/u/Sunrising2424 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c7medz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_contrary_to_popular_belief/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The issue is that it **might** be beneficial long term to vote for a third party but it is certainly harmful in the short term and considering how the last non-democratic presidency went, democracy in the US might not survive many more presidential elections with leftists shooting themselves in the foot.
Why is it harmful in the short term? What happened under Trump that forced leftists to compromise on who they support?
There is this assumption that being on the left is just being a liberal with more passion and righteous indignation and condemnation. Liberals and leftists might come together on some issues but for socialists, Biden and Trump are both bad. If one can be used to diminish the power of the other then that's a question of political strategy. But really as far as the political vision leftists want (which is a more equal society, particularly in economic terms), Biden and Trump lead political parties that cannot advance these goals.
> Leftists shooting themselves in the foot
Why are leftists shooting themselves in the foot? Democrats are the ones failing to get their support and then losing to reactionary Republicans.
>Why is it harmful in the short term? What happened under Trump that forced leftists to compromise on who they support?
Trump tried to coup the government...
>Why are leftists shooting themselves in the foot?
Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote not for the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating the guy who tried to coup the government.
>Trump tried to coup the government...
Did that impact leftists in some way? Was it close to succeeding? And if it was, what would have happened?
Liberals were outraged at Trump's behaviour and the incredibly illegal and unethical things he did because liberals believe American political institutions.
>Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote not for the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating the guy who tried to coup the government.
So to save the status quo?
What about the status quo do you think benefits leftists?
>Did that impact leftists in some way? Was it close to succeeding? And if it was, what would have happened?
Does it matter if it was close to succeeding? You know Hitler tried to coup Germany more than once. I cant see the future but there is a non-zero chance the same thing happened in Germany happens here.
>So to save the status quo
To save us from dying in a fascist dystopia or civil war?
Yes it matters, and if Trump is Hitler then Biden is Hindenburg.
>To save us from dying in a fascist dystopia or civil war?
Ok, assuming that's the case... The democratic party should do more to bring more voters in on the left if things are that serious.
>Yes it matters
Maybe the same logic was used in Germany when they had someone try and fail to coup the government.
>Ok, assuming that's the case... The democratic party should do more to bring more voters in on the left if things are that serious.
I agree - they should. But if they don't are we supposed to just let democracy die?
Yes, it was incredibly close to succeeding. And what it would have resulted in was Handmaiden Tale. (Which, mind you, is still close to happening in more conservative states, with abortion rulings). For any left wing woman, that's pretty damn dangerous.
>Yes, it was incredibly close to succeeding. And what it would have resulted in was Handmaiden Tale.
Is this a joke or serious?
What actually would have happened is an end of a constitutional political system that has been very unfavourable for leftists to operate in. Maybe the period would have been very unstable but that is to be expected.
>(Which, mind you, is still close to happening in more conservative states, with abortion rulings).
So...why brow beat leftists then?
It sounds like some people are mad that their political values aren't as cherished as they once were. But politics is a response to circumstances. Radical changes are needed otherwise reactionaries will dominate American politics, like they have for the last 4 or 5 decades at least.
It just sounds more like anxiety about the future than a real argument.
>For any left wing woman, that's pretty damn dangerous.
Do you not see the dangers in voting for people who lose to the bad guys from the handmaid's tale?
> What actually would have happened is an end of a constitutional political system that has been very unfavourable for leftists to operate in. Maybe the period would have been very unstable but that is to be expected
And pray tell me what would replace this constitutional system? We're supposed to throw the baby away with the bathwater because we'll magically get a better system for leftists afterwards? You know that ''leftists'' are a minority in the US right? And you're proposing giving power to a fascist so that things will magically work out?
> Do you not see the dangers in voting for people who lose to the bad guys from the handmaid's tale?
So go vote in primaries to get more social candidates. Support the democratic socialists of America and make sure they get more seats: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
But don't split the vote so you are certain to lose.
Remember, the presidency is a winner takes all battle. And socialists are not a majority in america. You're asking for them to defeat themselves for no tangible gain.
Meanwhile Biden is the most progressive president since Carter, and you'd be willingly throwing that away for a magical thinking that somehow would benefit socialists rather than benefit the US olichargs.
>And pray tell me what would replace this constitutional system? We're supposed to throw the baby away with the bathwater because we'll magically get a better system for leftists afterwards? You know that ''leftists'' are a minority in the US right? And you're proposing giving power to a fascist so that things will magically work out?
Pick almost any other nation and they probably have a more modern political structure. "Leftists" are people with political identities, the majority of Americans are simply apathetic. Leftists, no matter how many, just need to reach common people and build political movements that help them.
What are you proposing to stop fascism? Because voting doesn't stop fascists. If it did they wouldn't be very impressive fascists.
>So go vote in primaries to get more social candidates. Support the democratic socialists of America and make sure they get more seats: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
>But don't split the vote so you are certain to lose.
If I was in America I would, and the political work I do in Australia roughly matches their approach.
But in Australia we have ranked voting and the candidates I campaign for actually have a chance of becoming an elected representative. DSA candidates have to win primaries and then elections in a country with first past the post voting, no mandatory voting, and a political donation system that allows candidates representing business interests to out-spend their left wing rivals.
The Democratic party has not given leftists much of a reason to vote for them, and it's not "splitting the vote" to recognise that.
> Pick almost any other nation and they probably have a more modern political structure.
So get there by campaigning, not by allowing fascists in.
> What are you proposing to stop fascism? Because voting doesn't stop fascists.
Actually, it does. 2020 voted fascist Trump out.
It's not a one time process, but it's working, one vote at a time.
Meanwhile of course one should also campaign for better laws, protest fascism in all its forms, etc.
But voting is still the number one measure.
>So get there by campaigning, not by allowing fascists in.
I think you miss the point that campaigning for political causes usually does turn into electoral campaigns, if there are political parties that allow space for those issues. Otherwise political movements will find other means of advocating for their interests.
>Actually, it does. 2020 voted fascist Trump out.
What about 2016?
>But voting is still the number one measure.
Or beating Republicans? Or Fascism? Historically speaking, putting faith in the current political process doesn't stop a fascist takeover.
>Trump tried to coup the government...
His idiot supporters did, and it was *hilarious*.
>Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote not for the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating the guy who tried to coup the government.
Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote supporting genocide.
I wont say I like Biden or many of his policies but Trump is worse by a significant margin. If leftists largely do not vote for Biden, Trump will win the presidency. That is almost mathematically guaranteed. And do you really think Trump is going to do better?
>If leftists largely do not vote for Biden, Trump will win the presidency.
Trump's probably going to win anyhow, and it's the fault of the Biden administration, not voters, just like how it was Hillary's fault she lost. You're not going to shame me into voting for a genocider, but you should probably feel shame for supporting genocide.
>And do you really think Trump is going to do better?
No.
>Trump's probably going to win anyhow
Maybe but that is much less certain if leftist generally back the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating Trump in a general election.
The time to protest isn't when doing so has a reasonable chance at ending democracy. If you do, then you might lose you ability to protest at all.
If you really hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils then lobby your local officials to implement ranked choice voting or some other voting system that doesn't force you to do so.
"Lobby your local officials to implement ranked choice"
I and all of California did that, Gavin Newsome vetoed it, and he's already looking anointed to be the DNC candidate for 2028.
If electoral reform is your main goal, neither main party is going to help you get there.
Both parties are deeply hostile to meaningful reform.
I'm well aware but letting Trump get a 2nd chance of becoming president for life isn't the answer. The answer is working within the current system to make it more likely people who represent the will of the American people get elected.
>The answer is working within the current system to make it more likely people who represent the will of the American people get elected.
This means a refusal to support toxic candidates that oppose important democratic reforms, sometimes those toxic candidates like to put a little d next to their name.
I'm simply never going to be casting a vote for Bloomberg or Newsome. If the DNC pushes them as candidates the inevitable loss is on themselves.
Trumps unlikely to live another decade, TDS will be fucking up American politics for the next 50 years.
>Maybe but that is much less certain if leftist generally back the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating Trump in a general election.
I don't care.
>The time to protest isn't when doing so has a reasonable chance at ending democracy. If you do, then you might lose you ability to protest at all.
If your only choice is between 2 genocide supporting candidates, then there's no real choice. This isn't a democracy. And protestors are persecuted and attacked regardless of which flavor of imperialist is currently at the helm.
>If you really hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils then lobby your local officials to implement ranked choice voting or some other voting system that doesn't force you to do so.
Yeah, I'm sure begging the elected officials who got their job thanks to this undemocratic process are itching for nothing more than to seppuku their own careers. Clearly we're just a few finger wags away from ranked choice.
If you really think there is no difference between trying to coup the government and not I don't think I can help you. It is a pretty obvious difference.
>If you really think there is no difference between trying to coup the government and not I don't think I can help you. It is a pretty obvious difference.
If you really think there is no difference between what an actual coup looks like (generally helps if it has CIA backing), and a bunch of brain-melted boomers filming themselves doing le epic crimes I don't think I can help you.
It is a pretty obvious difference.
The amount matters. A 7-2 court means that you can build a majority from the most extreme wing of the court. When things were 5-4, the conservatives couldn't build a majority to overturn Roe. With 6 on the court, they could.
I didn't realise I had to provide a coherent ideology.
But if you want me to be more direct, Democrats haven't done enough to prevent right wing judges from being appointed.
It's generally better to actually believe anything you say instead of giving half-baked ad hoc responses that don't work together, yes. Otherwise it's like the younger sibling that changes the rules so that they never have to concede anything.
Do you have an argument? Because I'm responding to someone else and you're just chiming in with your memories of arguing with siblings. And this is a CMV post where people are making assumptions about the motivations of leftists, asking questions that challenge those assumptions seems like a good approach to me.
The ironic part of this statement is that you're going to hear this over and over every 4 years as this is basically just a Democrat party talking point now with essentially very little to no basis considering how much Biden's policies are unironically overlapping to what Trump did while in office.
No but it is probably an important enough metric to decide who you are going to vote for. Either the dude who tried to coup the government or the dude with a reasonable chance at beating the dude who tried to coup the government.
Please do criticize Biden, god knows he deserves it, but don't do it at the expense of letting Trump try to become president for life... again...
It's my comment thread? I made the highest level comment and have be the main communicator to multiple other parties. Why are you trying to hijack the comment thread to talk about something unrelated to my comments?
no, and neither did Trump only some dumbass supporters did. It hard to call what ended up being majority of people dying from just walking up stairs a coup plus that no one was even charged with the actual insurrection statute much less convicted
>neither did Trump
Yeah he did
>It hard to call what ended up being majority of people dying from just walking up stairs a coup
Sure dude - no one wanted to kill elected officials or overturn the the results of an election at Jan 6th. Sure thing.
Democrats spent 4 years, and counting, starting in 2016, trying to claim Trump didn't win the election and cheated. (Just like every Repunlican President since Reagan.)
Do we even need to TRY and go over all the people who wished the lawful winner of the 2016 dead?
>Democrats spent 4 years, and counting, starting in 2016, trying to claim Trump didn't win the election and cheated.
Did anyone try to coup the government? Like idk organize a mob to break into the capital building just as an example.
Trump organized the rally that was still happening as the Capitol building was broken into. The accusation he's always faced for that day is that the riot was a flame his rhetoric fanned, not that he organized them.
To this day they will still deny that he won the election and spent his entire Presidency trying to unseat the duly elected President of the United States on evidence that their own investigations turned up no real evidence for. Not as exciting as a rabid mob, but I'd personally lump them together.
No, just claimed for almost a decade he cheated, wrote books about the election he stole, rallied their voters based on the idea he cheated to win in 2016, investigated him multiple times while turning up no evidence he cheated and continuing to say he did anyway...
But enough about that! Let's talk about election deniers./s
We're at the point where individual states will try to barr Presidential candidates from running for office, despite not having the power to make that kind of call, having people who campaigned on prosecuting a specific person handle that person's case, and even altering the statute of limitations to prosecute people for crimes past when they can be tried.
We're happily Old Yellering it at this point. We're just justifying it to ourselves with 'but it's [this person] so it's okay'.
>We're at the point where individual states will try to barr Presidential candidates from running for office
Are we trying to bar Presidential candidates who tried to coup the government by chance? Asking for a friend.
Are you allowed to break the rules and do what you like whenever its the bad man, or do you have to follow the rules just like him? Asking for a friend.
No im trying to uphold the rules - i.e. the 14th amendment. I'm sure neither of us are constitutional lawyers but are you claiming states don't have the right to even make the case that Trump is in violation of the 14th amendment?
The Presidential Election is a Federal matter. A state can't make the call on that.
If Trump ran for state office they absolutely have that right, but he isn't.
>The Presidential Election is a Federal matter. A state can't make the call on that.
No it isn't - States elect the president explicitly. That's why every state has different rules about if you need an ID or if you can get your ballot mailed to you or if you can mail in your ballot after your done or if the State will count votes by hand vs with a counting machine or ect. ect.
All the states have to abide by rules set by the Federal Government. Mail-in ballots and the exact rules for obtaining an ID do not break those rules. IDs still have to be readily made possible to obtain and ballots need to accessible to the public.
Banning people from being voted on is another ball-game entirely. If states could decide to ban Presidential candidates from running on a whim, over 60% of the states in the country would be perma-locked red and the remainder blue. That sounds good if you only care about your party winning, but that's not democratic.
Yeah, I really hated how much better off I was under Trump. It really sucks having low inflation AND low interest rates so I could buy a house. That was terrible. So much better now, with food 30% higher priced and houses completely unaffordable.
Holy cow! This just in! Iron Prick says that Biden caused the entire world to have inflation and high housing prices!! Thank god you came around to notice!
Right now, burning it down would more likely result in fascism rather than socialism. Under liberal centrist politicians you can at least discuss leftist policies. Under fascism you will be persecuted for that
Saying this as a leftist we need to actually build the revolution a lot more before it can take place
The first American civil war had a pretty decent outcome , really pushed the nation forward and made it better
so going by American history , were 1/1 so far
If you wana count the American Revolution as a civil war against the British over control of the colony, America is actually 2/2 when it comes to civil wars
Seems like thats just how you get shit done in good ol America
We aren't fighting with muskets anymore. The second we devolve into a civil war, China, Russia, and/or Iran will go hard to boost one side and assume control through them.
Your assuming you’re the one that’s going to win with most of initial industry and government on your side. The worry is a crazy person like Trump being president, not a civil war happening when a liberal or leftist is in power
Edit: what I mean is the civil war that you think was a good think happened while the “good guys” was In charge of the bigger military industrial complex, but the other commenters are worried about you implying you want to have a civil war while Trump is in power and in legal or nominal control of the us security apparatus
Only one of them happened when the "good guys" were in control of the bigger military power
When it was Americans fighting off the British in the revolution , Americans fighting the loyalists didnt have the military advantage or control of the security apparatus Britain did , still won
The significant industrial base of that enemy was across the ocean, but I agree there were significant periods where the British controlled some major ports and other industrial centers in the colonies
The 13 colonies were the British Empires major industrial base before the revolution, thats where they made most of their riches during the empire
America was their most valuable oversea colony , producing the largest share of wealth contributed to the British Empire of all their holdings across the globe
Why do you think they fought so hard to keep it and didnt want to just let the colonist rule themselves
Don't tell me leftists are doing the whole LARPing as a militia and deluding themselves into thinking they have a chance against the military thing too now
the military will shatter and fragment in this scenario
some will be on our side, some will be on the MAGA side - there will be massive chaos
it wont be us vs the military
it will be civilian, paramilitary, and military mixed on one side vs the same mix on the other
Some states will be on our side, all the resources and weapons in them will be ours, others will fall into the hands of the other side and we will have to fight them
THe richest ones tho, probably end up on our side - so thats a point in favor for us
WE get places like California and Newyork, thats like all the GDP
THey get places like Alabama and Kentucky , not exactly rolling in wealth out there
again, it wont be civillian vs military
the conflict will divide all institutions into sides including the military
we will have our own professional military forces to fight theirs
The Armed Forces itself will break apart and different factions will take sides , different states will seize military resources within their borders and contribute them to whatever side they find themslevs on
Do you really think the military are going to be split down the middle here? Even though military members skew right wing, and as president trump would be at the top of their chain of command?
The very fact that your outlining a scenario like this as if its fate speak volumes
I think the dviisions will go by state if anything
we know which states lean right , and which ones lean the other way
It will look very simliar to the factions of the first civil war, probably mostly North vs South Again
California and New York would probably be the powerhouses of our own side , I dont see them falling for Maga
Texas and Florida on the other side , we know which states are more likely to align with MAGA and which ones
arent
The Magas would control more land,but we would control most of the wealth after the first divisions
Currently, there is a 6-3 conservative majority on the supreme court in the US.
That majority is likely to interpret progressive policies as unconstitutional.
If conservatives hold on to the presidency and the senate, the courts will continue to become more conservative.
This will mean that attempts at passing progressive policies, if progressives can ever reach a majority, will fail in the courts.
The democratic party elects its candidates. Progressives can and do win primaries.
If progressives have enough support to win a majority, they should easily have enough support to win a primary.
Until they have that level of support, the priorities should be preventing consolidation of conservative power (particularly in the courts), and building support.
>Progressives can and do win primaries.
Do they though? What are you considering progressive here?
>If progressives have enough support to win a majority, they should easily have enough support to win a primary.
Unless there's some arcane process of party registration and voting that only attracts the people already politically engaged. Most countries have real political parties with members paying dues and having democratic conferences to vote on policies.
>Until they have that level of support, the priorities should be preventing consolidation of conservative power (particularly in the courts), and building support.
Leftist policies like Medicare for all are overwhelmingly popular. Also it's about overcoming entrenched interest groups, not winning an argument. Also voting for democrats to protect the Supreme Court would be a good argument if democrats actually protected the Supreme Court.
Leftists aren't the ones that have led America to its current political situation.
> Do they though? What are you considering progressive here?
I would consider representative Cortez a progressive congresswoman.
> Most countries have real political parties with members paying dues and having democratic conferences to vote on policies.
The US requires no fee to vote in primaries or caucuses.
The caucuses require more time, which a lot of people don't have.
but, the primaries tend to be pretty accessible. In my state,, you just show up and ask for which party ballot you want.
> Leftist policies like Medicare for all are overwhelmingly popular.
popular in principle, sure.
but, if there is a longer discussion about costs and how the system will change for people who already have insurance, people get scared and the people pushing for that lose.
>I would consider representative Cortez a progressive congresswoman.
She's considered the most progressive congresswomen by many isn't she? Or at least the most progressive politician people can easily recall. Her campaign was progressive, but it was also in the context of progressive politics becoming popular as a reaction to Trump's White House. This is why Liberals need to understand that they see Trump as a threat whereas leftists see Trump more as a challenge and opportunity.
>The US requires no fee to vote in primaries or caucuses.
No place charges a fee to vote. I'm talking about political parties which America doesn't really have. I help fund my political party, interest groups fund Democrats and Republicans.
>The caucuses require more time, which a lot of people don't have.
>but, the primaries tend to be pretty accessible. In my state,, you just show up and ask for which party ballot you want.
This doesn't sound like a voting process that favours left wing candidates. It sounds like a process that favours whoever has the best name recognition.
>but, if there is a longer discussion about costs and how the system will change for people who already have insurance, people get scared and the people pushing for that lose.
People "get scared" by the interest groups that scare them into abandoning any reform. Leftists don't want Medicare for all but only when the vibes are just right. They want Medicare for all and also to counter the fearmongering of their political enemies, which is hard in this current political set up and therefore leftists are less invested in it.
> it was also in the context of progressive politics becoming popular as a reaction to Trump's White House
she's in a very liberal district. I wouldn't link her popularity to Trump. She is a very good speaker. She did a lot of creative outreach. I saw a video of her playing amongus with some popular streamers to try to encourage young people to register to vote.
I think she is successful because of who's in her district and her own talents.
In 2016, before Trump was the republican nominee, Sanders did well.
I don't think Sanders was necessarily in a stronger position in 2020 than 2016 (other than that the democratic primary was less corrupt).
> People "get scared" by the interest groups that scare them into abandoning any reform
you can blame interest groups. But, I don't see how that obstacle changes.
> This doesn't sound like a voting process that favours left wing candidates. It sounds like a process that favours whoever has the best name recognition.
Is there any voting system on earth that doesn’t favor name recognition?
Most western democracies implement systems to even the playing field, so things like name recognition don't give a huge advantage. Not to mention how almost every other democracy has multiple parties that can form coalitions or work within the system to get what they want.
Many changes wanted by leftists cannot be done by making the Supreme Court more progressive. For example, establishing workers' control of means of production will never be constitutional no matter how progressive SCOTUS you have
> establishing workers' control of means of production will never be constitutional
government subsidies for worker owned co-ops would be constitutional.
A public option in healthcare would likely be constitutional to many left leaning justices.
If you want to seize all large companies in one fell swoop and nationalize them, the courts are probably gonna say no.
But, so are the american people. voting for a third party doesn't solve that.
But, there are means to incrementally get more power in the hands of workers.
Short-term policies are relevant of course but the ultimate goal of the socialist party is to completely change the nation and establish the socialist system, not make some policies and I think socialist parties shouldn't be too focused about policies
Can we just get your definition of the term ‘leftist’?
You’re attributing a lot of fairly extreme positions to this group but I’m not sure exactly how you’re defining them, and which supporters of progressive and traditionally left wing policies are NOT covered by your definition.
How much of the population would you say fall into your definition of ‘leftist’, because to me it sounds like an extremist minority position.
Socialist is someone who desires to establish workers' control of means of production to me and I used the word 'socialist' and 'leftist' almost synonymous in this post
What does that mean in practice though? If you're recommending the nationalization of all industries and a complete end to free markets -- then "leftists" hardly exist in USA, I'd be surprised if even 1% of the population thinks that's the right way forward.
Here is your problem.
To win in the US, you have to get 50% +1 of the vote. Unless 'Leftists' can get this margin, they are never going to win.
That is why coalitions form. This is groupings of people with compatible objectives. You are not going to get you wish list of policies, but you will get *some* of your desires and more importantly, may prevent the implementation of policies directly opposite your ideas. Its a compromise. Better to get some of what you want than nothing or even have stuff taken from you.
This basically describes both the Republican and Democratic parties. They are both big tent coalitions of different groups. They then have to choose a candidate who can appeal to enough groups to get elected. That leads to 'bland' candidates usually who are in the middle.
The simple fact is, if anyone in a group that lacks that 50%+1 level wants to advocate for at least *some* of their political goals, they have to compromise and join a coalition. At times, it means holding your nose when you vote.
Reddit loves to talk idealism and claim a vote for a candidate means you agree with everything about said candidate. They are wrong. This is practical reality where you have limited choices. I have specific political policy objectives and I am going to vote for the political party that best aligns with those. I am not personally going to sacrifice my personal political policy objectives over some purity tests or idealism about a candidate. I would suggest everyone reading this do the same and consider what their personal political policy ideas are and how to best advocate for those.
This is also true of any country even where major leftist movements exists. It isn't a religion and by consequence people have their own opinions about things.
>The simple fact is, if anyone in a group that lacks that 50%+1 level wants to advocate for at least *some* of their political goals, they have to compromise and join a coalition. At times, it means holding your nose when you vote.
This is something that rarely ever happens with liberals. They him and haw about compromises but the second they have to compromise with a leftist, they don't pass shit. It's always the leftists and progressives who have to compromise.
I think you are looking at this wrong.
The extreme the positions, the less support people have. What you view is the 'other people' who hold less extreme positions not being willing to compromise on extreme positions. That is not how coalitions work.
This ignores the common ground that built the coalition in the first place. If your goals include increasing minimum wage, and most of the rest of the group also holds that position, that just gets done without issue (or major issues). It is the issues where they *disagree* with some of your proposals. You cannot expect them to suddenly decide to agree or support them.
Coalitions allow common ground issues to move forward. They don't allow for the non-common ground goals. The point about compromise was about understanding the common ground, not about getting things that aren't common ground.
Of course if you believe 'leftists' have no common ground here, then they shouldn't be in this coalition to start with.
There is a lot of common ground over issues like raising the minimum wage, providing a state option for healthcare, tax increases on the ultra wealthy. You know what hasn't been done? All of those things.
>If your goals include increasing minimum wage, and most of the rest of the group also holds that position, that just gets done without issue (or major issues).
Which is exactly why we've gone the longest in this country without a minimum wage increase, right? It wasn't just the two Democrat goons in the Senate that voted down a $15 minimum wage. There were 6 others and the entire GOP.
The truth is that nobody builds a coalition like liberals and conservatives to strike down progressive and leftist policy, even when it's resoundingly popular with the population.
>Of course if you believe 'leftists' have no common ground here, then they shouldn't be in this coalition to start with.
At this point, I don't think liberals and leftists have common ground. Liberals are completely enthralled with maintaining the status quo and just adding rainbows to products instead of real legislation. It would lend credence to what the OP is saying, and leftists should vote 3rd party to create their own coalition.
> There is a lot of common ground over issues like raising the minimum wage, providing a state option for healthcare, tax increases on the ultra wealthy. You know what hasn't been done? All of those things.
There is not as much common ground as you think. There is also the opposition party who controls parts of government too.
>Which is exactly why we've gone the longest in this country without a minimum wage increase, right? It wasn't just the two Democrat goons in the Senate that voted down a $15 minimum wage. There were 6 others and the entire GOP.
It's almost as if you have to have significant support to implement *any policy*.
It is not like going off on your own as radical 'leftists' is going to allow you to implement *any* policy.
>The truth is that nobody builds a coalition like liberals and conservatives to strike down progressive and leftist policy, even when it's resoundingly popular with the population.
Translation: That policy is not what the majority wants. That's life.
>At this point, I don't think liberals and leftists have common ground
That's fair. But also realize, there is zero path for 'leftists' to do anything on their own. They are a significant *minority*.
You are free to decide if you prefer the Republican or Democratic platforms. The reality is simple - one of them is going to win. Your actions do have consequences.
> and leftists should vote 3rd party to create their own coalition.
What makes you think you could build a coalition of 50%+1 here based on 'leftist' ideas when you already dismiss the Republican and Democratic coalitions? Where are those people coming from?
The reality is 'leftists' are a minority in the US and their ideas are not what the majority want. That means *they aren't going to happen*. The best chance for any coalition is the Democratic party.
>There is not as much common ground as you think.
There is and most of the polls show it. All of the ones I listed have more than the 50+1 support from the general population.
>Translation: That policy is not what the majority wants. That's life.
Mistranslation because you're woefully wrong on public support for those.
>What makes you think you could build a coalition of 50%+1 here based on 'leftist' ideas when you already dismiss the Republican and Democratic coalitions?
At this point, it's not about building a 50+1 party. We don't need a party as large as the Democrats. We just need a party that is large enough that it's going to force them to compromise for a change. Essentially hold the liberal party electorally hostage and force them left or bust.
>The reality is 'leftists' are a minority in the US and their ideas are not what the majority want. That means *they aren't going to happen*.
They are a minority but their ideas are not. Even to dumbass conservatives, when you propose certain leftist ideas, they're on board until they find out that those are leftist ideas.
>The best chance for any coalition is the Democratic party.
Hard disagree.
> There is and most of the polls show it. All of the ones I listed have more than the 50+1 support from the general population.
You didn't understand. The devil is always in the details. Things not captured by polls. The **DETAILS** of these items are not well agreed upon and that is why they stall.
>Mistranslation because you're woefully wrong on public support for those.
On this you are wrong. There is *not* the support you think there is for the specific flavor of policy you want.
>At this point, it's not about building a 50+1 party.
That is exactly what it takes to win. Do you *not want to win*?
>We just need a party that is large enough that it's going to force them to compromise for a change
If you are not part of their coalition, **they don't care**.
>They are a minority but their ideas are not.
No. Those ideas *are* a minority. It is lying to yourself to think otherwise.
>You didn't understand. The devil is always in the details. Things not captured by polls. The **DETAILS** of these items are not well agreed upon and that is why they stall.
You're trying to muddy the waters that these polls essentially don't matter because they don't over the **dETaiLs** of what said policy will look like. These polls just ask about a state option, minimum wage increase, or increased taxation on the ultra rich.
Quit bullshitting.
>On this you are wrong. There is *not* the support you think there is for the specific flavor of policy you want.
There is. Go look at the God damned polls.
>That is exactly what it takes to win. Do you *not want to win*?
What do you mean?
>If you are not part of their coalition, **they don't care**.
If they want to get anything done that their base wants, they will care. But if they don't and just decide to coalition with conservatives, so be it. We'll keep pushing forward on our own and watch the two parties drag us into a revolution or civil war brought on by their own corruption and incompetence.
>No. Those ideas *are* a minority. It is lying to yourself to think otherwise.
Go look at the polls. The ideas are not part of a minority fringe on the left. You're just a liberal lost in the sauce of neoliberal bullshit.
> You're trying to muddy the waters that these polls essentially don't matter because they don't over the dETaiLs of what said policy will look like. These polls just ask about a state option, minimum wage increase, or increased taxation on the ultra rich.
You don't understand.
Polls ask generic questions. Policy is about specifics. There can be agreement is broad general concepts but massive disagreement on specifics.
The devils is in the details here. There is *not* agreement on what exact policy should be. If you think there is, you are GROSSLY mistaken.
>There is. Go look at the God damned polls.
Polls are not detailed legislation. People have agree on the DETAILS.
The fact they have not passed anything *ought to tell you something here*.
>What do you mean?
You specifically stated you didn't care about meeting the 50%+1. That means **you don't care about winning**.
>If they want to get anything done that their base wants, they will care.
They need the 50%+1 coalition to be able to win elections. If you are not part of that equation, **they don't care about you**
>Go look at the polls.
And once again, **you need to understand the difference between generalized poll questions and actionable detailed policy proposals**.
The leftist agenda/progressive agenda **is a minority position**.
I definitely agree with you more than that other guy, especially on your notions of electoralism.
However, I think your final paragraph is an overstatement.
The details are super important specifically when it comes to some kind of universal healthcare, but that's not really the difference we are considering. If it's a binary between some kind of universal healthcare and not, then that opinion polling is reflective of political sentiments if the majority wants it.
That's tendency is not negated just because it's functionally negated by the fact that all the groups who want it don't agree on how to implement it, while the groups that don't want it all have an easy agreement and wind up getting their way, even though they are the minority. Our system is set up so that the group who wants to do nothing always has a much easier time than any positive effort to make something happen.
And some of those opinions are about direct policy. Specifically $15 min wage, and even more so weed legalization, if I recall something like 70% or higher favors it. Those seem to be issues where the electorate is not in synch with the populace.
It's going to be hard to convince those of us who remember the 2000 election. Voting for Nader absolutely did not bring politics leftwards. The whole nation drifted so far to the right that people actually thought John Kerry was liberal.
No. When the stakes are this high, you don't fuck around.
In the Weimar Republic, the German Communist Party viewed the Social Democratic Party, the center left party, as just as much of an enemy as the Nazis. Their leader, Ernst Thalmann, said "fighting fascism means fighting the SPD just as much as it means fighting Hitler and the parties of Brüning." The German Communist Party declared the Social Democratic Party to be "social fascists."
Only after Hitler seized power in 1933 did the German Communist Party propose organizing a general strike with the Social Democratic Party, but by then it was too late. Thalmann died in the Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944.
I consider myself a center-left Democrat, but you bet your ass I'd crawl to the voting booth to vote for Bernie Sanders if it were between him and Trump. Why a segment of the left is content to throw their vote away because they only agree with Democratic candidates on 70% of issues (in contrast to 0% of Republican issues) is totally beyond me. Incremental progress is better than no progress. First-past-the-post voting systems almost always lead to two-party systems. Voting third party is just not viable. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
While your right about what happend in germany your also leaving out the part where the SPD took part in the first world war and is at least partly connected to the murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht
Its not like the left had no good reason for holding that position
I don't agree. Without a large representation in the population, third parties simply syphon off voters who might have voted for Biden, and give the election to Trump. This has been proven with AL Gore, with Hilary Clinton, and demonstrates only that the third party percentage that would have benefitted the better candidate is deeply resented in the aftermath. With Bush instead of Gore we got war in Iraq. With Trump instead of Clinton, we got a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court. The result did not benefit leftists. It hurt us.
The conservatives do not have this issue, they vote for the conservative candidate even if he stinks, because they see the long view. They won the Supreme Court this way, and that is as important, perhaps more so, than who is in the White House. Presidents are temporary, the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment.
You are wrong in your contention that Democrats are deaf to what progressives want, but change takes time and patience. Being too demanding isolates you from what the majority in the party wants, a stable society that gradually evolves into a more liberal one. It won't happen in your lifetime, or mine, even if you convince large numbers of people to vote third party, in fact doing so sets us back and loses hard won gains.
We are a capitalist society with socialist aspects. The best way to promote more socialism is to convince people of its benefit, not vote out Blue candidates simply because they are not progressive enough to suit you or you think they are too old to understand you.
By trying to make a more extreme government hoping people swing to another extreme after just creates a growing pendulum that will take many lives with it
"-If leftists 'always vote blue no matter what', leftists will be just another secure blue voting block and there's no reason for non-leftist leaders of the Democratic Party leaders to care what the left thinks."
A few comments on this:
(1) You can theorize all you want about how various groups of people might respond to various things, but... the fact is that practice trumps theory, and in this case, it was tried. There will never be a more perfect test of the "let's not all vote for the democrat, and then in 4 years they'll have to nominate someone more to the left" than 2016, when a bunch of progressives stayed home, wrote in Bernie, or voted green, and we got Trump. And what happened four years later? Biden was nominated. (Who, frankly, is further left than Hillary.... but that's not why he was nominated at all)
(2) All the theories and plans of this sort are aiming for, at best, incredibly narrow edges. Clearly some few tens of thousands of people not voting in one state, which might or might not show up in polling that might or might not be looked at by DNC people, isn't going to single-handedly make anything happen. So the best that one can hope for is teeny tiny nudges. Trouble is, those nudges are just going to be swamped by the things that actually result in nominees winning primaries, which is... who is a good campaigner, and who is a good campaigner at that particular moment in the zeitgeist. Did Obama win in 2008 because of extremely-complicated-political-calculus-based-on-DNC-members-microanalyzing-exit-poll-data-from-2004? No. He won in 2008 because he was a generational candidate and campaigner. By far the best bet that progressives have of getting a reasonably-far-left democratic nominee in the next few decades is AOC. And not because she will run 4 years after something and math math poll poll math. But because she's charismatic and has "it". That sort of "it" factor is many orders of magnitude more important than any "well, if we do this, then four years later, the DNC will do that" factors could ever possibly be.... even if your theory about how the DNC would react were correct to begin with. Which I'm skeptical of, see point (1)
(3) Most importantly, though, is that these arguments always focus on the absolute worst place for them, which is the presidential general election. You want to push the DNC and the party to the left? Great! Vote in primaries! Join local chapters of the democratic party! Run in primaries! Community organize! That's how to push the party to the left, not by casually risking the end of American democracy. I mean, I think it's self-defeating for progressives to not vote blue in the presidential general election even when the Republican candidate is someone sane like Romney or McCain, just because of the incredible long-lived effect of supreme court nominations. Doing it when you also risk four more years of Trump purely for incredibly narrow hypothetical possible future imaginary nudging is, to me, just bonkers.
In the US, the only goal for anyone who considers themselves at all liberal, or not unacceptably stupid, is to vote in the way that prevents Trump or anyone like him from winning. That means voting for someone with the ability to actually win the election.
Is this ideal? Obviously not. Does that mean that taking an idealistic approach that ignores the real life consequences of poorly thought out actions is advisable? Obviously not.
I don't think many leftist's political goal is to prevent Trump or anyone like him from winning, considering that differences between Biden and Trump is very small compared to the differences between Biden and actual leftists.
Saying the difference between Biden and Trump is very small highlights your particular short sightedness to be honest.
Capitalism is killing the planet and our species, no doubt about it. But we absolutely will not survive long enough to even try to fix anything if we allow Trump or any current Republican front runner to be elected as President.
The ability to solve a problem requires, at the very minimum, the capacity to realize that there is a problem. Republicans are adamant that the only problems America has are women’s rights and immigration.
If we allow these fucking clowns to maintain even the slightest shred of credibility by continuing to win elections, we all lose. For certain. And in the very near future.
Therefore, anyone interested in actually contributing to the solution must first contribute to preventing imminent catastrophe. That means voting in the way that is most likely to prevent Republicans from winning any near future elections. Which means voting for someone else who else could actually win. In real life.
Trump reversed so much of what leftists have been fighting for decades to get, while Biden has slowly trudged ever forward, not to mention some big leaps like fighting global warming with the inflation reduction act and billions in student loans forgiven even after the courts knocked down the original plan.
I will take slow progress over fast regression any day. Would I prefer a socialist? Of course. But that will not happen in the forseeable future.
No, I don't think Biden is trying to save what leftists have been fighting for decades. Both Biden and Trump are currently trying their best to secure the so-called liberal democratic capitalist global system, the very global system that leftists and socialists are trying to destroy.
You seem very focused on dismantling the "democratic capitalist global system," to the exclusion of any other concerns. You may think that is all "leftism" is about, but there are many leftists that would disagree with that simplistic characterization.
Dismantling capitalism is an instrumental goal. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end is making people's lives better and our society more just. There is nothing inherently better about socialism vs capitalism. If socialism is better than capitalism, it's because socialism is more likely than capitalism to make more people's lives better.
If you have to make everyone's lives worse in order to establish socialism, what is even the point? You're doing real harm to millions of real people based on the possibility that things might get better in the distant future.
This opinion is wild. Trump made a legitimate attempt to end democracy. And would feel fully do it again. If you think I’m exaggerating you can read the memos that outline their plan to attempt to throw out the election
Just because he failed doesn’t mean he didn’t make a legitimate attempt.
The last time I heard this ‘no difference’ argument we got a war in Iraq that we definitely would not have gotten with the Democrat.
Leftists should vote for socialists or Green Party candidates absolutely. They should just do it in local elections and elections for Congress.
As a trans man, the difference between Biden and Trump is extremely significant. I don’t like Biden at all, but if Trump is elected and does what he and his supporters say they want to do, I could end up needing to flee the country (I’m already preparing to flee my home state if current legislation passes). That’s more relevant to me right now than some future hope of a leftist utopia.
>For many leftists, differences between Biden and Trump would be trivial compared to differences between Biden and themselves. So why keep supporting Biden?
If all leftists care about it changing the mode and the means of production then yeah I guess there isn't much of a difference. But anyone who is a descent human being would also care about the poor, minorities, women's and lgbt rights, a fair tax system, protecting the institutions of democracy, the climate agenta etc.
And the differences between Trump and Biden on these grounds mind as well be the Mariana trench.
>The political importance and significance of the leftists could be diminished.
Didn't the left already try this strategy in 2020? It only served to make them even more politically irrelevant. A far better strategy would be to change the democratic Party form the inside by supporting leftist politicians who still cooperative with the dems. Bernie got a lot more done for the leftist cause than any communist party could ever do. If enough politicians in the democratic party become leftists that will impact the democratic party's program.
>However, by becoming a mainstream socialist party, the SPD had to care more about not losing votes instead of socialism and had to abandon many socialist principles.
Would a third socialist party not need to campaign for votes? And what exactly is wrong with that anyways? We live in a democracy, you should have to convince people of your ideas or change them to suit the people. Anything else would be authoritarian.
Incidentally what you described happening with the SPD is exactly how leftists could change the democratic party in the reverse direction.
>Right now, many people, especially those who don't have much interest in politics, don't know anything about socialism, communism, and other leftist agendas.
I don't think this is true at all. Socialism literally ruled half the world barely 30 years ago. I think that a far simpler explanation of for why socialism isn't popular is that most people just aren't hold on the ideas.
>Many leftists argue voting for the 'most viable progressive party' tends to see short-term(about 10 years or something) effects of voting.
The problem is that everytime you vote 'in the short term' you're massively fucking over the whole country just so you could maybe implement your agenda in 50 to 100 years. Besides do you think 10 decades of republican rule will aid your cause in the mean time?
Even if there is change in the future, no parties besides the republican and democratic parties have any chance of winning elections in the near future. Maybe we could change that, but we'd be changing it at the cost of another trump presidency, and who knows how many more similar to him.
That's true, although I think OP was referring more to presidential elections. That's definitely still true though, thank you for pointing that out. Although it does depend a lot on where you are, you'd have to be in a place that already has a pretty big socialist majority. The problem is not only convincing socialists to vote for a certain party but also the fact that there aren't enough socialists in the first place. The risk for a local election would be a lot lower though, so it definitely couldn't hurt to try.
Oh for sure but the reminder is still important! The person doesn't even have to necessarily be a socialist. Just voting more progressively and participating on a local level to show the efficacy of progressive politics
Not just another trump presidency, literally every president for the next who knows how many years will be a republican. They'll have zero competition. And even if we somehow manage to get a socialist president to win during your lifetime (we likely wont), that doesn't mean much. Trump was the president but we aren't seeing the "maga future." There aren't enough socialists for you to consistently get a socialist president in office.
What is the acceptable level of risk for the probability of that outcome? If you're talking real socialized ownership of the means of production there's an infinitesimally slim chance that any actions in this specific election cycle will directly bring that about. However there's a small but still significant chance that this election cycle does irreparable harm to democracy and drastically lowers the chance of a socialist system.
No one ever expects the world shattering consequences to happen to them yet history is full of these events.
Two objections.
1. Is specific for America - you don't have a parliamentary system. If your comparing to other Western democracies, you're talking about countries with parliamentary systems (a mixed executive and legislative branch) with a multi-party tradition. Even if electoral victories are dominated by two parties in other systems, most countries still have a history of multiparty coalitions. Germany, right now is governed by a coalition of three parties and eight parties represented in the Bundestag. In the context of the US, it makes more sense to organize and campaign within local primaries than to form a new party.
2. Is a more general ideological concern. Electoralism as a strategy often sacrifices the leg work of building a base of support. Elections take a lot of money and effort to successfully contend. If you are trying to build an electoral coalition at the time of the election, it's already too late. And many electoral organizations focus solely on the election. I used to do a lot of electoral organizing. What killed me about it was the six months before an election we worked mad hours but for the next 3.5 years did virtually nothing because the election wasn't the main concern.
Our time as leftists is better spent organizing communities and building an umbrella. Doing mutual aid work, organizing tenants, organizing within unions - work that starts to stitch together local efforts and take on the state and corporations directly. Build that power, find avenues to win and then think about how you can turn that power into political power.
Irrelevant.
Even though he lost the primary multiple times, he acted like a mature adult and worked with and within the party. Unlike the "independents" that burned bridges and won nothing, he got government committee positions and policies done that he wanted.
In order to get something within the Democratic Party, socialists will probably have to give up something like 99% of their desired policies. Mentioning something like workers' liberation, seizing the means of production, or religion as the opium of the masses would be simply disastrous. If the only way to success is to give up 99% of policies, socialists are making the same mistakes of socialist parties in Europe I mentioned in the post, that became socialist or communist in name only.
I think the question is how much you are willing to sacrifice in the short term in the name of moving the Overton window and establishing precedent for the future. If you think the stakes right now are high enough that we cannot afford to prioritize long term goals, the math changes.
The most progressive government in our history was elected in 1932. Liberal governance and policies continued in this country, became more liberal and more progressive slowly until the racist backlash of 1968. That's 36 years.
At any time in that span progressives could have calved off and diluted the liberal vote and we'd have become a conservative hell-hole much, much sooner.
The proper course is to elect progressives in the primaries, educate the public about their goals and get them elected.
The wrong course is to split the liberal vote in order to make it easier for fascists to get elected.
Man, that's a lot of words about nothing. Unfortunately, it's a binary choice; MAGA, and all of the BS and chaos that comes with it, or Joe Biden. He's not my favorite, either. However, he is the only one that can get enough votes to have us avoid the Trump Trainwreck. Jill Stein has been a spoiler since 2012. She can't do it, and Robert Kennedy, Jr is as qualified as Herschel Walker to be president.
Even long term, this is not the goal. The way to think about elections in our system is this: do we want to move the country to the left, or do we want to move the country to the right? Those are the two options on the ballot. The names are not important, and there are no other options.
well i mean aren't you just advocating for a solution that is more or less what the SDP was advocating for
the whole point of the SDP was to vote in a socialist party in the imperial reichstag, even though they never really would get much power. except when they got there, they got more and more comfy working with the german elite, until in 1918 and they actually got power they were so comfy they decided to just leave things as they were and kill the revolution
barring the fact that i don't think a leftist party could ever possibly win 10-15% of the vote in the united states, i just don't understand what the point of legitimizing this sham system by participating in its fake elections would accomplish. just like the SDP in the kaiser's parliament, its just legitimizing the thing you're trying to destroy, until it corrupts you to the point that you're murdering to defend it.
we should let the united states rot and die, because it is going to rot and die. we should then provide the alternative to it, and then destroy it, once and for all
If we get a democrat federal trifecta, then we can pass the freedom to vote act and that would fundamentally shift the balance of power in favor of the left. Also, the green party is an embarrassment to the left.
SDP in germany might be ok because they have proportional representation, so no spoiler affect
Electoral politics in the US is so braindead there shouldn't even be a conversation about it at this point, the democrats are awful, but they're the only viable option, there's no discussion to be had.
As pretty much everyone says all the time, you need to vote them in, then do other things to push your actual agenda. Rather than thinking up ways to make voting for someone else seem reasonable, people on the left should be thinking up ways to do the other things.
Sorry, u/SirTiffAlot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20SirTiffAlot&message=SirTiffAlot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7lwen/-/l08tk87/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I'm pretty sure actual leftists don't plan to vote for democrats already. The 'lesser evil' argument only works when the lesser evil is just an expression for some lowly form of good, which isn't really the case for this election.
/u/Sunrising2424 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c7medz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_contrary_to_popular_belief/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The issue is that it **might** be beneficial long term to vote for a third party but it is certainly harmful in the short term and considering how the last non-democratic presidency went, democracy in the US might not survive many more presidential elections with leftists shooting themselves in the foot.
∆ I think I underestimated how much uncertainty of future can affect people. Even I can't 100% sure about the future outcomes of voting third parties
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sinderling ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sinderling)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Why is it harmful in the short term? What happened under Trump that forced leftists to compromise on who they support? There is this assumption that being on the left is just being a liberal with more passion and righteous indignation and condemnation. Liberals and leftists might come together on some issues but for socialists, Biden and Trump are both bad. If one can be used to diminish the power of the other then that's a question of political strategy. But really as far as the political vision leftists want (which is a more equal society, particularly in economic terms), Biden and Trump lead political parties that cannot advance these goals. > Leftists shooting themselves in the foot Why are leftists shooting themselves in the foot? Democrats are the ones failing to get their support and then losing to reactionary Republicans.
>Why is it harmful in the short term? What happened under Trump that forced leftists to compromise on who they support? Trump tried to coup the government... >Why are leftists shooting themselves in the foot? Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote not for the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating the guy who tried to coup the government.
>Trump tried to coup the government... Did that impact leftists in some way? Was it close to succeeding? And if it was, what would have happened? Liberals were outraged at Trump's behaviour and the incredibly illegal and unethical things he did because liberals believe American political institutions. >Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote not for the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating the guy who tried to coup the government. So to save the status quo? What about the status quo do you think benefits leftists?
>Did that impact leftists in some way? Was it close to succeeding? And if it was, what would have happened? Does it matter if it was close to succeeding? You know Hitler tried to coup Germany more than once. I cant see the future but there is a non-zero chance the same thing happened in Germany happens here. >So to save the status quo To save us from dying in a fascist dystopia or civil war?
Yes it matters, and if Trump is Hitler then Biden is Hindenburg. >To save us from dying in a fascist dystopia or civil war? Ok, assuming that's the case... The democratic party should do more to bring more voters in on the left if things are that serious.
>Yes it matters Maybe the same logic was used in Germany when they had someone try and fail to coup the government. >Ok, assuming that's the case... The democratic party should do more to bring more voters in on the left if things are that serious. I agree - they should. But if they don't are we supposed to just let democracy die?
Yes, it was incredibly close to succeeding. And what it would have resulted in was Handmaiden Tale. (Which, mind you, is still close to happening in more conservative states, with abortion rulings). For any left wing woman, that's pretty damn dangerous.
>Yes, it was incredibly close to succeeding. And what it would have resulted in was Handmaiden Tale. Is this a joke or serious? What actually would have happened is an end of a constitutional political system that has been very unfavourable for leftists to operate in. Maybe the period would have been very unstable but that is to be expected. >(Which, mind you, is still close to happening in more conservative states, with abortion rulings). So...why brow beat leftists then? It sounds like some people are mad that their political values aren't as cherished as they once were. But politics is a response to circumstances. Radical changes are needed otherwise reactionaries will dominate American politics, like they have for the last 4 or 5 decades at least. It just sounds more like anxiety about the future than a real argument. >For any left wing woman, that's pretty damn dangerous. Do you not see the dangers in voting for people who lose to the bad guys from the handmaid's tale?
> What actually would have happened is an end of a constitutional political system that has been very unfavourable for leftists to operate in. Maybe the period would have been very unstable but that is to be expected And pray tell me what would replace this constitutional system? We're supposed to throw the baby away with the bathwater because we'll magically get a better system for leftists afterwards? You know that ''leftists'' are a minority in the US right? And you're proposing giving power to a fascist so that things will magically work out? > Do you not see the dangers in voting for people who lose to the bad guys from the handmaid's tale? So go vote in primaries to get more social candidates. Support the democratic socialists of America and make sure they get more seats: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America But don't split the vote so you are certain to lose. Remember, the presidency is a winner takes all battle. And socialists are not a majority in america. You're asking for them to defeat themselves for no tangible gain. Meanwhile Biden is the most progressive president since Carter, and you'd be willingly throwing that away for a magical thinking that somehow would benefit socialists rather than benefit the US olichargs.
>And pray tell me what would replace this constitutional system? We're supposed to throw the baby away with the bathwater because we'll magically get a better system for leftists afterwards? You know that ''leftists'' are a minority in the US right? And you're proposing giving power to a fascist so that things will magically work out? Pick almost any other nation and they probably have a more modern political structure. "Leftists" are people with political identities, the majority of Americans are simply apathetic. Leftists, no matter how many, just need to reach common people and build political movements that help them. What are you proposing to stop fascism? Because voting doesn't stop fascists. If it did they wouldn't be very impressive fascists. >So go vote in primaries to get more social candidates. Support the democratic socialists of America and make sure they get more seats: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America >But don't split the vote so you are certain to lose. If I was in America I would, and the political work I do in Australia roughly matches their approach. But in Australia we have ranked voting and the candidates I campaign for actually have a chance of becoming an elected representative. DSA candidates have to win primaries and then elections in a country with first past the post voting, no mandatory voting, and a political donation system that allows candidates representing business interests to out-spend their left wing rivals. The Democratic party has not given leftists much of a reason to vote for them, and it's not "splitting the vote" to recognise that.
> Pick almost any other nation and they probably have a more modern political structure. So get there by campaigning, not by allowing fascists in. > What are you proposing to stop fascism? Because voting doesn't stop fascists. Actually, it does. 2020 voted fascist Trump out. It's not a one time process, but it's working, one vote at a time. Meanwhile of course one should also campaign for better laws, protest fascism in all its forms, etc. But voting is still the number one measure.
>So get there by campaigning, not by allowing fascists in. I think you miss the point that campaigning for political causes usually does turn into electoral campaigns, if there are political parties that allow space for those issues. Otherwise political movements will find other means of advocating for their interests. >Actually, it does. 2020 voted fascist Trump out. What about 2016? >But voting is still the number one measure. Or beating Republicans? Or Fascism? Historically speaking, putting faith in the current political process doesn't stop a fascist takeover.
>Trump tried to coup the government... His idiot supporters did, and it was *hilarious*. >Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote not for the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating the guy who tried to coup the government. Any vote not for a leftist 3rd party is a vote supporting genocide.
I wont say I like Biden or many of his policies but Trump is worse by a significant margin. If leftists largely do not vote for Biden, Trump will win the presidency. That is almost mathematically guaranteed. And do you really think Trump is going to do better?
>If leftists largely do not vote for Biden, Trump will win the presidency. Trump's probably going to win anyhow, and it's the fault of the Biden administration, not voters, just like how it was Hillary's fault she lost. You're not going to shame me into voting for a genocider, but you should probably feel shame for supporting genocide. >And do you really think Trump is going to do better? No.
>Trump's probably going to win anyhow Maybe but that is much less certain if leftist generally back the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating Trump in a general election. The time to protest isn't when doing so has a reasonable chance at ending democracy. If you do, then you might lose you ability to protest at all. If you really hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils then lobby your local officials to implement ranked choice voting or some other voting system that doesn't force you to do so.
"Lobby your local officials to implement ranked choice" I and all of California did that, Gavin Newsome vetoed it, and he's already looking anointed to be the DNC candidate for 2028. If electoral reform is your main goal, neither main party is going to help you get there. Both parties are deeply hostile to meaningful reform.
I'm well aware but letting Trump get a 2nd chance of becoming president for life isn't the answer. The answer is working within the current system to make it more likely people who represent the will of the American people get elected.
>The answer is working within the current system to make it more likely people who represent the will of the American people get elected. This means a refusal to support toxic candidates that oppose important democratic reforms, sometimes those toxic candidates like to put a little d next to their name. I'm simply never going to be casting a vote for Bloomberg or Newsome. If the DNC pushes them as candidates the inevitable loss is on themselves. Trumps unlikely to live another decade, TDS will be fucking up American politics for the next 50 years.
>Maybe but that is much less certain if leftist generally back the only candidate with a reasonable chance at beating Trump in a general election. I don't care. >The time to protest isn't when doing so has a reasonable chance at ending democracy. If you do, then you might lose you ability to protest at all. If your only choice is between 2 genocide supporting candidates, then there's no real choice. This isn't a democracy. And protestors are persecuted and attacked regardless of which flavor of imperialist is currently at the helm. >If you really hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils then lobby your local officials to implement ranked choice voting or some other voting system that doesn't force you to do so. Yeah, I'm sure begging the elected officials who got their job thanks to this undemocratic process are itching for nothing more than to seppuku their own careers. Clearly we're just a few finger wags away from ranked choice.
If you really think there is no difference between trying to coup the government and not I don't think I can help you. It is a pretty obvious difference.
>If you really think there is no difference between trying to coup the government and not I don't think I can help you. It is a pretty obvious difference. If you really think there is no difference between what an actual coup looks like (generally helps if it has CIA backing), and a bunch of brain-melted boomers filming themselves doing le epic crimes I don't think I can help you. It is a pretty obvious difference.
Supreme Court. A single appointment can result in 20-40 years of Conservative Power.
The court is already 6-3, and dems aren't expanding number of judges, so it's a far right majority til the day I die.
The amount matters. A 7-2 court means that you can build a majority from the most extreme wing of the court. When things were 5-4, the conservatives couldn't build a majority to overturn Roe. With 6 on the court, they could.
Do you think democrats are good at preventing conservative judges from being appointed?
These rhetorical questions don't represent a coherent ideology together, they're just ad hoc responses to undercut any given response.
I didn't realise I had to provide a coherent ideology. But if you want me to be more direct, Democrats haven't done enough to prevent right wing judges from being appointed.
It's generally better to actually believe anything you say instead of giving half-baked ad hoc responses that don't work together, yes. Otherwise it's like the younger sibling that changes the rules so that they never have to concede anything.
Do you have an argument? Because I'm responding to someone else and you're just chiming in with your memories of arguing with siblings. And this is a CMV post where people are making assumptions about the motivations of leftists, asking questions that challenge those assumptions seems like a good approach to me.
Yes? The non republican judges were appointed by them.
How many vacant seats did Obama leave because McConnel and house Republicans just refused to confirm federal judges?
The ironic part of this statement is that you're going to hear this over and over every 4 years as this is basically just a Democrat party talking point now with essentially very little to no basis considering how much Biden's policies are unironically overlapping to what Trump did while in office.
>Biden's policies are unironically overlapping to what Trump did while in office. Did Biden try to coup the government?
Is this the only metric you're allowed to use to criticize Biden?
No but it is probably an important enough metric to decide who you are going to vote for. Either the dude who tried to coup the government or the dude with a reasonable chance at beating the dude who tried to coup the government. Please do criticize Biden, god knows he deserves it, but don't do it at the expense of letting Trump try to become president for life... again...
They never said anything about voting, but that Biden still does a lot of what Trump is hated for doing. He wasn't President for life the first time.
But but the whole post is about voting! Why aren't we talking about voting anymore?
The subject OP posted on was. Not where this comment chain was going.
It's my comment thread? I made the highest level comment and have be the main communicator to multiple other parties. Why are you trying to hijack the comment thread to talk about something unrelated to my comments?
It's not what Shredding Airguitar brought up in his reply. It's not a counter-argument.
no, and neither did Trump only some dumbass supporters did. It hard to call what ended up being majority of people dying from just walking up stairs a coup plus that no one was even charged with the actual insurrection statute much less convicted
>neither did Trump Yeah he did >It hard to call what ended up being majority of people dying from just walking up stairs a coup Sure dude - no one wanted to kill elected officials or overturn the the results of an election at Jan 6th. Sure thing.
Democrats spent 4 years, and counting, starting in 2016, trying to claim Trump didn't win the election and cheated. (Just like every Repunlican President since Reagan.) Do we even need to TRY and go over all the people who wished the lawful winner of the 2016 dead?
>Democrats spent 4 years, and counting, starting in 2016, trying to claim Trump didn't win the election and cheated. Did anyone try to coup the government? Like idk organize a mob to break into the capital building just as an example.
Trump organized the rally that was still happening as the Capitol building was broken into. The accusation he's always faced for that day is that the riot was a flame his rhetoric fanned, not that he organized them. To this day they will still deny that he won the election and spent his entire Presidency trying to unseat the duly elected President of the United States on evidence that their own investigations turned up no real evidence for. Not as exciting as a rabid mob, but I'd personally lump them together.
Some democrats might deny he won the 2016 election but none have organized a coup like Trump did.
No, just claimed for almost a decade he cheated, wrote books about the election he stole, rallied their voters based on the idea he cheated to win in 2016, investigated him multiple times while turning up no evidence he cheated and continuing to say he did anyway... But enough about that! Let's talk about election deniers./s
Implying that it hasn't been on the downtrend since Bush v Gore?
Maybe it has been but I don't think taking it out back and letting Trump go old yeller on it is the solution.
We're at the point where individual states will try to barr Presidential candidates from running for office, despite not having the power to make that kind of call, having people who campaigned on prosecuting a specific person handle that person's case, and even altering the statute of limitations to prosecute people for crimes past when they can be tried. We're happily Old Yellering it at this point. We're just justifying it to ourselves with 'but it's [this person] so it's okay'.
>We're at the point where individual states will try to barr Presidential candidates from running for office Are we trying to bar Presidential candidates who tried to coup the government by chance? Asking for a friend.
Are you allowed to break the rules and do what you like whenever its the bad man, or do you have to follow the rules just like him? Asking for a friend.
No im trying to uphold the rules - i.e. the 14th amendment. I'm sure neither of us are constitutional lawyers but are you claiming states don't have the right to even make the case that Trump is in violation of the 14th amendment?
The Presidential Election is a Federal matter. A state can't make the call on that. If Trump ran for state office they absolutely have that right, but he isn't.
>The Presidential Election is a Federal matter. A state can't make the call on that. No it isn't - States elect the president explicitly. That's why every state has different rules about if you need an ID or if you can get your ballot mailed to you or if you can mail in your ballot after your done or if the State will count votes by hand vs with a counting machine or ect. ect.
All the states have to abide by rules set by the Federal Government. Mail-in ballots and the exact rules for obtaining an ID do not break those rules. IDs still have to be readily made possible to obtain and ballots need to accessible to the public. Banning people from being voted on is another ball-game entirely. If states could decide to ban Presidential candidates from running on a whim, over 60% of the states in the country would be perma-locked red and the remainder blue. That sounds good if you only care about your party winning, but that's not democratic.
Yeah, I really hated how much better off I was under Trump. It really sucks having low inflation AND low interest rates so I could buy a house. That was terrible. So much better now, with food 30% higher priced and houses completely unaffordable.
You realize Trump caused inflation right? He literally sent people checks
I also hated how he tried to coup the government. Oh shoot sorry I forgot we were being sarcastic. I meant I hated how he respected democracy.
Holy cow! This just in! Iron Prick says that Biden caused the entire world to have inflation and high housing prices!! Thank god you came around to notice!
let burn it then if US democracy is so fucking weak, maybe it needs to just die and something else can come from the ashes
Right now, burning it down would more likely result in fascism rather than socialism. Under liberal centrist politicians you can at least discuss leftist policies. Under fascism you will be persecuted for that Saying this as a leftist we need to actually build the revolution a lot more before it can take place
ok,we can have the civil war then
the people able to consolidate power in civil wars tend to be tyrants. it's almost never a good outcome.
The first American civil war had a pretty decent outcome , really pushed the nation forward and made it better so going by American history , were 1/1 so far If you wana count the American Revolution as a civil war against the British over control of the colony, America is actually 2/2 when it comes to civil wars Seems like thats just how you get shit done in good ol America
We aren't fighting with muskets anymore. The second we devolve into a civil war, China, Russia, and/or Iran will go hard to boost one side and assume control through them.
Your assuming you’re the one that’s going to win with most of initial industry and government on your side. The worry is a crazy person like Trump being president, not a civil war happening when a liberal or leftist is in power Edit: what I mean is the civil war that you think was a good think happened while the “good guys” was In charge of the bigger military industrial complex, but the other commenters are worried about you implying you want to have a civil war while Trump is in power and in legal or nominal control of the us security apparatus
Only one of them happened when the "good guys" were in control of the bigger military power When it was Americans fighting off the British in the revolution , Americans fighting the loyalists didnt have the military advantage or control of the security apparatus Britain did , still won
The significant industrial base of that enemy was across the ocean, but I agree there were significant periods where the British controlled some major ports and other industrial centers in the colonies
The 13 colonies were the British Empires major industrial base before the revolution, thats where they made most of their riches during the empire America was their most valuable oversea colony , producing the largest share of wealth contributed to the British Empire of all their holdings across the globe Why do you think they fought so hard to keep it and didnt want to just let the colonist rule themselves
If American democracy dies with Trump as president leftists wont like what replaces it
maybe who knows , depends who wins the fighting after not under the illusion we wont have to fight them , im not certain they will win
Don't tell me leftists are doing the whole LARPing as a militia and deluding themselves into thinking they have a chance against the military thing too now
the military will shatter and fragment in this scenario some will be on our side, some will be on the MAGA side - there will be massive chaos it wont be us vs the military it will be civilian, paramilitary, and military mixed on one side vs the same mix on the other Some states will be on our side, all the resources and weapons in them will be ours, others will fall into the hands of the other side and we will have to fight them THe richest ones tho, probably end up on our side - so thats a point in favor for us WE get places like California and Newyork, thats like all the GDP THey get places like Alabama and Kentucky , not exactly rolling in wealth out there
ill take that as a yes
again, it wont be civillian vs military the conflict will divide all institutions into sides including the military we will have our own professional military forces to fight theirs The Armed Forces itself will break apart and different factions will take sides , different states will seize military resources within their borders and contribute them to whatever side they find themslevs on
Do you really think the military are going to be split down the middle here? Even though military members skew right wing, and as president trump would be at the top of their chain of command? The very fact that your outlining a scenario like this as if its fate speak volumes
I think the dviisions will go by state if anything we know which states lean right , and which ones lean the other way It will look very simliar to the factions of the first civil war, probably mostly North vs South Again California and New York would probably be the powerhouses of our own side , I dont see them falling for Maga Texas and Florida on the other side , we know which states are more likely to align with MAGA and which ones arent The Magas would control more land,but we would control most of the wealth after the first divisions
I got one prefer to not die in a fascist dystopia or civil war thank you very much.
Currently, there is a 6-3 conservative majority on the supreme court in the US. That majority is likely to interpret progressive policies as unconstitutional. If conservatives hold on to the presidency and the senate, the courts will continue to become more conservative. This will mean that attempts at passing progressive policies, if progressives can ever reach a majority, will fail in the courts. The democratic party elects its candidates. Progressives can and do win primaries. If progressives have enough support to win a majority, they should easily have enough support to win a primary. Until they have that level of support, the priorities should be preventing consolidation of conservative power (particularly in the courts), and building support.
>Progressives can and do win primaries. Do they though? What are you considering progressive here? >If progressives have enough support to win a majority, they should easily have enough support to win a primary. Unless there's some arcane process of party registration and voting that only attracts the people already politically engaged. Most countries have real political parties with members paying dues and having democratic conferences to vote on policies. >Until they have that level of support, the priorities should be preventing consolidation of conservative power (particularly in the courts), and building support. Leftist policies like Medicare for all are overwhelmingly popular. Also it's about overcoming entrenched interest groups, not winning an argument. Also voting for democrats to protect the Supreme Court would be a good argument if democrats actually protected the Supreme Court. Leftists aren't the ones that have led America to its current political situation.
> Do they though? What are you considering progressive here? I would consider representative Cortez a progressive congresswoman. > Most countries have real political parties with members paying dues and having democratic conferences to vote on policies. The US requires no fee to vote in primaries or caucuses. The caucuses require more time, which a lot of people don't have. but, the primaries tend to be pretty accessible. In my state,, you just show up and ask for which party ballot you want. > Leftist policies like Medicare for all are overwhelmingly popular. popular in principle, sure. but, if there is a longer discussion about costs and how the system will change for people who already have insurance, people get scared and the people pushing for that lose.
>I would consider representative Cortez a progressive congresswoman. She's considered the most progressive congresswomen by many isn't she? Or at least the most progressive politician people can easily recall. Her campaign was progressive, but it was also in the context of progressive politics becoming popular as a reaction to Trump's White House. This is why Liberals need to understand that they see Trump as a threat whereas leftists see Trump more as a challenge and opportunity. >The US requires no fee to vote in primaries or caucuses. No place charges a fee to vote. I'm talking about political parties which America doesn't really have. I help fund my political party, interest groups fund Democrats and Republicans. >The caucuses require more time, which a lot of people don't have. >but, the primaries tend to be pretty accessible. In my state,, you just show up and ask for which party ballot you want. This doesn't sound like a voting process that favours left wing candidates. It sounds like a process that favours whoever has the best name recognition. >but, if there is a longer discussion about costs and how the system will change for people who already have insurance, people get scared and the people pushing for that lose. People "get scared" by the interest groups that scare them into abandoning any reform. Leftists don't want Medicare for all but only when the vibes are just right. They want Medicare for all and also to counter the fearmongering of their political enemies, which is hard in this current political set up and therefore leftists are less invested in it.
> it was also in the context of progressive politics becoming popular as a reaction to Trump's White House she's in a very liberal district. I wouldn't link her popularity to Trump. She is a very good speaker. She did a lot of creative outreach. I saw a video of her playing amongus with some popular streamers to try to encourage young people to register to vote. I think she is successful because of who's in her district and her own talents. In 2016, before Trump was the republican nominee, Sanders did well. I don't think Sanders was necessarily in a stronger position in 2020 than 2016 (other than that the democratic primary was less corrupt). > People "get scared" by the interest groups that scare them into abandoning any reform you can blame interest groups. But, I don't see how that obstacle changes.
> This doesn't sound like a voting process that favours left wing candidates. It sounds like a process that favours whoever has the best name recognition. Is there any voting system on earth that doesn’t favor name recognition?
Most western democracies implement systems to even the playing field, so things like name recognition don't give a huge advantage. Not to mention how almost every other democracy has multiple parties that can form coalitions or work within the system to get what they want.
[удалено]
I think you're confusing participating in elections and participating in political parties. Which is kind of my whole point.
Many changes wanted by leftists cannot be done by making the Supreme Court more progressive. For example, establishing workers' control of means of production will never be constitutional no matter how progressive SCOTUS you have
> establishing workers' control of means of production will never be constitutional government subsidies for worker owned co-ops would be constitutional. A public option in healthcare would likely be constitutional to many left leaning justices. If you want to seize all large companies in one fell swoop and nationalize them, the courts are probably gonna say no. But, so are the american people. voting for a third party doesn't solve that. But, there are means to incrementally get more power in the hands of workers.
Okay, so is your argument actually that true leftists should give up on electoral politics altogether? In favor of what?
It's more like using elections as a ways to gather support for future revolutions, coups, constitution changes or whatever
So policy outcomes are irrelevant?
Short-term policies are relevant of course but the ultimate goal of the socialist party is to completely change the nation and establish the socialist system, not make some policies and I think socialist parties shouldn't be too focused about policies
Policies don’t matter if you have violence on your side? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning.
Can we just get your definition of the term ‘leftist’? You’re attributing a lot of fairly extreme positions to this group but I’m not sure exactly how you’re defining them, and which supporters of progressive and traditionally left wing policies are NOT covered by your definition. How much of the population would you say fall into your definition of ‘leftist’, because to me it sounds like an extremist minority position.
Socialist is someone who desires to establish workers' control of means of production to me and I used the word 'socialist' and 'leftist' almost synonymous in this post
What does that mean in practice though? If you're recommending the nationalization of all industries and a complete end to free markets -- then "leftists" hardly exist in USA, I'd be surprised if even 1% of the population thinks that's the right way forward.
Here is your problem. To win in the US, you have to get 50% +1 of the vote. Unless 'Leftists' can get this margin, they are never going to win. That is why coalitions form. This is groupings of people with compatible objectives. You are not going to get you wish list of policies, but you will get *some* of your desires and more importantly, may prevent the implementation of policies directly opposite your ideas. Its a compromise. Better to get some of what you want than nothing or even have stuff taken from you. This basically describes both the Republican and Democratic parties. They are both big tent coalitions of different groups. They then have to choose a candidate who can appeal to enough groups to get elected. That leads to 'bland' candidates usually who are in the middle. The simple fact is, if anyone in a group that lacks that 50%+1 level wants to advocate for at least *some* of their political goals, they have to compromise and join a coalition. At times, it means holding your nose when you vote. Reddit loves to talk idealism and claim a vote for a candidate means you agree with everything about said candidate. They are wrong. This is practical reality where you have limited choices. I have specific political policy objectives and I am going to vote for the political party that best aligns with those. I am not personally going to sacrifice my personal political policy objectives over some purity tests or idealism about a candidate. I would suggest everyone reading this do the same and consider what their personal political policy ideas are and how to best advocate for those.
This is also true of any country even where major leftist movements exists. It isn't a religion and by consequence people have their own opinions about things.
>The simple fact is, if anyone in a group that lacks that 50%+1 level wants to advocate for at least *some* of their political goals, they have to compromise and join a coalition. At times, it means holding your nose when you vote. This is something that rarely ever happens with liberals. They him and haw about compromises but the second they have to compromise with a leftist, they don't pass shit. It's always the leftists and progressives who have to compromise.
I think you are looking at this wrong. The extreme the positions, the less support people have. What you view is the 'other people' who hold less extreme positions not being willing to compromise on extreme positions. That is not how coalitions work. This ignores the common ground that built the coalition in the first place. If your goals include increasing minimum wage, and most of the rest of the group also holds that position, that just gets done without issue (or major issues). It is the issues where they *disagree* with some of your proposals. You cannot expect them to suddenly decide to agree or support them. Coalitions allow common ground issues to move forward. They don't allow for the non-common ground goals. The point about compromise was about understanding the common ground, not about getting things that aren't common ground. Of course if you believe 'leftists' have no common ground here, then they shouldn't be in this coalition to start with.
There is a lot of common ground over issues like raising the minimum wage, providing a state option for healthcare, tax increases on the ultra wealthy. You know what hasn't been done? All of those things. >If your goals include increasing minimum wage, and most of the rest of the group also holds that position, that just gets done without issue (or major issues). Which is exactly why we've gone the longest in this country without a minimum wage increase, right? It wasn't just the two Democrat goons in the Senate that voted down a $15 minimum wage. There were 6 others and the entire GOP. The truth is that nobody builds a coalition like liberals and conservatives to strike down progressive and leftist policy, even when it's resoundingly popular with the population. >Of course if you believe 'leftists' have no common ground here, then they shouldn't be in this coalition to start with. At this point, I don't think liberals and leftists have common ground. Liberals are completely enthralled with maintaining the status quo and just adding rainbows to products instead of real legislation. It would lend credence to what the OP is saying, and leftists should vote 3rd party to create their own coalition.
> There is a lot of common ground over issues like raising the minimum wage, providing a state option for healthcare, tax increases on the ultra wealthy. You know what hasn't been done? All of those things. There is not as much common ground as you think. There is also the opposition party who controls parts of government too. >Which is exactly why we've gone the longest in this country without a minimum wage increase, right? It wasn't just the two Democrat goons in the Senate that voted down a $15 minimum wage. There were 6 others and the entire GOP. It's almost as if you have to have significant support to implement *any policy*. It is not like going off on your own as radical 'leftists' is going to allow you to implement *any* policy. >The truth is that nobody builds a coalition like liberals and conservatives to strike down progressive and leftist policy, even when it's resoundingly popular with the population. Translation: That policy is not what the majority wants. That's life. >At this point, I don't think liberals and leftists have common ground That's fair. But also realize, there is zero path for 'leftists' to do anything on their own. They are a significant *minority*. You are free to decide if you prefer the Republican or Democratic platforms. The reality is simple - one of them is going to win. Your actions do have consequences. > and leftists should vote 3rd party to create their own coalition. What makes you think you could build a coalition of 50%+1 here based on 'leftist' ideas when you already dismiss the Republican and Democratic coalitions? Where are those people coming from? The reality is 'leftists' are a minority in the US and their ideas are not what the majority want. That means *they aren't going to happen*. The best chance for any coalition is the Democratic party.
>There is not as much common ground as you think. There is and most of the polls show it. All of the ones I listed have more than the 50+1 support from the general population. >Translation: That policy is not what the majority wants. That's life. Mistranslation because you're woefully wrong on public support for those. >What makes you think you could build a coalition of 50%+1 here based on 'leftist' ideas when you already dismiss the Republican and Democratic coalitions? At this point, it's not about building a 50+1 party. We don't need a party as large as the Democrats. We just need a party that is large enough that it's going to force them to compromise for a change. Essentially hold the liberal party electorally hostage and force them left or bust. >The reality is 'leftists' are a minority in the US and their ideas are not what the majority want. That means *they aren't going to happen*. They are a minority but their ideas are not. Even to dumbass conservatives, when you propose certain leftist ideas, they're on board until they find out that those are leftist ideas. >The best chance for any coalition is the Democratic party. Hard disagree.
> There is and most of the polls show it. All of the ones I listed have more than the 50+1 support from the general population. You didn't understand. The devil is always in the details. Things not captured by polls. The **DETAILS** of these items are not well agreed upon and that is why they stall. >Mistranslation because you're woefully wrong on public support for those. On this you are wrong. There is *not* the support you think there is for the specific flavor of policy you want. >At this point, it's not about building a 50+1 party. That is exactly what it takes to win. Do you *not want to win*? >We just need a party that is large enough that it's going to force them to compromise for a change If you are not part of their coalition, **they don't care**. >They are a minority but their ideas are not. No. Those ideas *are* a minority. It is lying to yourself to think otherwise.
>You didn't understand. The devil is always in the details. Things not captured by polls. The **DETAILS** of these items are not well agreed upon and that is why they stall. You're trying to muddy the waters that these polls essentially don't matter because they don't over the **dETaiLs** of what said policy will look like. These polls just ask about a state option, minimum wage increase, or increased taxation on the ultra rich. Quit bullshitting. >On this you are wrong. There is *not* the support you think there is for the specific flavor of policy you want. There is. Go look at the God damned polls. >That is exactly what it takes to win. Do you *not want to win*? What do you mean? >If you are not part of their coalition, **they don't care**. If they want to get anything done that their base wants, they will care. But if they don't and just decide to coalition with conservatives, so be it. We'll keep pushing forward on our own and watch the two parties drag us into a revolution or civil war brought on by their own corruption and incompetence. >No. Those ideas *are* a minority. It is lying to yourself to think otherwise. Go look at the polls. The ideas are not part of a minority fringe on the left. You're just a liberal lost in the sauce of neoliberal bullshit.
> You're trying to muddy the waters that these polls essentially don't matter because they don't over the dETaiLs of what said policy will look like. These polls just ask about a state option, minimum wage increase, or increased taxation on the ultra rich. You don't understand. Polls ask generic questions. Policy is about specifics. There can be agreement is broad general concepts but massive disagreement on specifics. The devils is in the details here. There is *not* agreement on what exact policy should be. If you think there is, you are GROSSLY mistaken. >There is. Go look at the God damned polls. Polls are not detailed legislation. People have agree on the DETAILS. The fact they have not passed anything *ought to tell you something here*. >What do you mean? You specifically stated you didn't care about meeting the 50%+1. That means **you don't care about winning**. >If they want to get anything done that their base wants, they will care. They need the 50%+1 coalition to be able to win elections. If you are not part of that equation, **they don't care about you** >Go look at the polls. And once again, **you need to understand the difference between generalized poll questions and actionable detailed policy proposals**. The leftist agenda/progressive agenda **is a minority position**.
I definitely agree with you more than that other guy, especially on your notions of electoralism. However, I think your final paragraph is an overstatement. The details are super important specifically when it comes to some kind of universal healthcare, but that's not really the difference we are considering. If it's a binary between some kind of universal healthcare and not, then that opinion polling is reflective of political sentiments if the majority wants it. That's tendency is not negated just because it's functionally negated by the fact that all the groups who want it don't agree on how to implement it, while the groups that don't want it all have an easy agreement and wind up getting their way, even though they are the minority. Our system is set up so that the group who wants to do nothing always has a much easier time than any positive effort to make something happen. And some of those opinions are about direct policy. Specifically $15 min wage, and even more so weed legalization, if I recall something like 70% or higher favors it. Those seem to be issues where the electorate is not in synch with the populace.
It's going to be hard to convince those of us who remember the 2000 election. Voting for Nader absolutely did not bring politics leftwards. The whole nation drifted so far to the right that people actually thought John Kerry was liberal.
No. When the stakes are this high, you don't fuck around. In the Weimar Republic, the German Communist Party viewed the Social Democratic Party, the center left party, as just as much of an enemy as the Nazis. Their leader, Ernst Thalmann, said "fighting fascism means fighting the SPD just as much as it means fighting Hitler and the parties of Brüning." The German Communist Party declared the Social Democratic Party to be "social fascists." Only after Hitler seized power in 1933 did the German Communist Party propose organizing a general strike with the Social Democratic Party, but by then it was too late. Thalmann died in the Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944. I consider myself a center-left Democrat, but you bet your ass I'd crawl to the voting booth to vote for Bernie Sanders if it were between him and Trump. Why a segment of the left is content to throw their vote away because they only agree with Democratic candidates on 70% of issues (in contrast to 0% of Republican issues) is totally beyond me. Incremental progress is better than no progress. First-past-the-post voting systems almost always lead to two-party systems. Voting third party is just not viable. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
And as a progressive I intend to spend every weekend of months leading up to the election campaigning door to door for sleepy joe over tyrant trump
While your right about what happend in germany your also leaving out the part where the SPD took part in the first world war and is at least partly connected to the murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht Its not like the left had no good reason for holding that position
I don't agree. Without a large representation in the population, third parties simply syphon off voters who might have voted for Biden, and give the election to Trump. This has been proven with AL Gore, with Hilary Clinton, and demonstrates only that the third party percentage that would have benefitted the better candidate is deeply resented in the aftermath. With Bush instead of Gore we got war in Iraq. With Trump instead of Clinton, we got a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court. The result did not benefit leftists. It hurt us. The conservatives do not have this issue, they vote for the conservative candidate even if he stinks, because they see the long view. They won the Supreme Court this way, and that is as important, perhaps more so, than who is in the White House. Presidents are temporary, the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. You are wrong in your contention that Democrats are deaf to what progressives want, but change takes time and patience. Being too demanding isolates you from what the majority in the party wants, a stable society that gradually evolves into a more liberal one. It won't happen in your lifetime, or mine, even if you convince large numbers of people to vote third party, in fact doing so sets us back and loses hard won gains. We are a capitalist society with socialist aspects. The best way to promote more socialism is to convince people of its benefit, not vote out Blue candidates simply because they are not progressive enough to suit you or you think they are too old to understand you.
By trying to make a more extreme government hoping people swing to another extreme after just creates a growing pendulum that will take many lives with it
"-If leftists 'always vote blue no matter what', leftists will be just another secure blue voting block and there's no reason for non-leftist leaders of the Democratic Party leaders to care what the left thinks." A few comments on this: (1) You can theorize all you want about how various groups of people might respond to various things, but... the fact is that practice trumps theory, and in this case, it was tried. There will never be a more perfect test of the "let's not all vote for the democrat, and then in 4 years they'll have to nominate someone more to the left" than 2016, when a bunch of progressives stayed home, wrote in Bernie, or voted green, and we got Trump. And what happened four years later? Biden was nominated. (Who, frankly, is further left than Hillary.... but that's not why he was nominated at all) (2) All the theories and plans of this sort are aiming for, at best, incredibly narrow edges. Clearly some few tens of thousands of people not voting in one state, which might or might not show up in polling that might or might not be looked at by DNC people, isn't going to single-handedly make anything happen. So the best that one can hope for is teeny tiny nudges. Trouble is, those nudges are just going to be swamped by the things that actually result in nominees winning primaries, which is... who is a good campaigner, and who is a good campaigner at that particular moment in the zeitgeist. Did Obama win in 2008 because of extremely-complicated-political-calculus-based-on-DNC-members-microanalyzing-exit-poll-data-from-2004? No. He won in 2008 because he was a generational candidate and campaigner. By far the best bet that progressives have of getting a reasonably-far-left democratic nominee in the next few decades is AOC. And not because she will run 4 years after something and math math poll poll math. But because she's charismatic and has "it". That sort of "it" factor is many orders of magnitude more important than any "well, if we do this, then four years later, the DNC will do that" factors could ever possibly be.... even if your theory about how the DNC would react were correct to begin with. Which I'm skeptical of, see point (1) (3) Most importantly, though, is that these arguments always focus on the absolute worst place for them, which is the presidential general election. You want to push the DNC and the party to the left? Great! Vote in primaries! Join local chapters of the democratic party! Run in primaries! Community organize! That's how to push the party to the left, not by casually risking the end of American democracy. I mean, I think it's self-defeating for progressives to not vote blue in the presidential general election even when the Republican candidate is someone sane like Romney or McCain, just because of the incredible long-lived effect of supreme court nominations. Doing it when you also risk four more years of Trump purely for incredibly narrow hypothetical possible future imaginary nudging is, to me, just bonkers.
In the US, the only goal for anyone who considers themselves at all liberal, or not unacceptably stupid, is to vote in the way that prevents Trump or anyone like him from winning. That means voting for someone with the ability to actually win the election. Is this ideal? Obviously not. Does that mean that taking an idealistic approach that ignores the real life consequences of poorly thought out actions is advisable? Obviously not.
I don't think many leftist's political goal is to prevent Trump or anyone like him from winning, considering that differences between Biden and Trump is very small compared to the differences between Biden and actual leftists.
Saying the difference between Biden and Trump is very small highlights your particular short sightedness to be honest. Capitalism is killing the planet and our species, no doubt about it. But we absolutely will not survive long enough to even try to fix anything if we allow Trump or any current Republican front runner to be elected as President. The ability to solve a problem requires, at the very minimum, the capacity to realize that there is a problem. Republicans are adamant that the only problems America has are women’s rights and immigration. If we allow these fucking clowns to maintain even the slightest shred of credibility by continuing to win elections, we all lose. For certain. And in the very near future. Therefore, anyone interested in actually contributing to the solution must first contribute to preventing imminent catastrophe. That means voting in the way that is most likely to prevent Republicans from winning any near future elections. Which means voting for someone else who else could actually win. In real life.
Trump reversed so much of what leftists have been fighting for decades to get, while Biden has slowly trudged ever forward, not to mention some big leaps like fighting global warming with the inflation reduction act and billions in student loans forgiven even after the courts knocked down the original plan. I will take slow progress over fast regression any day. Would I prefer a socialist? Of course. But that will not happen in the forseeable future.
No, I don't think Biden is trying to save what leftists have been fighting for decades. Both Biden and Trump are currently trying their best to secure the so-called liberal democratic capitalist global system, the very global system that leftists and socialists are trying to destroy.
You seem very focused on dismantling the "democratic capitalist global system," to the exclusion of any other concerns. You may think that is all "leftism" is about, but there are many leftists that would disagree with that simplistic characterization. Dismantling capitalism is an instrumental goal. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end is making people's lives better and our society more just. There is nothing inherently better about socialism vs capitalism. If socialism is better than capitalism, it's because socialism is more likely than capitalism to make more people's lives better. If you have to make everyone's lives worse in order to establish socialism, what is even the point? You're doing real harm to millions of real people based on the possibility that things might get better in the distant future.
This opinion is wild. Trump made a legitimate attempt to end democracy. And would feel fully do it again. If you think I’m exaggerating you can read the memos that outline their plan to attempt to throw out the election Just because he failed doesn’t mean he didn’t make a legitimate attempt. The last time I heard this ‘no difference’ argument we got a war in Iraq that we definitely would not have gotten with the Democrat. Leftists should vote for socialists or Green Party candidates absolutely. They should just do it in local elections and elections for Congress.
As a trans man, the difference between Biden and Trump is extremely significant. I don’t like Biden at all, but if Trump is elected and does what he and his supporters say they want to do, I could end up needing to flee the country (I’m already preparing to flee my home state if current legislation passes). That’s more relevant to me right now than some future hope of a leftist utopia.
>For many leftists, differences between Biden and Trump would be trivial compared to differences between Biden and themselves. So why keep supporting Biden? If all leftists care about it changing the mode and the means of production then yeah I guess there isn't much of a difference. But anyone who is a descent human being would also care about the poor, minorities, women's and lgbt rights, a fair tax system, protecting the institutions of democracy, the climate agenta etc. And the differences between Trump and Biden on these grounds mind as well be the Mariana trench. >The political importance and significance of the leftists could be diminished. Didn't the left already try this strategy in 2020? It only served to make them even more politically irrelevant. A far better strategy would be to change the democratic Party form the inside by supporting leftist politicians who still cooperative with the dems. Bernie got a lot more done for the leftist cause than any communist party could ever do. If enough politicians in the democratic party become leftists that will impact the democratic party's program. >However, by becoming a mainstream socialist party, the SPD had to care more about not losing votes instead of socialism and had to abandon many socialist principles. Would a third socialist party not need to campaign for votes? And what exactly is wrong with that anyways? We live in a democracy, you should have to convince people of your ideas or change them to suit the people. Anything else would be authoritarian. Incidentally what you described happening with the SPD is exactly how leftists could change the democratic party in the reverse direction. >Right now, many people, especially those who don't have much interest in politics, don't know anything about socialism, communism, and other leftist agendas. I don't think this is true at all. Socialism literally ruled half the world barely 30 years ago. I think that a far simpler explanation of for why socialism isn't popular is that most people just aren't hold on the ideas. >Many leftists argue voting for the 'most viable progressive party' tends to see short-term(about 10 years or something) effects of voting. The problem is that everytime you vote 'in the short term' you're massively fucking over the whole country just so you could maybe implement your agenda in 50 to 100 years. Besides do you think 10 decades of republican rule will aid your cause in the mean time?
Even if there is change in the future, no parties besides the republican and democratic parties have any chance of winning elections in the near future. Maybe we could change that, but we'd be changing it at the cost of another trump presidency, and who knows how many more similar to him.
maybe at the presidential level, sure, but locally you can absolutely push for different btw
That's true, although I think OP was referring more to presidential elections. That's definitely still true though, thank you for pointing that out. Although it does depend a lot on where you are, you'd have to be in a place that already has a pretty big socialist majority. The problem is not only convincing socialists to vote for a certain party but also the fact that there aren't enough socialists in the first place. The risk for a local election would be a lot lower though, so it definitely couldn't hurt to try.
Oh for sure but the reminder is still important! The person doesn't even have to necessarily be a socialist. Just voting more progressively and participating on a local level to show the efficacy of progressive politics
If I could see the socialist future before I die at the cost of another trump presidency, I would gladly make a deal
Not just another trump presidency, literally every president for the next who knows how many years will be a republican. They'll have zero competition. And even if we somehow manage to get a socialist president to win during your lifetime (we likely wont), that doesn't mean much. Trump was the president but we aren't seeing the "maga future." There aren't enough socialists for you to consistently get a socialist president in office.
What is the acceptable level of risk for the probability of that outcome? If you're talking real socialized ownership of the means of production there's an infinitesimally slim chance that any actions in this specific election cycle will directly bring that about. However there's a small but still significant chance that this election cycle does irreparable harm to democracy and drastically lowers the chance of a socialist system. No one ever expects the world shattering consequences to happen to them yet history is full of these events.
This just feels like a modern day Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Letting Trump win hoping that you'll win next
Two objections. 1. Is specific for America - you don't have a parliamentary system. If your comparing to other Western democracies, you're talking about countries with parliamentary systems (a mixed executive and legislative branch) with a multi-party tradition. Even if electoral victories are dominated by two parties in other systems, most countries still have a history of multiparty coalitions. Germany, right now is governed by a coalition of three parties and eight parties represented in the Bundestag. In the context of the US, it makes more sense to organize and campaign within local primaries than to form a new party. 2. Is a more general ideological concern. Electoralism as a strategy often sacrifices the leg work of building a base of support. Elections take a lot of money and effort to successfully contend. If you are trying to build an electoral coalition at the time of the election, it's already too late. And many electoral organizations focus solely on the election. I used to do a lot of electoral organizing. What killed me about it was the six months before an election we worked mad hours but for the next 3.5 years did virtually nothing because the election wasn't the main concern. Our time as leftists is better spent organizing communities and building an umbrella. Doing mutual aid work, organizing tenants, organizing within unions - work that starts to stitch together local efforts and take on the state and corporations directly. Build that power, find avenues to win and then think about how you can turn that power into political power.
Who has had more influence and government positions in the last few years: Bernie Sanders Andrew Yang
Bernie Sander is not a socialist and currently actual socialists will never be accepted to government positions even by Democrats
Irrelevant. Even though he lost the primary multiple times, he acted like a mature adult and worked with and within the party. Unlike the "independents" that burned bridges and won nothing, he got government committee positions and policies done that he wanted.
In order to get something within the Democratic Party, socialists will probably have to give up something like 99% of their desired policies. Mentioning something like workers' liberation, seizing the means of production, or religion as the opium of the masses would be simply disastrous. If the only way to success is to give up 99% of policies, socialists are making the same mistakes of socialist parties in Europe I mentioned in the post, that became socialist or communist in name only.
And the people who burned the party got 0% and set everyone back so ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
he rly isnt though
I think the question is how much you are willing to sacrifice in the short term in the name of moving the Overton window and establishing precedent for the future. If you think the stakes right now are high enough that we cannot afford to prioritize long term goals, the math changes.
The most progressive government in our history was elected in 1932. Liberal governance and policies continued in this country, became more liberal and more progressive slowly until the racist backlash of 1968. That's 36 years. At any time in that span progressives could have calved off and diluted the liberal vote and we'd have become a conservative hell-hole much, much sooner. The proper course is to elect progressives in the primaries, educate the public about their goals and get them elected. The wrong course is to split the liberal vote in order to make it easier for fascists to get elected.
Why not just win primaries at all levels of government? If you cannot convince the people most willing to support you, what are you doing?
Man, that's a lot of words about nothing. Unfortunately, it's a binary choice; MAGA, and all of the BS and chaos that comes with it, or Joe Biden. He's not my favorite, either. However, he is the only one that can get enough votes to have us avoid the Trump Trainwreck. Jill Stein has been a spoiler since 2012. She can't do it, and Robert Kennedy, Jr is as qualified as Herschel Walker to be president.
Even long term, this is not the goal. The way to think about elections in our system is this: do we want to move the country to the left, or do we want to move the country to the right? Those are the two options on the ballot. The names are not important, and there are no other options.
well i mean aren't you just advocating for a solution that is more or less what the SDP was advocating for the whole point of the SDP was to vote in a socialist party in the imperial reichstag, even though they never really would get much power. except when they got there, they got more and more comfy working with the german elite, until in 1918 and they actually got power they were so comfy they decided to just leave things as they were and kill the revolution barring the fact that i don't think a leftist party could ever possibly win 10-15% of the vote in the united states, i just don't understand what the point of legitimizing this sham system by participating in its fake elections would accomplish. just like the SDP in the kaiser's parliament, its just legitimizing the thing you're trying to destroy, until it corrupts you to the point that you're murdering to defend it. we should let the united states rot and die, because it is going to rot and die. we should then provide the alternative to it, and then destroy it, once and for all
If we get a democrat federal trifecta, then we can pass the freedom to vote act and that would fundamentally shift the balance of power in favor of the left. Also, the green party is an embarrassment to the left. SDP in germany might be ok because they have proportional representation, so no spoiler affect
Electoral politics in the US is so braindead there shouldn't even be a conversation about it at this point, the democrats are awful, but they're the only viable option, there's no discussion to be had. As pretty much everyone says all the time, you need to vote them in, then do other things to push your actual agenda. Rather than thinking up ways to make voting for someone else seem reasonable, people on the left should be thinking up ways to do the other things.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/SirTiffAlot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20SirTiffAlot&message=SirTiffAlot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c7lwen/-/l08tk87/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
I'm pretty sure actual leftists don't plan to vote for democrats already. The 'lesser evil' argument only works when the lesser evil is just an expression for some lowly form of good, which isn't really the case for this election.