the only ‘left wing’ ideology where electing trump is better is accelerationism
theres no valid argument from a anarchist, maoist, stalinist, leninist, trotskyist, liberal, socdem, demsoc, marxist, marxist leninist, trotskyist, sewer socialist, or revolutionary pov where trump is better than biden
Leftists all know this btw. This isn't like, a hard problem to logic-chop. There is just a certain kind of leftist who thinks it's *worse* to have to be on the same side as liberals than to just be normal and do politics.
This is true for libertarians who vote for third parties or insist that voting is ineffective. These aren't inherently dumb people. They get that their arguments are stupid on some level. They just have a firm attachment to the pRiNcIpLeD nOnVoTeR identity.
Voting is terrible, and it's a defense against something much worse. Politics is almost never about instantiating the good. It's almost entirely about ameliorating the bad. If you want to instantiate the good, volunteer in your community.
But non-voting also incurs a moral cost. To paraphrase Rush, to choose not to vote, you still have made a choice.
But it's better not to think of voting as endorsing. I like AOC's counsel: we vote (or campaign for) the conditions we would prefer to agitate in. Choose your preferred enemy.
Maybe this is an easier lift for gays of a certain age? I grew up knowing I was a pariah in the eyes of everyone shiny enough to run for office.
Getting over that, and voting anyway, was the price of admission.
No one I know was mad at Obama for being wishy washy on gay marriage. Every person was like “vote for the guy who doesn’t really say anything nice but we know his calculus” vs the party that actively hates LGBT. Biden really changed the public calculus with “it’s okay to say it out loud”
Probably; but it’s also the wide number of people who mistake politics for a type of vibe or consumer aesthetic than as what it is 1) a means to power 2) what you’ll agitate and organize under
I mean, sure, they "know this" but half of them are "I'll never vote for Biden" and others are "as long as he is supporting a genocide, I won't vote for him" and those are very different complaints.
The thing is, the word accelerationism fell out of favor, and a lot of the accelerationists are simply not very bright and think not using the word means they’re not backing the thing.
are these the same people who think the ira and build back better are different things and the ira doesn't count? or that the billions of dollars of student loan forgiveness don't count because it wasn't done with the wave of a magic wand? because i think the venn diagram is strong
The student loan thing doesn't seem to count because it was targeted at poor and minority students and those who dedicated their lives to public service and not to people who went $100k in debt at Middlebury for their CS degree.
Political theorist here.
Let me re-ask your implicit question, however: when does it make sense to *threaten* to not vote for Biden? E.g., in a period (6 mos before the vote) where most candidates and incumbents move toward the middle, Biden seems to be attempting to cultivate progressives.
I'm not a political scientist. I think the Uncommitted primary campaigns are appropriate. I've read some that increased polarization has shifted the strategy away from courting centrists to giving more attention to the extremes. But I dunno.
Not educated or experienced in the field by any means but I reckon the best time to threaten that is when you know youre being listened to
If you know your threats can reach Biden and get his attention, THATS when best to do it
I think anyways
When you have a choice that isn't between bad and worse? I have no issue pushing now, but if it suppresses turn-out in the election, considering the last seven have all hinged on turn-out, you aren't helping. Yourself or others.
You may be misunderstanding my question. Nobody is "not voting" right now. They may (or may not) in six months.
So my question is: are there policy effects caused by a cohort threatening to not vote? (Irrespective of whether that is or is not carried out.)
No, because people threatening to not vote are a) tiny in number, and b) announcing that they are hard to get (for many, actually impossible) which means the rational move is to focus on the more easily gettable and more numerous votes elsewhere.
If you’re canvassing and somebody says I won’t vote for your guy unless he does X, Y, Z by November, you don’t come back to argue with them a dozen times or try to satisfy their (likely impossible) demands. You take them off your list and don’t waste your time knocking on their door again.
I mean, sure, they "know this" but half of them are "I'll never vote for Biden" and others are "as long as he is supporting a genocide, I won't vote for him" and those are very different complaints.
This is undeniably true & if Biden loses, no future president -- if we have competitive elections again -- will *ever* risk helping the working class if it means prices rise for the petty bourgeoise.
Every demsoc and socialist now needs to decide: purity, theory, or actual good.
Main problem is
If you wanna talk Practical, then you gotta reckon with "Trump is worse" not being a very compelling argument given the many Very Wrong Decisions Biden has made
It is a true statement, but not quite a crowd-winner.
Just telling people what to do is not very practical, turns out
Good news! Biden passed multiple pieces of massive legislation designed to increase aid to the poor and to address climate change. Both are massive wins for the left.
So Biden is obviously not perfect, but he's offering you half a loaf. Take it.
Are they suffering from willful ignorance (they don’t believe it’s actually worse), or asshole apathy (they know it’s worse but don’t care enough to do the smallest, easiest thing)?
I don't know, I would have to speak to each of them and find out
All I DO know is that the statement alone isnt good enough to inspire confidence enough to vote for him, in the face of the things he has done which highly upset them
What’s your point? You seem to believe people are being mean or something by not wanting the worse candidate to win. Sorry for caring about our families, I guess. Allowing the candidate that is fantasizing about dropping nukes on multiple countries to win seems bad.
I just. I’m a straight white male, but because I have friends who aren’t I realize just how devastating a Trump win will be for them, for decades. And to see people who claim to be “progressive” who refuse to see that is. Well. Clearly “progressive” is just what they say, not what they are.
I think a lot of people oti get lost in thinking about how things should be and whats acceptable/unacceptable that they kinda forget how to deal with the here and now and how to actually achieve goals
a friend of mine puts it best
"We live here now"
Gotta be practical to achieve goals
I think 2021-2022 congress made me want to radically defend democrats. Losing the house has sucked. My district flipped blue but others didn’t keep theirs. It’s frustrating.
I saw all I wanted in the 2021-2022 congress. I just felt we needed more democrats.
This is true, and Democrats should make it easier for more people to vote for them. They've addressed issues that I care about, they can and should do the same thing around Gaza and cut the anchor that is their policy thus far
