MrHands said:
Well you see most people left of the Republicans are actually quite excited over the new potential candidates. Maybe if you expanded your viewpoints to more than one single issue you could join the excited party instead of hand-waving literally every single thing that happens as "supporting fascist state repression".
I am an old lady and I am painfully uncool, I'm afraid. I find it hard to catch on to the new trends anymore!
The bubbling excitement over the Democratic party right now is one of these temporary trends. It is perfectly understandable, and I get the emotional need people have to feel some form of hope. I am not about false hope though, and I don't believe in lying to people. It's fine to have some fun, but reality will still be waiting there when you are ready.
On that note, here is a recent clip that I won't really comment on other than to say that it makes me angry:
Also, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'hyperfocusing' on a literal genocide being overseen by the United States, a country many people in this thread actually live in. I don't think it's reasonable to criticize anyone for posting about it
What's your preferred voting strategy?
To the extent that we engage with people in the United States through the electoral process, it must be tied to forms of organizing that exist outside of the electoral sphere. This is my #1 thing by far.
For this reason, I am probably most happy with things like the Uncommitted Movement and some third parties. I do not think that these things are perfect. But they have pretty good potential to take people who are maybe only politically activated during election time, and move them towards forms of engagement that are tied to some kind of positive, anti-imperialist political project--not "just vote harder for the lesser evil until the day you die."
A key piece of this is that we must
not accept any strategy which demands that we lie to people or to ourselves about reality. I know I have been railing on this point a lot lately. I think it's an important point, because a common refrain from liberals and progressives is "oh but we can do both, you know! We can push people to vote for democrats and also do other organizing work!"
Okay, fair enough, you certainly can do both of those things. But can you do them without lying about extremely pertinent and urgent matters, misleading people into dead-ends? As has now been evinced countless times in this thread, the answer is no.
I use the word "lying" a bit loosely here, but I feel that I need a word with some bite to it. I don't think people are lying in an intentionally malicious way, but they are using the emotionally charged atmosphere of electoral politics as an excuse to reject or deny reality as it actually exists. Then they make these demands on others who don't 'join in on the fun.'
There is no possible way of reading through the posts in this thread without concluding that this is happening. Most recently, I have posted accurate, relevant information about Tim Walz, including criticisms from Palestinian activists in Minnesota and information about his documented violent repression of anti-racist protesters. In response to this, I am told that Tim Walz was polite and kind in how he discussed his violent repression of anti-racist protesters, and that he should be respected for this.
This is a lie which denies reality. In fact, Tim Walz smeared protesters as being '80% outside agitators' as an excuse to attack them. There is not a single person in this thread who would support Walz's actions if they had been committed directly by Trump, other than Trump voters themselves.
Now if I criticize this, which I have, some respond with concerned questions about how I may vote. This feels a bit surprising. Why should some criticism of Tim Walz, which I repeat is not just accurate but actually really important to know about, prompt anyone to worry about my personal voting strategy in any way?
It is because the 'lesser evilism' voting strategy pushed by Democratic elites is
exactly the opposite of the electoral strategy that I described earlier. Its goal is to
disengage people from any real movements for change. It is actively hostile to the idea of people grappling with the reality around them. It's just as MrHands said: let's all just "join the excited party," no curiosity, no accountability, just vibes. Do we want to gain any knowledge about the person we're planning to elect to rule the country? No thanks, let the celebration continue! Do you have an issue with a little thing like genocide? Lol, how naive, don't you know that there is no alternative to this hell? Anyway, it's party time, and we can just smear you as a Trump supporter anyway (see clip above).
So personally, if you vote for Harris, I do not have some beef with you. I would also not be
with you on that, but I can understand. My point with this post is that it is essential for us to properly understand the 'lesser evilism' strategy itself and the complacency it produces and is intended to produce. Critically, it is
not a consequence-free strategy as it is typically portrayed. Ask yourself how it may become more difficult to reach someone with genuine anti-imperialist messaging in the future if they spent months being influenced into being 'Walz-pilled' or whatever by people calling themselves 'leftists.'
