politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The problem with that strategy is that our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends towards a two-party system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&t=31s
Then become one of the two parties.
There already are two. We must co-opt one with a populist candidate. The Republican Party was already hijacked by Trump. That leaves the Democratic Party.
Bernie tried twice, Democrats demonstrated their ability to stop that shit in its tracks. It will not work.
The only solution is for progressives to abandon the Party and start their own to replace it. The US has replaced parties before, it can be done again.
It didn't work with Bernie for more reasons than the parties resistance. A lot of people on the left that dislike the party don't seem to understand that you still have to join the party and get involved with it if you want the party to move left. Party members and active involved people shape where the party goes. We absolutely can shift the Dems left, but it means holding our noses and becoming the party. The Dems have always been an open door, big tent, party. Walk into the tent and change minds...
The Democrat establishment wants power and for that they have to win elections. So having an anti establishment candidate is preferable to them over a Republicans victory. If anything good came out of the last election, it is that Trump as horrible as he is can still win elections against an establishment Democrat, so the Democrats have to change.
Also changing the parties does not work. The problem is systematic and the US really needs to change its election system, to get better politics.
Third party doesn’t work. You have to do what trump did, 1 man coup from the inside.
Apparently Republican voters are gonna set the mark at R regardless of who it is, so how about having someone like Bernie run in the Republican primary.
Trump tried once and it worked. Neoliberal ideas are entrenched in the minds of Americans. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems as it asserts, incorrectly, that our institutions are flawless. Since neoliberals only consider changing people, it is much easier for a fascist to convince a neoliberal to change the people in society. Where as it is much harder for a progressive or a socialist to convince a neoliberal to enact systemic change or redistribute wealth respectively.
In short, people with neoliberal ideas in their head need to fully internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
Abandoning the Democrats will not result in them being replaced. They will continue to exist by moving further to the right, as Democrats like Chris Murphy have already proposed.
Starting a successful third party is mathematically impossible under a FPTP system. Third party candidates can only be spoiler candidates.
I think you mean popular, not populist, but yes.
No, I mean populist. Populism is what is popular right now.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism
We have already seen a third party take over a major party. The current problem with the GOP is because it absorbed the Tea Party.
With the right symbol to rally behind, we can do the same thing to the Democratic party. We need to build the Guillotine Party.
No, it's a problem for the people empowering the right by refusing to vote for the leaning right of center, neoliberal Democrats. People are attempting to get a moral victory over the Democrats by refusing to vote for them. This strategy makes minorities the cost of doing business.
No, the far-right exists because of late-stage capitalism and over 40 years of neoliberalism pushed by both mainstream parties since Regan. The Democrats lost in large part because of their refusal to adopt a populist narrative. They didn't go left enough. But refusing to vote for them or espousing accelerationist rhetoric because of that is self-defeating, harms minorities, and opens to the door to devastating climate change scenarios.
ReAgan
Oh, I'm all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I'm sure these two would start a good one if allowed.
Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone's guess..
Without rank choice voting any progressive party would act as a spoiler for the Democratic Party. Debilitating ourselves in this way isn't particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.
Then the Democratic Party had best make sure that progressives have no reason to split off and form their own party, huh?
Why does it always fall to progressives to get behind Democrats and never the other way around?
Oh thank god Democrats don't throw vulnerable populations under the bus every chance they get.
The FPTP voting system ensures that they do not have a reason.
The FPTP voting system and entrenchment of neoliberalism in the minds of the American public for over 40 years from both mainstream political parties starting with Regan. This is may be the case for western countries and democracies more broadly as well. Currently, neoliberal ideas cause a contradiction when a person encounters progressive or socialist ideas. Along the lines of:
Why would we fix our institutions if they are flawless? What's the hurry to solve our problems if we are at the end of history?
Some useful and correct resolutions of these contradictions are:
Our institutions are flawed because they were made by us, flawed humans. The time to advert climate change, fix systemic inequalities, the reduce the wealth gap is now. Incremental changes will run out the clock, as they don't address the root causes. There will be hundreds of millions if not billions of causalities unless these issues are addressed sooner rather than later.
Neoliberal ideas must be pulled from the minds of Americans like a weed. Or like one of those radishes in Super Mario Bros 2. Then people will be able to embrace ideas like systemic change to institutions and wealth redistribution from the rich to everyone else.
When asked about socialism, if a person responds with 'socialism doesn't work' or 'the Soviet Union collapsed' those are the tells that a person needs to full internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
And maybe a history lesson about how the Soviet Union was actually an authoritarian communist dictatorship and not a socialist country. The government owned the means of the production, not the people, and the government wasn't representative of the people.
It's better than the Democrats intentionally murdering people in camps. Neoliberals in office aren't going to solve our problems, but it gives us time to do the work to solve them. Like educating people and co-opting the Democratic Party in one of their primaries. Like Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats.
The would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one Republican vote for doing so.
Neoliberals ARE our problem. We've had half a century of incrementalists demanding that we just wait a little more for them to get around to moving the needle to the left, and instead they move so far to the right that they're buddy-buddy with Netanyahu and the Cheneys. Incrementalism says "too soon" until it's too late.
Again, don't lie. The Democratic Party can of course move that far, but they have yet to do so.
Neoliberalism is the problem. Neoliberals can be tomorrow's socialists. But we have to put in the work and educate people. My argument already refuted this point, I recommend reading it.
Just wait. Incrementalism will get you there.
You have unfounded faith in neolliberals' willingness to move any direction other than right.
If your arguments actually referenced mine in any meaningful way you would know I have addressed these points in this comment section multiple times. As it stands, a casual refutation of your arguments is now sufficient. edit: typo
Yes, with "leverage power we don't have against people who would rather lose than stop throwing people under the bus."
We do have this power. We elected Joe Biden in 2020. Your argument pretends we don't at the expense of minorities and our ability to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change.
And oh shucky dern, his hands were always conveniently tied. Except when it came time to sell weapons for genocide.
Democrats consider minorities expendable in their unending quest for Republican votes.
You don't actually care about minorities. Even more people would dead by now under four years of Trump. That's immaterial to you.
So do you. Except you want moral victory over the Democrats.
I've spent the past few decades wanting that party to move to the left and voting for them. They did what you wanted instead and moved to the right.
A few weeks ago, I'd have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes.. We'll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?
We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we'll ever get to try something like this because that's how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they're doing successfully you don't want to spoil?
Yes, running third party candidates in a FPTP voting system is how the spoiler effect works.
Because of the FPTP voting system our democracy will always trend towards a two-party system. Until we enact systemic change, we will be stuck with the Democrats and the Republicans. As long as the Democrats are further to the left of fascism we should vote for them and avoid limiting our power with third party candidates.
We the people and our interests are what avoiding the spoiler effect protects.
The Democrats are neoliberals. They are easier to push on social issues and the environment. The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans. But more to the point, they do not want to kill minorities and destroy the environment.
Rather than seeking a moral victory over Democrats we should look for ways to leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt. Doing otherwise makes the harm done to minorities the cost of doing business.
I mean yes, that's been the playbook for 8 years. More like 16 if you count what people actually thought Obama was going to be (and had record turn out). Try, try again?
The lives of millions of minorities and the Earth's climate are at stake now. Minorities will notice the difference in the short term, but we will all notice the difference in the long term. Assuming we still have elections and a Democratic Party going forward, yes. We delay fascism and co-opt the Democratic Party. edit: typos
Look, I don't know if you guys haven't been paying attention but places have been getting ravaged for decades because of what we've been doing. Everyone around me was flabbergasted with what happened in the NC western mountains. They videos were exactly like those I've been seeing in the Philippines and other countries that we just completely ignore when there's a natural disaster (maybe a 30 second blip in the media headline for 80% of it if they're in a really poor region).
The Western mountains were devastated because of the infrastructure in natural valleys and huge amounts of sediment deposited by centuries of mining those mountains out (you can see the natural rock formations that returned, lots of people know the land they built on wasn't there before it was developed). The hurricane wasn't man made, but everything fucking else about that catastrophe was because of our activity.
I don't know what the answer is, but I've been waiting for the democrat heroes to save the day since I started voting during Bush's administration that I was thoroughly against and thought our invasion of Iraq was a war crime. Now we continue to this day with a never ending war machine and a corporation first politics that hasn't ever changed. I'm all for us talking about some alternatives and pushing for everything and anything right now, not waiting to form something later to help "sway" the democrats policies (which it really didn't in the long run did it?)
I've been talking to people about climate change on this site.
If we give up before we succeed then that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Democrats are neoliberals. They aren't going to solve our problems. But them being in power will give us the time to educate people and co-opt their party.
I give my argument about what that involves in more detail in this same comment section here: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/11577918
It's adorable that you expect anyone to buy that the Democratic Party is movable after they just spent a whole ass year refusing to budge on fucking genocide.
This is the key part I recommend you read.
Also, this is off topic, but Harris did pledge to end the war. It was in the news. She called for a ceasefire at least three times. If you care about the Palestinians, then voting for the party that wants to end the war is more useful than allowing the party that wants Israel to finish the job to take power.
I read it. Democrats will keep playing the left for fools and moving to the right, no matter what happens.
BIDEN called for a ceasefire. With the same complete lack of conviction. There was no daylight between her and Biden on Netanyahu's genocide.
I voted for Harris and the election is over. That doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that she wasn't as committed to Netanyahu's genocide as Biden was.
No Bernie's campaign and Warren's campaign drove Biden to the left on a whole host of issues, including labor unions.
Don't lie.
This comment said it best and lists calls for a ceasefire from Harris.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
Harris promised to do everything in her power to end the war in Gaza.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/4/harris-says-will-end-gaza-war-in-final-election-appeal-to-arab-americans
Unlike Biden, Harris was not a life long Zionist.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens-lifelong-bond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/
Harris wasn't perfect. And that was simply not good enough for some people who didn't want to risk their hands getting dirty. Even if it meant the Palestinians becoming the cost of doing business.
Good for you. I appreciate it. No need to spread propaganda though.
I'm not. Biden pretended to want a ceasefire just like Harris did. There was NO daylight between the two. None. She presented NO policy differences on Gaza from Biden. Not one.
And I no longer trust promises without policy behind them. Democrats are great at promising shit they have no intention of doing and then gleefully announcing that their hands are tied.
You are. I even gave the receipts. They were different, but people on the left didn't want to hear it.
That's what a refusal to remove the filibuster and a razor thin majority will do. Manchin and Sinema were devastatingly effective in their obstruction. That's what a systemic issue can do in a nutshell. With the Senate, a tiny minority can overturn the will of the majority. Our refusal to fix it is part of how we got here. And things will continue to get worse if we don't take steps to fix it.
You gave examples of worthless political vaguery. There was no policy difference between Harris and Biden on the genocide you're going to bat for.
It does not matter how big a majority Democrats get. They find the no votes. It's how they killed the public option when they had a supermajority.
They were successful at doing the party's work. There are always just enough Manchins.
The policy difference was Harris wants to end the war.
I want people to live free or die trying. You want to be morally pure.
They managed to get to exactly 60 votes with independents twice. That's how Joe Lieberman was able to kill the public option by threatening a filibuster. He fits the white moderate description to a T. It wouldn't fair to do it without the Republicans. The Democrats are neoliberals, institutionalists. It only took one vote to kill the public option. They of course weren't willing to enact systemic change to get results. I am aware. This is what I'm arguing.
Neat conspiracy theory. Manchin owns a coal company. Sinema was bought. The Democratic Party had to work around the interests of elites, which is another reason why we need wealth redistribution.
"I want to do something" isn't a policy. "Condition weapons sales" is. "Withhold weapons sales" is. "Continue selling weapons no matter what Netanyahu does" was the policy of both Biden and Harris.
The Democratic Party does not agree with this.
Democrats had the numbers. Lieberman didn't do it alone. He had the help of Ben Nelson among others.
If Lieberman changed his vote, they would have found another.
With the leverage you keep pretending we have. How do we exercise this phantom leverage? Democrats' unwillingness to listen is how we got here.
Democrats don't work around the interests of their owners. They work for them. Wealth redistribution won't happen as long as the Democratic Party is run by corporate shit. And vague references to leverage that we can only somehow exercise by unquestioningly getting behind corporate shit only serves corporate shit.
The Tea Party did not spoil a GOP election. The GOP caved and adopted their platform.
The Democratic Party will do the same thing with the Guillotine Party.