US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5884

I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.

Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.

You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.

As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.

But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?

Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?

Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'

There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is).

I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.

Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.

You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.

As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.

But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?

Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?

Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'

There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is).

I firstly, am maybe more open to the argument for accelerationism/brinksmanship, than other leftists here, in great part because we are not talking about my country. In furthering disfunction, there is at least the silver lining of accelerated erosion of the US global hegemony, which is maybe a bigger priority for me than for others.

But let's assume I am not an accelerationist/open to the idea of withholding my vote in an act of brinksmanship when the alternatively is basically guaranteed to be even worse.

Would I need any dem candidate (or any candidate really), to be in support of universal health care, revoking Citizens United, not be in support of bombing/invading more countries to support that candidate? Yes.

Would I vote for someone I don't actually support because the context of the elections are they will put in someone else who also doesn't support these things, but is also politically engaged in furthering more religiously motivated policy in law/education, likely to do more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Also yes.

The answer to the latter changes if I am ok with accelerationism, or I think the Liberals care enough about actual policy to be held hostage to the situation the same way I (hypothetically) am by more leftist policies.

Hypothetically, if the dems ran a candidate ,for some reason, that wasn't for universal healthcare, or all those things I want. And was also super horny about invading Cuba (or another country of your choice), and thinks we should do even more corporate welfare, ban abbortion everywhere etc. Then I wouldn't vote for them, because they would be worse than the Republicans winning. But then harm reduction is not really a factor anymore.

You haven't actually put forth an argument for accelerationism (that I can see). If that is your stance, then it's understandable why the political divide between you and the other left leaning posters here is. Otherwise I don't see a substantial difference in stance. You aren't happy with how little leverage the left, or the left of the democrats have over the party's policies as a whole. Guess what, neither are the left leaning posters here.

Do you specifically mean, "are there any specific policies that they need to concede to their left on, otherwise you will not vote form them irrespective of the alternative." If so, yes, we found the point of difference between you and the other leftists.

The reason I ask, is that you've circled the issue but not actually made a case for it. Again, I am amenable to arguments from accelerationism, or I guess Kantian ethics. You won't vote for candidates that have or don't have policies A, B, or C. This is a simple and understandable stance.

Most here are against accelerationism, or I guess have a consequentialist outlook. They will vote for the better option. even if the options suck. This is also a simple and understandable stance.

If you just made the case for either accelerationism, or Kantianism (insofar as it comes to left-right politics), or something else (eg the repeated condequentialism allows for worse options in the long run) then you'd be having a much more constructive conversation. Of course in the context of US politics and not those philosophies in general.

It seems to me most people on the left here want roughly the same policies. How they act (or propose to act for those of us outside the states) politically in the face not really getting what we want as a practical choice is what's different. I can reasonably make and understand an argument for either side,

From what I can see, plenty of people have made a coherent argument for the consequentialist approach, what I don't understand is whether you are even arguing for the 'don't vote if the Democrat is running without X/Y/Z policies/stances, (I assume you wouldn't be voting for the republican in any realistic scenario)

It pertains only to the centrists/moderates and the outcomes for them.

If you mean, if there are policies I have, that should they not concede to, would be considered self sabotage for me(assumedly if I voted for them) .
Or if they didn't concede to it, I wouldn't (hypothetically) vote for them, or I'd be involved in a campaign against them, or ,I don't know, call for violent revolution. Those would be actionable by me, and could have meaningful answers.

You are asking if I have policies I have, should they not concede to, would be self sabotage for them. Why would anyone vaguely on the left care whether the centre/corporate dems fail to achieve THEIR aims? Those are at best, incidental to our aims.