Serious The Politics Thread

[ant4456]

I tend to be extremely critical of the Democratic Party, in fact I believe in some even conspiratorial thinking in the vain of "the core of the Democratic Party does not care if the Republican Party wins, truly," but I still don't agree that Social Democrats = bad.

I do think it's bad if people get complacent at just seeing people like AOC in congress, but I think it's pretty clear that progressives have not grown complacent. People are not seeing the tossed bone of AOC and saying, "Yeah I'm satisfied," progressives as a caucus are clearly hungry for more.

We can indict them for their moral failings and complicities in the system, but I would never call them a net negative to the progressive cause. They have to play the game of politics, and even if they aren't winning, it's becoming at least a bit more normalized.

An alternative sounds great but we can't get one right now. Americans are not going to start a Revolution in the next 3 months.

I get it. If it was Joe Biden, I was far less likely to vote, but now that we might actually get someone who can stay up past her bedtime, I am hoping that at the minimum, the new proposal for a commander-in-chief will be more active and demanding in preventing Conservatives from strong arming congress. Plus, as a trans person, I'd like to not be killed/imprisoned within the next 4 years, thanks.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Then why did the squad all take the Pro-Palestine side? I just said that we have to keep making moral and practical arguments that point towards justice. Slowly changing hearts and minds.

Anyway— without power you can affect nothing.

To be a leftist is to accept that losing is a state of default fighting against the powers that be.

Your problem isn’t with Social Democrats (which really aren’t a thing anyway)— it’s with Democratic Socialists, who invented Social Democracy as policy/strategy, and whose symbol is the tortoise… you know, symbolizing accepting the reality of slow progress, hopefully towards Socialism. One day. Maybe. If the Material Conditions allow for it.

 

[lilyhollow]

I still don't agree that Social Democrats = bad.

Just bear in mind that I said "social democrats are not our friends"--I did not say that they are necessarily a net negative. I think whether they're a net negative or a net positive is very contextual and it's probably not the best way to frame the discussion.

When the chips are down, people like AOC are aligned against us. Their goals are not our goals. Chou described progressive dems as basically functioning to win the ruling class over to certain progressive ideas for the purpose of maintaining empire. I agree with that assessment. The difference is that I find it to be unacceptable.

Anyway, I agree with you that there are areas where we can use people like the squad to our benefit. But for us to do so successfully requires us to be committed anti-imperialists as a first priority.

To be a leftist is to accept that losing is a state of default fighting against the powers that be.

No, I am about winning not losing. I'm not here to slowly sink into hell while 'my' country murders millions of people in my name and then gives me treats every so often to buy me off. We are galaxies away from eachother on this, I'm afraid. There is no possible universe where I would even come close to accepting this.

 

[juoean]

most politicians behavior doesnt have anything to do with their 'hearts and minds'. prior to this year none of "the squad" other than ilhan omar did a single thing to oppose the billions in annual military aid to the zionist entity.
rn politicians across the democratic party are facing more scrutiny over their support for palestinian genocide and that includes "the squad". the 30+ no votes on $26 billion aid to the zionist entity is a lot more than the either 0 or 1 vote on every prior military aid, but other aspects like the adoption of the IHRA definition, or propaganda statements eg on strengthening the iron dome we dont rly see those cracks. strengthening the iron dome is obv incompatible with ending miltary aid so i think its p clear that the no votes dont represent anything about "hearts and minds" but reflect politicians responding to pressure from the encampments and other protests. and if that pressure ever goes back down they will go right back to voting yes on every military aid authorization. those politicians who most present themselves as being 'progressive' are generally the ones under most pressure because the way they run their campaigns etc is on the basis of that image.

 

[Chou Toshio]

When the chips are down, people like AOC are aligned against us. Their goals are not our goals. Chou described progressive dems as basically functioning to win the ruling class over to certain progressive ideas for the purpose of maintaining empire. I agree with that assessment. The difference is that I find it to be unacceptable.

You got it opposite. I described using the levers of liberal empire, even the maintenance of Liberal democratic Empire, and slowly transforming the culture and society of Empire (including its ruling class)—

—for the purpose of Social Democratic goals in the short term and Democratic Socialist goals (global ones) in the long term.

No, I am about winning not losing. I'm not here to slowly sink into hell while 'my' country murders millions of people in my name and then gives me treats every so often to buy me off. We are galaxies away from eachother on this, I'm afraid. There is no possible universe where I would even come close to accepting this.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should clarify that I don’t mean “accept” as in accept it as okay or fine— not that it’s important to find it acceptable.

I meant more as in the endurance and fortitude to continue living against it, grappling against it, not surrendering intolerance of it despite the reality that there’s a very very very real chance that the changes you desire won’t happen in your lifetime, and may even get worse. “Accept” as in “understand it and be willing to live and continue in that reality.”

 

[lilyhollow]

I described using the levers of liberal empire, even the maintenance of Liberal democratic Empire, and slowly transforming the culture and society of Empire (including its ruling class)—

The idea that an actual revolution is an unrealistic pipe dream worthy of scorn and laughter, while this 'strategy' you describe is somehow sensible and realistic, is beyond me.

 

[Chou Toshio]

most politicians behavior doesnt have anything to do with their 'hearts and minds'. prior to this year none of "the squad" other than ilhan omar did a single thing to oppose the billions in annual military aid to the zionist entity.

You can’t think of hearts and minds as in knee-jerk emotional reaction. You have to think of it as cultural bedrock.

The cultural bedrock for MSNBC watchers is fundamentally different from Southern Slave Owners, is fundamentally different from Feudal Lords. That bedrock is material and something worth grinding towards the right direction. Something far more rigid than the day-to-day/month-to-month/year-to-year sensational headlines.

So I’m talking reeeeeeaaaaallly long game that I’m saying continued progressive struggle builds up.

And I got to say, the state of American “Socialism,” as word, idea, cultural acceptance is massively different pre and post Bernie 2016– that is fundamentally changed at that bedrock level of acceptance. There are individual occurrences and movements that can leave lasting impact, blasts in the bedrock.

There are decades where nothing changes and instances where decades get done.

The idea that an actual revolution is an unrealistic pipe dream worthy of scorn and laughter, while this 'strategy' you describe is somehow sensible and realistic, is beyond me.

And there’s a reason why the Revolutionaries fundamentally despised the Democratic Socialists. That’s fine. You don’t have to like them— only to think about how to use them. The left has no power without this thing called “solidarity.”

Though I’m not saying that it’s only one or the other, or that Revolution is impossible. Only to be wise.

Any Revolution you’d desire is only possible with material conditions in place, and achieving class consciousness or something analogous in broad cultural shift is a fundamental requirement of material condition for the success you desire. The Squad is essential to that.

 

[lilyhollow]

I have to keep this post short bc I need to head out right this second, but no, the squad is absolutely not essential to that in any way.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I have to keep this post short bc I need to head out right this second, but no, the squad is absolutely not essential to that in any way.

Good luck then— I look forward to seeing the headlines.

Edit: I had left Lilyhollow a lol emoji, because I do have a different sense of what is politically wise— but changed to heart because I thought better of it. Because I don’t oppose their views, and if in fact there was success I believe we’d all be better off. There’s a reason why there’s no reason to despise those further left than oneself who are so in good faith, because fundamentally despite disagreement, snapping one’s fingers to let that person magically change the world would make it a better one— that’s fundamentally different than the far right.


I also have no knowledge of their lives, their relations, their material condition. A difference in privilege always comes with a difference in urgency.

 

[RaikouLover]

Third parties can't get a footing in America because we have legalized bribery and without corporate funding, you are not getting anywhere close to the Presidency. Ever.

No, this is a cop out. Third parties can't get a footing because they are dysfunctional vanity campaigns with no real desire to govern. Political parties are built from the ground up, not top down. There are thousands of municipalities that could be competitive through grassroots organizing. Where is the third party mobilization at the local level?

 

[adjectivenoun]

No, this is a cop out. Third parties can't get a footing because they are dysfunctional vanity campaigns with no real desire to govern. Political parties are built from the ground up, not top down. There are thousands of municipalities that could be competitive through grassroots organizing. Where is the third party mobilization at the local level?

It is objectively the case that campaigning at the federal level in America requires a great deal of money, though. Were that not the case, big donors wouldn't have been able to pressure Biden to stand down in the way that they did. I think that it would be disingenuous to act as if that's the only reason for third parties in America being what they are, but it undeniably plays a part.

 

[Chou Toshio]

You’re both wrong. At least partly. Third parties are unviable because of first past the post. That’s the biggest reason anyway. If we get ranked choice voting, any 3rd party project becomes inherently more viable.

Of course they would still need money, and they would still need to be serious and bottoms up, but slow progress would become possible in a real way.

Edit: unless Ant wants to say “lack of ranked choice is because of money in politics,” then I’d say yeah you’re right, that’s the most right. GG

 

[ant4456]

Edit: unless Ant wants to say “lack of ranked choice is because of money in politics,” then I’d say yeah you’re right, that’s the most right. GG

I mean I believe companies control both and I believe companies are why the system is unable to be changed, so yeah that inherently is part of my point of view

 

[Chou Toshio]

GG Ant

Harris flipping swing states in Morning Consult, especially Michigan where Biden was tied Harris up by +11! Just remember Kamala that if you signal more of the same as Biden that ALL disappears.

 

[RaikouLover]

It is objectively the case that campaigning at the federal level in America requires a great deal of money, though. Were that not the case, big donors wouldn't have been able to pressure Biden to stand down in the way that they did. I think that it would be disingenuous to act as if that's the only reason for third parties in America being what they are, but it undeniably plays a part.

You're strawmaning here. Where are the third parties at the local level? How many mayorships or city councils has the Green Party even tried to compete in?

Harris flipping swing states in Morning Consult, especially Michigan where Biden was tied Harris up by +11! Just remember Kamala that if you signal more of the same as Biden that ALL disappears.

Let's tone the polling hype down. Harris is not doing "11 points better than Biden" in Michigan. Polls are propaganda.

 

[adjectivenoun]

You're strawmaning here. Where are the third parties at the local level? How many mayorships or city councils has the Green Party even tried to compete in?

In what way am I misrepresenting your argument? I'm not even in complete disagreement with you — I would like to see third parties pursue more local power — but it is an objective fact that money and access to it plays a major role in campaigning at the federal level.

 

[Avira]

Since RaikouLover touts Allan Lichtman's 13 keys so much, I will put it out there that 6 keys are currently turned against Harris, so this points to a Trump victory. Below are the 6 keys that have turned against Harris:

1. Party mandate - The Democrats have fewer seats after the midterm elections than before.
3. Incumbent seeking re-election - Harris is not the sitting president.
10. No foreign or military failure - Withdrawing from Afghanistan and supporting Netanyahu unconditionally in Gaza have seriously impacted the US's standing on the world stage.
11. Major foreign or military success - Biden has no foreign affairs or military success during his term.
12. Charismatic incumbent - Harris is neither charismatic or a national hero.
13. Uncharismatic challenger - Trump is charismatic. Just because he uses his charisma to commit evil doesn't mean he isn't charismastic. Allan Lichtman is pointedly wrong in declaring that Trump is uncharismatic. Trump did get a record number of Republicans to vote in 2020. That is charisma working. It just led to an even larger turnout among Democrats since Trump is so obviously evil like a cartoon supervillain.

The keys point to a major disaster for the Democrats. Allan Lichtman at his advanced age is probably senile and can't even evaluate his own keys properly.

 

[Aether]

not this again

 

[lilyhollow]

Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Tehran after Israel bombs Beirut

Israel bombed southern Beirut on Tuesday, with its military claiming that it targeted Fuad Shukr, a senior Hizballah commander. Israel said that Shukr was killed but Arabic-language media said his fate remained unknown late Tuesday.

[...]

Lebanon’s health ministry said that a woman and two children were killed, though “the search for more missing persons under the rubble continues.”

Hamas announced early Wednesday that Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Palestinian faction’s political wing, was assassinated in Tehran, where he was present for the inauguration of the new Iranian president.

The assassination, in Iran no less, marks a major escalation that will likely have regional ramifications and came hours after Israel bombed Lebanon on Tuesday evening, killing three civilians, according to Lebanese state media.

Israel killed multiple members representing multiple generations of Haniyeh’s family in Gaza since October. Several leaders of Hamas have been assassinated by Israel before Haniyeh, only to be replaced and for the organization’s capabilities to grow.

 

[Avira]

And RaikouLover, here's a tidbit from your heralded keys. The incumbent party has won re-election on 13 of the 14 occasions when keys 10 and 11 were both true (the exception was in 1992); on all four occasions when both keys were false (in 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2008), the incumbent party was defeated.

So in all four previous instances with both keys 10 and 11 being false, the incumbent party was defeated, which is the case for 2024 as well. Even if Lichtman was right about Trump being uncharismatic, which he isn't, incumbent parties having no foreign affairs/military successes but at least 1 major failure have gone on to lose every time. The headwinds are not looking good for Harris.

 

[RaikouLover]

And RaikouLover, here's a tidbit from your heralded keys. The incumbent party has won re-election on 13 of the 14 occasions when keys 10 and 11 were both true (the exception was in 1992); on all four occasions when both keys were false (in 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2008), the incumbent party was defeated.

So in all four previous instances with both keys 10 and 11 being false, the incumbent party was defeated, which is the case for 2024 as well. Even if Lichtman was right about Trump being uncharismatic, which he isn't, incumbent parties having no foreign affairs victories but at least 1 major loss have gone on to lose every time. The headwinds are not looking good for Harris.

If that is what you want to believe, go for it. Allan Licthman is 10/10 over the last 40 years (or 9/10 if you want to believe GWBush won “fairly”). What is your track record of predictions?

If you are going to cite the keys, cite them correctly. Otherwise, it is cherry picking. Convicted felon Trump is not “charismatic.” Charismatic politicians are candidates that get broad support that includes significant amount of voters from the other party. Examples being FDR, Reagan, and 2008 Obama. Trump should try first getting more than 47% of the vote. Then, you can show us evidence of a large number of “Trump Democrats” that didnt exist in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020, yet suddenly exist this cycle.

The keys point to a major disaster for the Democrats. Allan Lichtman at his advanced age is probably senile and can't even evaluate his own keys properly.

I will take the L on being oblivious to how deeply ageist our society really is.

In what way am I misrepresenting your argument? I'm not even in complete disagreement with you — I would like to see third parties pursue more local power — but it is an objective fact that money and access to it plays a major role in campaigning at the federal level.

No one tried to argue that money is not corrupting our politics. It just doesn’t excuse third parties for failing to compete for local elections that are totally winnable. These races often get <20% turnout. Why are the Greens and Libertarians not going for mayorships and city council? But they’ll run for President? Says everything about their seriousness…

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Tehran after Israel bombs Beirut

I am trying to remember when it was ever acceptable to conduct missile strikes on sovereign territories for the purposes of assassination?

All this really confirms to me is that Israel by way of Netanyahu and his coalition government are not interested in peace. The negotiations are playing for time.

Meanwhile polio was detected a few weeks ago and a major epidemic has been declared by the Gaza health ministry, with the WHO looking to provide 1 million vaccines. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/07/1152551

I expect the inevitable blocking of the vaccines as “dual use” by Israel in due course.

 

[Bakugames]

someone should study the incredible capability of democrats to fumble any bag that they have

 

[ant4456]

So in one week Kamala Harris went from major gains in the youth vote to cementing a right wing stance on immigration, not doing well with the Gaza issue and now celebrating the thinly veiled trans censorship law

I do not see how the momentum can possibly stay in her favor when a lot of the gains were youth voters who are more progressive, most of the centrist Democrats were voting blue no matter who, but youth vote already is not the most likely to vote hard (though they did in 2020, which was a big part of the difference)

They need to Stop. Capitulating. To. Conservatives.

I myself feel way more cynical after this, and frankly, less likely to vote.

 

[Bughouse]

Turning away from the keys and a bit more back into reality, I'm actually at least mildly worried what Harris signaling a stronger stance on Israel than Biden's will do with respect to the median voter. Signaling a stronger rebuke of Israel is a risk basically no democrat has been willing to take before in a national campaign. Outside of our internet bubbles the median US voter is quite a bit more unabashedly pro-Israel than you might expect, once you look under the hood beyond the simple platitude of supporting a two-state solution. There's been polling on what Americans think of Biden on Israel and while a majority disapprove, that's because it's basically divided evenly 4 ways between "too pro-Israel, too pro-Palestine, just right, and I don't know". As the American left has warmed more to the Palestinian cause, it's basically become a guaranteed lose-lose issue for any Democrat president/candidate any time the conflict heats up. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the matter, Biden's policies have in fact been status quo US-Israel relations policies that reflect the opinion of the median voter based on decades of history. Polling also has shown that the median American voter also believes that a majority of pro-Palestine protestors, not just some, are both violent and anti-semitic. There's not necessarily any real grounding in reality to the median American voter position, but it is what it is.

I think Harris will probably pick up more disaffected possible "uncommitteds" from the left than she will lose in the middle by signaling a stronger stance in opposition to Israel's current actions, but I can't guarantee that. So besides it being the right thing to do (for which I applaud her), politically it's definitely a calculated risk. It's also true that the ground is shifting on this issue and it's possible that Harris may be able to lead the median voter into a less universally pro-Israel and more nuanced overall position, which would be a welcome change. I think that's a challenging education campaign ahead though and if she wins and does actually meaningfully change the US's historical position on Israel, be prepared for major backlash not just from republicans but from moderates/independents too.