zorg wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:31 am
jirbling rake wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 4:08 pm
After 2016's election there were many things I thought the Democrats would need to do in order to overcome the rising tide of fascism. They have done practically none of those things, and each year things get worse.
Not interested in playing "I told you so", but there was a pretty strong contingent on this board of people who insisted that in order to stem the tide of Conservatism, one had to unapologetically and blindly endorse the Democratic ticket. This meant no negative comments concerning the more "liberal" candidate were allowed to be shared whatsoever, and any thought of abstaining or voting third party was unacceptable. Is this not the logical outcome of this blind adherence to the "greater of two evils" theory? Honestly not trying to shit on anyone, or breed further discontent, but perhaps this can be a teachable moment that the DNC is not anyone's friend except the highest bidder?
I imagine the dissatisfaction around the DNC would be universal here at the PRF. I'd be shocked to discover otherwise. So the organization being great isn't really up for debate; there's a general consensus. So if the question isn't whether the DNC adequately represents the left wing, it is instead how a left wing voter should behave to have the greatest chance of making their vote meaningful, or effective in some way.
Bit of an armchair quarterback/time travel game but imagine a Clinton administration starting in 2016. We'd all have plenty to complain about. We'd also have a Supreme Court that would leave a woman's bodily autonomy in place, and wouldn't erode the checks and balances that are foundational to the structure of our government. . Who knows if it's last a second term, but to my memory she was one of the more vocal critics of Israeli military policy from the old school 90's blue team.
The battles between centrist liberals and true progressives have been exhausting, but a necessary conversation. To me one side seems acutely aware of how problematic business-as-usual policy makers are, but the other seems to have a better grasp of just how much worse things could get.
I still think that in our country the idea of a vote as a form of activism, or some king of statement is pretty bogus. If someone could convince me that Ralph Nader changed the Democratic Party, or that Ross Perot showed the GOP the direction they'd better head in I might see some vague possibility that a 3rd party vote has some significance here. I would argue that Sanders has been a visible influence on some of Biden's best policy moves, but that's due to his clear popularity with a portion of the electorate as demonstrated in the primaries, not some kind of symbolic protest vote in the general election.
At any rate, losing elections doesn't seem to "teach" the DNC any more than winning them. The idea that a catastrophic voter turnout in a couple elections might show them otherwise is hard to justify when we're seeing the rise of Christian nationalism happening at a rapid pace. I'd suggest that more people like us getting directly involved in the organization would be the best way to improve it, but the idea of spending time working with that crowd sounds absolutely terrible. Perhaps one thing holding the dems back from being a better organization is them appearing to be an awful hang.
