It's not going to come down to a president or red states or blue states.
It's going to come down to electing mayors and city council members that are brave enough to say "you're going to need to send in the National Guard if you want that shit enforced here."
This is why we vote.
Unfortunately it's also terrible, attracts the most miserable people and will make you hate your neighbors for reasons you never previously could have conceived of.
It's ignored widely because it doesn't make the national news cycle 99% of the time so people don't think of it because it's not being pumped to their screens constantly.
But yes local level politics is where, though slower than most want, real tangable change happens
*raises eyebrow* alas,
I live in Texas. Austin to be precise.
The state government passes policies in a specific attempt to override local election results/policies.
As do we. That's exactly what we're talking about. We need a city council, mayor, and DA who will tell Abbott to go fuck himself, state policies be damned.
It's not easy. It's going to be a fight. And it may literally involve community members occupying areas to keep state troopers out.
Watson is not the man for this job, and we fought like hell to keep him from getting the chair. We are where we are now, though. It's up to all of us.
Absolutely, and a decent national government would be nice too. Our point is, when it comes to keeping people safe smaller is better.
And, in a time when it's nigh impossible to convince some to vote for president (for understandable reasons) it's good to remind people that local change is possible
Agree and the first local change is that Iβd love to be a local government here. Itβs absurd that itβs even legal to have thousands of people living here in relatively close proximity without being able to self-govern.
I lived in the Las Vegas area; part of what people call "Las Vegas" is actually unincorporated, with Paradise, Nevada holding a lot of the "Las Vegas" strip
All those cities, collectively, can vote for a group of seven people, but part of Nevada's best known area doesn't have proper government
municipal politicians wonβt save us anymore than federal ones will. the Bay area is unable to elect a mayor who isnβt hostile to marginalized communities. standing together in defense of our communities, robust mutual aid and performing the work of the state in the wake of its abandonments will help
Standing together is, of course, the most important thing. Municipal, given population distribution, is simply the highest likelihood of affecting change in terms of voting and the working with the system the "correct" way. Smaller governments are easier to overthrow (complementary)
Other elected local officials include sheriffs, judges, environmental regulators, school boards, and other such people well-positioned to reinforce or fuck up federal and state agendas
what if you have the problem of where you need the feds and the national guard to like, restore civil rights, say in like southern districts. because currently we have jack fucking shit here despite all attempts at organizing and everybody is corrupt.
My mayor is a retired pig and more right wing than even most Democrats. π
He has been railing against law enforcement and bail reforms state has enacted.
I would love to get rid of him and his elderly cronies on the town council, and have until April 2025 for the voting, plenty of time to plan.
Right.
The folks who are routinely either in cahoots or held hostage by local police forces, who are in turn routinely empowered by either federal legislation or executive orders.
We live in Austin where Abbott fucks us over in every attempt we make for reform so, we're well aware of how bleak that situation can be.
Point is, if you want to do it the "right" way, this is the easiest way to affect change.
I enjoy your feed for many reasons. One is that I lived in Austin myself for 5 years back in the 90s. Another is that our 16yo kid is named Moxie (and exemplifies it!).
At the ground level, all I see Democrats do is accommodation and collaboration, because everything else would upset the Chamber of Commerce.
Without popular mobilization (cf. Bolivia), a Newsom or Whitmer is instant toast.
