563
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
563 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1138 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Hard disagree on both points. Change is still possible but it has to come from the ground up, showing up once every 4 years isn't how citizenry should act.
Agree.
Oh there very much is and the rightwing figured it out 70 years ago.
How do you envision change happening?
Every scenario I come up with is foiled by voter suppression measures, micro-targeted ads, influence campaigns, and systemic blocks.
At my most hopeful, I think that perhaps maximally, some of the national issues can be addressed at the state level via ballot initiatives - but that won’t change the federal government. And ballot initiatives move glacially slow compared to legislators who can change the rules and make ballot initiatives nigh impossible.
By voting in liberal democrats - like Obama? Who abandoned his promises once he had power, because resolving issues like abortion is less motivating to voters than using them as wedge issues? Of course, if they vote Democrat, that’s assuming their liberal candidates can rise through the ranks to gain power, vs like, a candidate that is a former Bush CIA torture operative, that is so hated by her constituents that when the district she was in got redrawn to include a better liked (and more liberal) candidate, she moved into the house of a lobbyist to run somewhere she wouldn’t get primaried. And then - when a senate seat opened, The Party emplaced her there by negotiating more liberal, better liked candidates out of the primary, so she can do to America what Manchin and Synema did the last time democrats had a majority.
By voting in third party candidates? Who lack conmity in their local dealings, who only gain that if they manage to elect enough people to gain local power? Which will split the power of the party closest to their political views under our two party system and ensure endless game theory discussions until that third party loses strength to go back into the shadows?
I just… don’t have hope today. Maybe tomorrow.
I'd like to see the rise of a "New Left" much as we (unfortunately) saw the rise of the New Right after Goldwaters defeat in 1964. We need actual, grassroots organization of the various leftwing interests, all politics is local. My state has actually been very successful with ballot initiatives, but you're right that they're trying to make them more difficult.
I don't have all the answers but I do know that we're not done yet. Honestly the rightwing thinktanks and various grassroots organizations behind the current iteration of The Right has about a 50 year head start, I'm not sure we'll be able to fix the mess in any less time.
So what happened to the left then, for it to have become so hopelessly inept? HRC was extremely disconnected from any irl people, but so are all such wealthy individuals who don't live in the same world that the rest of us mere ~~slobs~~ humans do - is it really just a function that her campaign manager was not as good as the efforts put forth from the other side, similarly to how legal battles are won by lawyers rather than actual matters of substance like facts? It certainly doesn't help that various outside actors got involved - with the numerous and exceedingly severe "email scandals", but even aside from those she really seemed to be struggling with campaigning.
What it feels like is two giants fighting - the elites (and I think you know but to be absolutely clear, not the paper masks that they wear like "Biden" or "Trump") - while the rest of us poor chumps get stepped on as they do. Which is obviously true, but somehow not fully, either, bc the true giants don't even care (much) who wins bc they have the system so rigged that they win either way. The latter we could not begin to fight, but we may actually get to choose our own brand of toothpaste, if we work hard enough at it. And women's rights seems like it is something up for grabs that way?
Especially, and this is the crucial part of my point, at the local level - at least currently, until the conservative politicians decide that they need another win and take that as well. While we argue amongst ourselves but do actually nothing to stop it.
I'd suggest the actual left has largely not participatied in politics in several decades and a milquetoast "moderate" Democratic party has allowed the assemblage of Right Wing Interests (who have aligned and mobilized since 1970) to roll back the actual progress of FDRs New Deal. Now would be an ideal time to mobilize and start running for city councils and schoolboards.
Robert Evans has a very enlightening 2-part podcast called "How Conservatism Won," ideally we'd emulate the Edwin Feulners and Paul Weyriches, but with progressive ideals.
edit: wording
Without having heard the podcast yet, I can assume that the conservatives won by actually trying, aka giving a damn about winning. They listened to their base - okay so abortion is bad, check, also gays are bad, check, etc. - then went on an enormous campaign that lasted for decades as you said, until they finally fucking delivered on what they promised... or some facsimile thereof. And now that they did, some conservative folks are finally questioning whether it was a good thing after all... but anyway the most important stuff of all got taken care of: tax cuts on the wealthy, check; also owning the libturds, check.
Trump goes to jail? Who cares, they still banned abortions. The nation slides into a totalitarian regime? So long as gays are prevented from marrying one another, that still counts as a win! OMG I wish I were joking!! 🤮 But that is reality, and conservatives are facing it.
Whereas if Hillary Clinton had faced it, maybe she would have campaigned a bit harder in Midwestern states, rather than merely make comments about liking grits and carrying hot sauce in her purse.
Anyway as you said, run for city councils and schoolboards. Conservatives do that, based on their alternative facts, but liberals with our actual true facts usually seem to not bother, at which point ofc they will win, by default - that's just how that works, especially when someone runs unopposed. We may talk about UBI or whatever, and some exceedingly rare instances are able to give such things a try, but for the most part it's the slow grind, the basic gains, the slow and steady progress that wins the race. Maybe we can (re-)learn what we seem to have forgotten from ye olden decades by watching modern conservatives.
As the great man Jon Stewart once said (in reference to media), "liberals aim to be correct, while conservatives aim to be effective". I don't fully know what that means, except FAAFO, as we are always doing right now, at every moment.