789
The last few decades of politics (lemmy.world)
submitted 11 months ago by [M] to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
118 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Glad they're taking off the gloves a little, but it's always been a non-option to just make our lives significantly and irrevocably better like M4A or the PRO act and although they're good at trying and failing, they never talk about the consequences as dire as they actually are with few exceptions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

Because the goal of voting is to influence governance. It is not an end unto itself. Yes, you can vote for other parties. You can also vote for Donald Duck. It just has no effect.

In terms of which party will govern, there are two options. Choose the one you despise least. And then do whatever you think is necessary to end the duopoly outside of the general election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Well, what I think is ncecessary to end the duopoly is to show both of them that I'm not going to vote for either of them, until one of them starts to do what I want. And voting 3rd party sends a signal as to what policies they should adopt if they want my vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    I disagree. You'll never convince enough people to pursue this strategy to matter because it involves making your material position dramatically worse for some unknown but probably very extended period of time. If MAGA rules for the next 2 decades there won't be any way for leftists to gain power even if that did somehow result in enough people joining you. They are already moving quickly to end democracy in the US.

    I think if you want to make third parties viable there needs to be electoral reform, which will have to happen with the consent of at least one of the two existing parties. Or you pursue politics outside of electoralist strategies. Which is my view, and is a much more effective way to get concessions from the existing parties anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    It comes down to whichever outcome you think is more likely to happen. Either:

    A) The Democratic leadership stops resisting, and starts doing what the voters want
    or
    B) A third-party will gain power

    I think B is much more likely, as the Democratic leadership has clearly demonstrated that they'd rather let the Republicans win, than do what the voters want. If you want to try to make A happen, then be my guest. I hope to be proven wrong. But from watching the Dems in the past few decades, it's clear to me that B is more likely.

    They are already moving quickly to end democracy in the US.

    You mean the Democracy where we get to vote for genocide or genocide? or how about the bombing of those kids, vs those other kids? Or how about this mass surveillance system vs that mass surveillance system?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    The democracy where dissidents get arrested and disappeared to extralegal foreign prisons or the one where they don't. Where autocratic leaders can get peacefully deposed or the one where they don't.

    It's not about the policies of the democrats or republicans today. It's about any policy you want to enact by voting in the future.

    My argument is you create a situation where democratic leadership either gets removed by intra-party politics and replaced by allies, or existing has no choice but to concede due to pressure from a large organized movement. Or likely some combination of those things. Honestly, I see this already happening to some extent but if more people were engaged in this strategy it would happen faster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    The democracy where dissidents get arrested and disappeared to foreign prisons or the one where they don't. Where autocratic leaders can get peacefully deposed or the one where they don't.

    Considering that these things happened both under the Democrats and the Republicans, you are going to have to be more specific.

    My argument is you create a situation where democratic leadership either gets removed by intra-party politics and replaced by allies, or existing has no choice but to concede due to pressure from a large organized movement.

    Once again, they've already signaled that they'd rather lose than do this. Fight for it if you want, but I'm not going to waste my time banging my head against the same wall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    And yet you'll bang your head against the wall of third parties that have failed to achieve anything whatsoever in over 150 years.

    I'm not sure what you're referring to with democrats. Dissidents who break laws have been targeted. I don't know of any who were targeted merely for speech as we've seen under this administration. But perhaps I am ignorant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    And yet you'll bang your head against the wall of third parties that have failed to achieve anything whatsoever in over 150 years.

    Yes. I still think that is going to be faster than the Democratic leadership changing their core values.

    I don't know of any who were targeted merely for speech...

    This happened during the anti-genocide college protests. He also arrested people who protested his speeches.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •