigger issues are still looming). There’s also a bit of self-selection here, because this obviously doesn’t work for a bunch of people (and as I continue beating that drum more people start muting me). But the people who happen to agree that more progress is needed are likely to push back against attempts at solidifying that partisan consensus, and that’s valuable.
The existence of Trump simultaneously complicates things and makes things easier, because on the one hand the threat of his existence is real (i do not deny that threat), but it also raises the urgency for action. Targeting agitation at the people who exist in the overlap between extreme concern over the rise of fascism and people who broadly agree that change is needed is the sweet spot. I don’t feel bad about hammering on that sweet spot, I think it’s created enough friction for some with more modest political leanings to find more ways to engage. There’s an honest concern that Biden cannot win on a pro-israel platform, so that’s the most urgent issue that needs addressing (it also makes the message clear so it can be addressed: address this issue or risk losing needed support). A more broadly anti-Democrat message would be more likely to inspire apathy, not action. If the Israel-Palestine conflict did not exist then a different one would be the target (you constantly point to this as evidence of bad-faith argumentation, but there’s a well of policy that needs changing so of course there’d be something else to push on).
Hopefully that answers your question. Maybe i’ll make this a copypasta for future questions along a similar line.
1: I mean democrats broadly, not just democrats in power. pressure on political actors involves engendering discontent among their base, otherwise agitation is ineffectual
Yeah, fair enough. I keep forgetting I think partly just because of my own brain, and partly because the logic of it doesn’t make sense to me.
Basically, directing the energy at pretty-left voters, turning them off from Democrats, and hoping that it will influence them before the election and they’ll be vocal about that and Democrats will pick up on that disaffection (with their super competent responsive intel operation about what voters want), and respond to it, and the voters will pick up on that and get un-disaffected and start supporting Democrats again, that’s what will produce a more lefty Democratic Party which appeals to the electorate better - like it doesn’t seem like it would work that way. It seems like the lesson of 1968 and 2016 is that when voters get disaffected from Democrats, the Democrats stick to their Republican-lite guns anyway and lose elections, and then we get Republicans in charge and sometimes also the Democrats tack to the right.
It seems like supporting a third party, or targeting the Democrats with specific demands about what you or your coalition wants, or directly supporting a non electoral solution which could produce good things - all of those would be way better than just kneecapping the Democrats to the voters based on (perfectly valid in this case) criticisms of their positions.
Idk, I’m not trying to go in circles and I apologize about being thick on picking up on it - but that’s the point of me talking about the 1932 German elections and Ralph Nader and all that, previously. I get what you are saying but I am having trouble envisioning your agitation producing the result that you say it is intended to produce.
Yea, I get it. I’m in too deep with being a relentless prick that I can’t really turn it off, and honestly the more resistance I run into the more blinded by indignant fury I feel. I’ll acknowledge there’s an emotional dimension to this that may defy logic.
In order for any IRL direct action to have the legs to be meaningful, there needs to be enough discontent for people to join that cause to begin with. For what it’s worth, i feel pretty confident i’ve been very clear about what i’m critiquing, and what response would be acceptable to stop agitation. Taking it directly to democratic leadership happens everywhere but here, so that’s why it seems like i’m just making noise for the hell of it. The more direct action happens in other forums, via other means. But creating a demand within the base validates those voices that are speaking to leadership, too. They both need doing, but only one happens here.
I also think i’ve made my perspective on the 1932 German elections clear elsewhere, so I’ll let those other comments to speak for themselves. Having a loyal coalition is not enough, we have to accomplish more if we’re interested in more than just kicking the can.
I feel somewhat comforted by this being a pretty small space filled with otherwise perfectly motivated democratic voters, I don’t think i’m doing a noticeable amount of damage to democrats (in terms of how people end up voting in november). Nothing I can say is going to make people feel less motivated by trump’s fascistic rhetoric, so I imagine the most i imagine myself really doing is pushing a handful of people into further-left political spaces. If people vote in november but are furious about having to do it, that might be the best-case scenario. People deciding it’s completely pointless would be worst-case, but I’m sure that if that was happening I’d have already been kicked out, or at the very least it would be limited to a pretty small group.
Even if it’s ineffectual it’s at least a little cathartic.
I don’t think there is any level of shortage in America of people who are disaffected with the Democrats. I think mostly what they need is something to vote for, and a realistic organization that can give it to them.
Aren’t those kind of the same thing? Like, wouldn’t we see some realistic organization that they can vote for, manifesting out of that level of people being disaffected?
Maybe that’s true, it seems right anyway.
I just don’t think that’ll happen all on its own for a variety of reasons, I think a lot of people have to decide they’re upset enough to do something all at the same time.
More people than I think is reasonable are comfortable with politics as something like a performance you make on social media and then pick the least terrible flavor on election day, and idk how else to push those people into the real world of organizing without making it too uncomfortable to hide behind that performance.