A gentle reminder to not blame your allies today. The only person you should blame for Harris's loss is Kamala Harris (and maybe Joe Biden).
A gentle reminder to not blame your allies today. The only person you should blame for Harris's loss is Kamala Harris (and maybe Joe Biden).
[alt text: a screenshot of a tweet by @delaney_nolan, which says, "Biden/Harris saw this polling and decided to keep unconditionally arming Israel". Below the tweet is a screenshot from an article, which states: "In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they'd be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they'd be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely."]
You're viewing a single thread.
So so so many people keep pointing at Trump and saying "But he's the worst/we're all doomed/holy shit you need to vote blue no matter who" and comments about "perfect being the enemy of the good" so we should hold our nose and support Democrats.
I feel like I'm the only person who remembers how hyperbolic we all were about Mitt Romney or John McCain being existential threats to democracy. South Park literally made fun of everybody at the time pointing at how running such a divisive campaign let them distract the public from their real goal of stealing the Hope Diamond (obviously). How many of us would BEG for Romney at the top of the Republican ticket at this point?
So sure, Trump is the threat now. When are we supposed to stop rewarding mediocre neoliberalism then? If it wasn't 2016 or 2020 or 2024 then when? Trump will eventually die and some new Republican will take his place as the leader of the party. EVERY Republican will be the next existential threat and we'll be scolded and told to hold our nose yet again and vote for the Democrat. If someone can tell me the "end date" where I don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'd love to know when that is.
I don't blame other citizens for voting how they do. Everyone has to decide for themselves their red lines for support and in the privacy of the voting booth who they want to support. I do blame Democratic leadership for not learning a single lesson from 2016 about hand picking candidates and browbeating everyone into thinking that's OK.
You're exactly right, and this is my point. I'd bet damn near everyone commenting in this thread voted for Harris. It doesn't matter, we aren't the swing voters. And the swing voters are the ones that decided this election. There is nothing we can really do to convince swing voters, unless they are already our friends or family. It was Harris's job to come out with bold policy proposals and messages that would convince those swing voters. Instead, she peddled the same milquetoast neolib shit that has been losing Dems elections since the 90s.
When are we supposed to stop rewarding mediocre neoliberalism then?
When neoliberalism is consistently beating fascism.
OK, how do we know we're "beating fascism" and can back off? What stops Democratic leadership from arguing that the most boring ass middle of the road fiscal conservative Republican on the planet is "Trump 2.0" and must be stopped?
I don't disagree on what you said at all, but so much of this is a war of messaging and marketing. If an amorphous "leadership" just keeps arguing the Republicans are all fascists regardless of what their actions/deeds/etc...actually suggest, how then do we push back on that narrative without being called a Russian plant or Republican sympathizer? In an age of clickbait, outrage manufacturing and people isolating in their own news spheres, it's super easy for those with power to just lie and stay in power.
It was obvious in 2012 and 2016 that we needed somebody further left than Obama and Clinton. It was obvious in 2020 that Bernie was the best choice of Democratic candidate. We weren't rewarding neoliberalism then. But when Biden won the primary, we put our feelings aside and rewarded neoliberalism, and we bought our trans comrades 4 more years of life. Then, in 2024, we stopped rewarding neoliberalism.
If Kamala had won yesterday, then you and drag would currently be talking about AOC 2028. We would be able to stop rewarding neoliberalism. Drag would be posting clips of Harris saying that she's overseen the greatest growth in oil production in history, and calling her a genocidal maniac. It would be clear.
But Trump won, and it's equally clear what we have to do in this timeline.
It was obvious in 2012 and 2016 that we needed somebody further left than Obama and Clinton.
When Republicans win, the Overton window doesn't slide to the left. It's slides to the right. Expecting it to go even further left is a misunderstanding of politics.
Good thing Republicans didn't control the white house in those years, then.
Trump wasn't elected in 2016?
He was elected at the end of 2016. Drag is talking about the rest of that year, when America had just had 8 years of Obama. Bernie could have beat Trump in 2016, if we had pushed hard enough. The will to choose a progressive candidate finally came... In 2024 when it was useless. Some people just don't adapt fast enough, even when the stakes are clear.
So until failed neoliberalism stops failing, we have to keep supporting it? Seems a little backwards. If mediocre neoliberalism was beating fascism, I'd be more okay with getting behind it.
Why keep supporting the losers and thinking they'll miraculously turn into winners?
After Biden dropped out, I was cheerleading for Harris. I didn't like her policies, but she had much better chances than Biden, and it seemed like she understood what pitfalls to avoid.
Didn't matter. The DNC doesn't understand what is needed to win. They're still running a playbook from 1996. They think the undecideds are in between them and the GOP, when in actuality they're to the Left.
Instead, the DNC has now absorbed a bunch of "never Trumper" repubs who clearly aren't willing to vote for a woman, but will let a geriatric white guy eke out a win if you promise not to do the social justice.
I think the DNC being a "big tent" party has allowed it to accept a large number of very questionable supporters, who for instance won't vote for women, and who think that Cop City and broken windows policing is totally fine akshually, and whose jaws don't drop when someone says to "send social workers into the homes" of black parents...
Ultimately, we probably will never know exactly which demo(s) sat out, and everyone will end up just interpreting their own side as the right path forwards. Depressing stuff.
Neoliberalism doesn't beat fascism though and that's the point.
Fascism is capitalism's immune system to eliminate dissent and critical ideas.
And then when everyone is united against the fascists who've rounded up the socialists, the students, the ethnic and sexual minorities, Neoliberalism steps back in, wipes the blood off of its hands, and says "wow, wasn't that bad. Let's stick with me from now on".
No, fascism is capitalism's version of old age. Fascism is what capitalism decays into.
Does your theory explain Nazi Germany?
I feel like I'm the only person who remembers how hyperbolic we all were about Mitt Romney or John McCain being existential threats to democracy.
I actually don't remember this at all. Since you admit to going against the common understanding, can you share any links to back up your claims?