yeah we've had this out a dozen times at this point Trump still being in power with a trifecta would in fact be worse than the present dynamic
I think my main position is Dems win elections by making positive policy changes in people's lives that they can feel on a day to day basis. This is backed up historically. And the electoralism is mostly used by Dems as a mechanism to avoid having to do that. So it feels dumb when there's a much better way to win elections that would also actually improve people's fucking lives
yeah the material conditions obsession is mostly cope at this stage as political opinions shifting is much more accurately seen through the research on post-materialism. we reached a level of quality of life post industrialization that made people be able to focus on many other things.
I think presenting hypotheticals/counterfactuals as fact is silly and beneath him. It’s totally undiscussable. One could easily pose an alternative where an unpopular minority regime motivates real direct action instead of Dem and inshallah. The bigger issue is it’s a false dichotomy and one perpetrated by the Dems. It’s us or the bad guy is literally belied by the initial post I made in which they play chicken with electing the bad guy to elect themselves because as NCHusker said they do fuck all for people and want to keep it that way. That sort of scare tactic is how we keep getting milquetoast Dems that do nothing but at best barricade any change.
this is because it makes your "dont bother with electoralism" thing seem really really shallow when you won't (or can't as you say) acknowledge the potential or likely repercussions
to win elections and have positive change for society, im confused by this question mostly in response to my statement
When it's a one candidate or the other, it seems like that very much is the choice. Also thinking "if Trump is reelected something good may happen" is a hard sell for me personally. Seems more likely we just fall further into the abyss
Also, still not clear if it’s normatively good to keep receipts from past conversations— you’ve referenced paratextual comments twice so far— or not, which you’ve scolded me for in the past.
policies that help people impacting public opinion and electoralism is BROADLY cope from a failure of material conditions politics you refuse to contemplate step 1 after step 0 is "stop voting". it's transparent ideology soaked nonsense.
you’re sidestepping owning your own very bad rhetorical device by shifting the onus onto me, so just ask the question you want to ask since you’re incapable of staying on track
the post left anti-electoralism gang continues to play coy that it's really just accelerationism but they don't want to admit to it
I think that's more a result of Bernie Sanders becoming a national brand than it is trump becoming president.
yes we're clearly in the good faith zone where "dont vote for Biden" has no reasonable alternative that we can even remotely discuss and it's just wonk brain to wonder what comes next
If improving people's lives does not help Democrats win elections as you say, then there is zero incentive for Democrats to improve people's lives. So why should people engage in the process at all
Again, it is not as binary as you're making it and why the post-materialism writing is very good. It's a complicated dynamic that angers folks who have an ideology that requires a very narrow idea of how political opinion is influenced. Material HARM does tend to be reflective in public opinion. Also most politicians still want to impact change even if the electoral calculus is not directly aligned.
Again what? I’m not Dan, you’ll need another cup of coffee to overwhelm me with posting sleight of hand. 1: How am I acting in bad faith by dismissing your hypothetical you presented as fact? 2: How am I acting in bad faith by asking about the acceptability of making sweeping rhetorical gestures to years-old conversations? 3: I’m not sure what the don’t vote for Biden thing is. If you can snarkily gesture at left politics, surely I’m entitled to the same with electoralism.
Ah, I think dialectically the emergence of a polarizing right wing figure begged for the development of left wing consciousness that coalesced around Sanders, but I’m structural over procedural.
the question probably appeared antagonistic but I legitimately was thinking back to Kennedy and couldn’t come up with a successful example.
I didn't read it as antagonistic fwiw. Any frustration in my post is directed at the impotent Democratic party
I think it’s impossible to know counterfactuals and using them as scare tactics is a consistent feature of Dem strategy. I do think that Biden winning has been actual, real, and bad.
ok then paying attention to politics isn't for you and it's just blackpill nation. I always find the blackpill folks a little goofy with their desire to blackpill other folks seemingly as positive reinforcement for themselves.
I mean maybe Dems could just try addressing material conditions one time and see how it goes electorally. Just for funsies!
and I think saying this while arguing that the openness to left wing politics being tied to trump winning is you choosing to only engage with rhetorical stylings that benefit your position as seen by things like this
But to address the point - there is certainly an incentive for people who desire change to participate in the American political process. But there are also other incentives as well. I'm skeptical that the majority want change and are not motivated by the other incentives
I mean the covid stimulus in the US was greater than any other country in the world, most of it coming while Trump was president, and it didn't really help a ton seemingly. Biden added a bunch on top and it didn't help his approvals either. ACA prior to that was a huge material benefit to people and led to immediate decade long backlash before people somewhat came around on it. Thermostatic public opinion is more explanatory than direct material analysis, which is why people should engage with the post-materialism writing.
I need to see this graph but it’s just all the tenets of socialism without the word socialism attached to it
ok, fair enough, at least now you’re being open about why you’re a prick to people who are ostensibly adjacent to you politically (big tent Dems!) to speak nothing of friends. maybe I’ve been unclear. I don’t want to claim that republicans winning is the only way socialism develops. Dems are right wing too. we should also be clear that graphs like that don’t hold the same weight for both of us. I can think of a dozen psychometric questions id want answered before I use that to inform my perspective. I’m not 15– graphs are not sufficient for persuasion. I assume you think that’s ideology but it’s really not which is my bigger point here. you proposed literal alternative history to justify the present. As someone interested in material analysis— which does not just mean access to refrigerators— that is an untenable ground on which to conduct analysis. I’m critiquing reality— Dem electoralism. You’re critiquing a hypothetical— three branch Rs.
If a conservative market based healthcare plan that most people didn't understand and even at its most generous interpretation only slightly slowed the pace of skyrocketing healthcare costs is your example of government addressing material conditions, we're just operating under entirely different syllabi.
And your other example is a temporary pandemic stimulus package that addressed immediate needs only and did not represent a permanent positive change in anyone's lives. I suspect you're being disingenuous here
I thought the temporary stimulus actually started to materially affect food security and other things in people in abject poverty? I know I saw a ton of reports about how it actually helped who were food insecure.