I can’t stand this faux leftist bullshit. There’s a reason why I call this right wing nonsense: it impedes the improvement of people’s material lives. We don’t have to like the Democrats in order to reject this absolute nonsense.
And your attitude in turn is why there’s no party who represents the views of most people. You’ve already decided it’s impossible without trying, even though the majority of democracies in the developed world today are not trapped in two-party systems.
Maybe we want a 3rd party to start actually doing something and winning local/state elections instead of randomly showing up every 4 years to try to win a national election.
The smart move, which we just got a hard lesson on, is to vote Democrat until a 3rd party becomes viable, because the other option is Republican fascism, which is what we got.
The smart move, which we just got a hard lesson on, is to vote Democrat until a 3rd party becomes viable
If THAT’S what you got out of this then I guess the US are fucked
There are two paths, an inside and an outside strategy. The inside strategy is far simpler, has far greater potential for success, and will harm the least people along the way. Acknowledging that isn’t “giving up”, it’s picking strategy like a grown-up, not some kid afraid to turn down a dare.
without trying
This is the most idiotic thing about third party advocates. There have been third parties running consistently for decades, and we are somehow supposed to pretend that that lengthy record of dismal failure doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, inside strategists haven’t won everything yet, so we are supposed to switch to a strategy with a far worse track record.
This is the most idiotic thing about third party advocates.
One interesting thing I’ve noticed in these discussions is how quickly the two-party advocates will bring out words like “idiotic” and attack the person not the argument… it really is a movement driven by fear.
Yeah it’s fear. Fear that fuckwits are going to drive the country into the hands of fascists. Is that not worth a bit of concern, or is that just too far fetched an outcome?
And don’t act like it’s one sided mate. Calling me a coward by coming at it sideways doesn’t change your meaning.
Most modern democracies don’t enforce First Past the Post by law, and don’t have a winner-takes-all system. A better strategy is to primary democratic representatives as much as possible, and take over down-ballot positions as soon as possible. That way we can make steps towards dismatling Citizen’s United, repealing all the laws that prevent moving away from FPTP, and implement RCV.
I am more than willing to try, if not for the fact that splitting the left would cede electoral victories to the right for several cycles while people figure out what “the new left” is. If we do this in our current era, Republicans will actually kill us while we sit on our ass and convince ourselves to split our vote (as has been shown with the most recent administration)…
This has been shown in history-- every time a third party tries to get made, the opposition party wins for several cycles. The most notable of which is (imo) Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive party in 1912. It got 27% of the vote (2nd in terms of popular vote and won several downstream races). But, the left vote was split by 27%, so the right won by a very large majority. They decided to ultimately dissolve and infiltrate the left wing party.
You are 100% correct, but I fear this is too complex for most Americans to understand and too much of a “long game” thing for the rest to be willing to get onboard with. I have very little faith in our electorate.
Oh, I can’t wait until you all find out what the OG Democratic party liked. IMO there’s a reason Bernie doesn’t put a (D) after his name
Because then he’d be Bernie Sanded?
berniesandersdis a daemon process that runs in the background
You can do what the tea party did: capture a small enough portion of your voting base that covers the margin of victory (aka: the short hairs) and demand the party do your bidding.
That’d require progressives to have something resembling spine. Good fucking luck.
Dumb doomer attitudes like this and the rest constantly plastered all over Lemmy (always by the same handful of users I’ve noticed) certainly isn’t helping. “American” Lemmy is a small community, it’s a lot smaller when you take out the bad faith “memelords” incessantly both-sides-ing and advocating for non-participation.
certainly isn’t helping
Helping what? What do you want me to help?
PS: I’m not American.
Removed by mod
That’s why I support candidates, not parties.
That’d require progressives to have something resembling spine
It would require progressives to actually vote in the primaries, which 90% of people on here discourage at every opportunity.
The only people I routinely read on here bringing up non-voting are centrists. All the progressives, aside from a few performative tankies, I read on here said, “I’ll hold my nose and vote for Kamala, but her choices are going to cost her the election.”
The progressives showed up and voted for Kamala. And just like the progressives predicted, her shit policies meant that large numbers of low-engagement voters simply saw no reason to vote for her. Her democracy message fell flat because if you’re in the poorest 90% of the US, you do not live in a democracy.
I mean, that’s fine too but not really what the parent comment is talking about.
It’s not? That’s literally what the Tea Party did.
capture a small enough portion of your voting base that covers the margin of victory (aka: the short hairs) and demand the party do your bidding.
Now I have no idea if that’s what the Tea Party did as I was way too young for politics at that time, but American progressives regard this particular strategy as nothing less than anathema to their very existence.
but American progressives regard this particular strategy as nothing less than anathema to their very existence.
Yes, because it would require them to vote in the primaries to demonstrate the capture of the voting base?
No, because most progressives would never make that threat, let alone follow up on it. I mean would you say “they didn’t do what we want, don’t vote Democrat”? Exactly.
Not really. The Tear Party replaced a pro-business party with an even more pro-business party. Or they replaced the pro-business party with a more bigoted pro-business party. They made no fundamental challenge to the power of wealth and influence within the Republican party. And they were not a real grass roots organization.
If they cared about victory, you’d be right. But it’s becoming pretty clear they care far more about money. If they’re paid to lose anyway, this tactic is utterly useless.
It may not be worth the effort to reform it, but claiming that it “can’t” be reformed is asinine. A political party is not some higher order being, timeless and unchanging, nor even one with a fundamental permanent set of core tenants that all else springs from. It’s a group of people with a bit of bureaucracy that influence and decide somewhat collectively on their shared goals. Of course that can change fundamentally.
In fact it has changed fundamentally in the not too distant past. Look at the Democratic party (and the Republican party) of the Jim Crow era compared to today. They essentially flipped to the other side of the political spectrum. It’s absolutely not easy to change a party fundamentally and not quick to do so, either. Old minds are not easily swayed with the times. The primary way to change party ideals is through new minds and perspectives joining the party and the old ones leaving it. Generational change is slow AF but it does definitely happen. Concerted effort for young people with new ideals to join the party is the best way to induce this change. Again though, that is a lot of effort and takes times. The bigger he ship, the harder to steer. There are alternatives, all of which also take a ton of effort, probably a lot more effort really, but might be faster if it works out.
Yup.
There are so many Americans that don’t grasp that this change can happen. Or understand the concept but outright refuse to have patience. And like you said, it’s A LOT less effort, a LOT less time, and WAY more possible to primary and change the Democrat party than to cross our fingers for a random 3rd party to start actually doing something and winning some elections and getting reps in the House and Senate.
I’ve been alive for a while. I watched conservative voters change the Republican party to the fascist traitor party it is today. You can absolutely change political parties.
Most people use “can’t” for things that are impractical, not just strictly impossible. But yes, let’s argue about phrasing rather than the issue. That ought to fix everything.
I don’t know why we keep having to have this talk about why reformism doesn’t work. Rosa Luxembourg addressed this pretty well.
We aren’t likely to get Reformations, the problems with the Democratic party are baked directly in to the institution.
Anything offered as Reformation is a token to ensure that the masses don’t revolt at least until the Reformation can be clawrd back by the powers that be.
We aren’t likely to get Reformations, the problems with the Democratic party are baked directly in to the institution.
What’s the difference between the Democratic party and the United States of America in this regard? If the Democrats can’t be reformed, why can the USA be reformed? If the USA can’t be reformed, then what’s the point of this discussion?
Well theoretical the DNC is not baked directly into the government and continues its stranglehold by trying to kill all 3rdparty prospects pretty aggressively.
If a group was able to pull it off and build a completely new political party it could change the fabric of the government the same way MAGA is now however this is not Reformation. Its a soft power Revolution similar to what happened with Adelle in Chile.
I mean functional what’s occurring with the Trump administration is a soft power revolution.
The point of this discussion is to encourage people to put down the DNC in favor of other organizations like local ones that actually benefit the community by helping the impoverished or to look at other organizations like the DSA or PSL or FSRO which at least help encourage people to learn anarchist or Marxist theory which is significantly better at predicting and helping people navigate the political landscape then the neoliberal theory that lead us here in the first place.
Well theoretical the DNC is not baked directly into the government and continues its stranglehold by trying to kill all 3rdparty prospects pretty aggressively.
No, it’s not aggressive at all in trying to kill 3rd parties. That’s because 3rd parties aren’t a threat to power in this country. It uses 3rd parties as an excuse for their losses, and uses that to go after the left (something it does do aggressively).
Its a soft power Revolution similar to what happened with Adelle in Chile.
Chile is a parliamentary system with proportional representation, not a first past the post winner takes all system. Totally different animal.
I mean functional what’s occurring with the Trump administration is a soft power revolution.
Yes, executed through an inside strategy of taking over the Republican party. Imagine that.
The point of this discussion is to encourage people to put down the DNC in favor of other organizations like local ones that actually benefit the community by helping the impoverished or to look at other organizations like the DSA or PSL or FSRO
If that were the point of this discussion, it would seem like that might have been something to mention before now.
Yep because allowing the DNC to blame third parties certainly doesn’t create animosity towards third parties nor does it push the illusion that voting anything other than democrat or republican is handing the country over to your opponent.
Somebody doesn’t know about the Socialist Revolution in Chile in the 70s… or the role the United States played in ending that.
Pretending that parliamentary systems aren’t first past the vote is something else. They just happen to have a system where coalitions have a little more power. Definitely hasn’t helped in France or the United Kingdom where the two major political parties continue to consolidate power.
Yes the Republican Party allowed themselves to be taken over since they believe anything for power which Trump is more than happy to oblige.
As I said before the Republican party did not take Trump seriously until it was too late and did not attempt to remove power from him. Where as the Democratic party actively stamps out Progressive politicians and policies.
Regardless of how other people feel I’m using this as an opportunity to talk about how the Democrats have failed us at every level politically and are now enabling the fascists take over of the United States and that it’s time to abandon the Democrats and find a new party and a new type of political organization. Which is why I suggest talking to the DSA Or the psl or the FSRO.
Anything these guys teach you will be light years ahead of any political Theory you learn from a Democrat.
Want to watch the Democrat party change?
Start primarying left and right.
It’ll change.
We’ve watched conservative voters change the Republican party to the traitor party they are today in less than 2 decades. It’s completely possible.
The Democrat Elites thought of that which is why they use super delegates which ensure that a candidate cannot be too radical.
Not only that the situation surrounding both parties is entirely different. People saw Donald Trump initially as a harmless moron. People in the DNC see radicals and progressives as an enemy to be contained
Problem is this - Dems are not a political party, they’re a fundraising organization.
I know you’re just being reductive, but that’s a silly statement. They are objectively a political party. They also fundraise. They’re not mutually exclusive.
The point is they measure success not by winning elections but by fundraising. “Harris couldn’t have been wrong, she raised record amounts, it must be the the voters or something”
For the meme, in that scene he lies to her. That said, this community is ready for that message.
i see mostly pushback actually, but hey i am still scrolling
The Tea Party fundamentally and radically transformed the GOP. It can be done.
Unfortunately, the Democratic constituency is too impatient and too distractable and stupid to do it. The GOP has been playing the long game since Reagan, and they are good at messaging and good at being happy with incremental wins. Dem constituent groups are great at swinging for the fences every 4 years and failing, and great at circular firing squads of blame and purity testing. They suck at having allies that agree with them on 95% of the issues. They suck at getting on the bus come election time. They have been trained to be this way by the GOP.
Time was, unions were the counterweight to the capitalist forces, and were the effective counterweight. Everyone let GOP/Libertarian philosophy and talking points get a foothold, and that union power has disintegrated. Reagan made union-busting his first priority, and the air traffic controllers were the object lesson; now people think unions can’t do shit. Now Dem blame the unions for shit, when really, they should be built back by anyone with a shred of liberal leaning, because that’s where liberal power comes from. Liberals pout when their most favored candidate doesn’t survive the primaries, and they complain about how The Man is keeping them down.
Naw, dawg. You’re just easily played.
The Republican party was a party of radical abolitionists and it was captured by the capitalists. The Democratic party can likewise be changed to something it is not currently.
You can’t convince me of what may be by talking about what is.
The Democrats used to be the racist pro slavery party. Then it got captured and turned into Roosevelts New Deal Democrats, which were obviously to the left of the Republicans. Not perfect, but they really did a lot of good.
This can be repeated, but it takes a lot of work.
ITT is some progressives who put more time, energy and anger into bullying other progressives not to vote for a genuinely progressive candidate, than they do into trying to sincerely convince Republican voters not to vote Republican.
There’s a logical fallacy at play in their minds where they think “Republican voters aren’t reasonable but progressives are, so I’ll spend my time trying to whip progressives into holding the Party line. Maybe cussing them out and accusing them of being complicit in the rise of fascism will help…”
I’ll go further: It wouldn’t be enough to simply reform one political party, anyway. The U.S. Constitution is a dead document, and its system of government is obsolete. The black hats have discovered the exploits, and everybody now knows how to game the system. We can’t repair the system from inside the system, since it at the bottom line it runs on trust, and that trust in the system is gone. Just like in any relationship, it takes some material change to get people to trust again.
Okay, one still should vote for a Democrat president. Because why would you vote for a more hostile government? Unless of course you want everything go-to shit but you should lead with your intention.
Better not try then…
I just want to point out that they are, including and especially the current pos, I mean Pota, business people, and businesses are, with one exception, authoritarian in nature. The exception? A co-op.
Orders are barked from the top, and that shit rolls down hill until it lands on someone with the skills necessary to execute on those orders.
Now take that, and build an entire political party on it, and for the likes and subscribes, throw in a religious element because the religious books can be “interpreted” whatever way we want to justify whatever we want to do, and that will garner some extra votes.
Yay!
“We’d rather have a convicted felon pedophile be president because the Democrats don’t want to dismantle capitalism entirely and replace with… well we don’t know what with”.
- Absolute fucking dumbasses.
If Bernie Sanders doesn’t want to dismantle the current Democrats then it’s entirely Bernie’s fault. He’s to blame for capitalism.
Bernie created capitalism, he can destroy it. He chooses not to!
You’re arguing against your own masturbatory fantasy.
The left came out and voted for Harris. They held their nose and voted for the shit pile centrist, as they always do. We’ve seen with Mamdani that this loyalty is a one way street. Progressives hold their nose and vote for centrists, but centrists do not return the favor.
Harris lost because she couldn’t drive enough politically unaligned, low-engagement voters to the polls. The average person who isn’t that involved in politics simply didn’t think it was credible that Harris would improve their lives in any way.
Aside from a few performative tankies, the message I kept reading on lemmy was “I’m going to vote for Harris, but her dog shit policies are going to cost her the election.” And those progressive voices were ignored. Their desperate warnings were drowned out by people like yourself, sticking their fingers in their ears and going, “BLAH BLAH BLAH CAN’T HEAR YOU, VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO! IT’S YOUR FAULT IF THE FASCISTS WIN, I HOLD NO RESPONSIBILITY HERE!”
Harris lost because she couldn’t drive enough politically unaligned, low-engagement voters to the polls.
If those low engagement voters couldn’t make it to the polls to protect our democracy and prevent a felon rapist traitor from becoming President, then the problem lies primarily with those fucking fools, not Kamala Harris.
The inside strategy is far simpler
I love how it’s the fault of the voters and not the fault of the democrats for being shit, centrists, and genocide enjoyers
Why do you expect anyone to care about democracy. Only the wealthiest 10% of the population lives in a democracy. 90% of the population has zero actual democratic power. You don’t live in a democracy.
And Kamala, a candidate who was annointed, not elected, could credibly run on a platform of democracy.
Yeah, people generally want their politicians to help them.
And wealth inequality is the single biggest issue in human society.
We are at a point where if we want to help regular people, we need that to come at the expense of the rich.
That’s literally the definition of taxes.
My taxes don’t get spent on helpful things
Strawman? Like 3 separate strawman arguments?
Strawgang.
Why the new account? Did your last one get banned for this same bullshit trolling?
At this point we need to create a mechanism that allows public pressure on a party.
Switching from FPTP voting (one-person, one vote) to something else will allow for other parties to have a chance but that will take time to brew.
We’re not ready for sortition (selection of officials by lottery) but that would end the career of politicians. And having barbers and coal miners govern is better than what we got now, even if they’ll need a lot of handholding, and an institution to swat away lobbyist pests.
The voters really did a number breaking open Pandora’s jar in November. It’s a fine mess they’ve brought upon us, and one we may not survive to clean up.
