My worry with that approach is that this plan may be too long-term. That, in the attempt to save democracy, you’d let a regime seize power that proceeds to dismantle democracy. When Trump’s campaign includes the promise that you’ll never (“have to”) vote again, attempting to use votes as leverage is gambling whether they will have any value as leverage when the next election comes around.
In my view, Trumpism is not a spontaneous thing that came out of nowhere and might disappear just as easily, but rather something that emerged as a natural result of declining material conditions. You can’t hope to just weather the storm, because it’s not just Trump as an individual, and when Trump is gone whoever the right turns to will be just as bad, if not worse. Furthermore, as things stand, they will continue to gain power over time and will become an inevitability. This inevitability is caused by two things.
The first is the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. In regular language, what that means is that as an economy gets more developed, the number of untapped, productive ventures shrinks, it becomes harder and harder to make profits through the development or expansion of productive industries. That’s why we get things like the enshittification of the internet, because companies have to find ways to increase their profits and if there’s no more room to grow, all you can do is squeeze customers more. This is the general, overarching cause of economic decline.
The second part of the inevitability of the far-right is that they are the only ones who are positioning themselves as an alternative to the existing status quo. Liberals are very much wed to the existing system, and they do their best to shut down any leftist voices calling for change.
Now, what happens when you have an economy that is declining because of fundamental structural reasons, and the options are sticking with that forever, or… the Mystery Box? People are going to chose the Mystery Box. And as it stands, the only Mystery Box out there is fascism. Now, we could offer our own Mystery Box, but any time we endorse a status quo candidate, we discredit ourselves as actually being distinct from the status quo. We are telling people, “This is acceptable, this is good enough” even when we know that’s not true, and as a result, when they fail they drag us down with them and discredit our messaging.
Because I see defeat as a near-certainty in the long term, I am willing to accept risks of the whole thing blowing up in the short term in an effort to avert that. There is no gamble if we were doomed anyway. If it is a political impossibility to actually address the structural problems, then we at least have to provide alternative explanations and an alternative vision. We have to hold a candle in the darkness, even if all we accomplish is guiding a few lost, confused souls towards the truth and away from the enemy.
The ship is sinking, and I’m saying, “We have to plug these holes,” and the liberals respond, “It’s actually really antisemitic for you to say the holes exist, and if you try to fix them we’ll break your legs.” And so, what can I do except rip planks off so I at least have something to cling to when it all goes down?
The ship is sinking, and I’m saying, “We have to plug these holes,” and the liberals respond, “It’s actually really antisemitic for you to say the holes exist, and if you try to fix them we’ll break your legs.” And so, what can I do except rip planks off so I at least have something to cling to when it all goes down?
Holy shit, I love that analogy.
All in all, I mostly agree with your comment. I also advocate for third-party voting, like I said before, to signal what you do want. I don’t believe that defeat is inevitable, and I agree that structural change is necessary, whether by propping up the progressive wing within the Democratic Party or by propping progressive movements outside of it.
Our disagreement on methods is effectively just about the federal level in swing states, where I believe that the risk for a Spoiler Effect and stakes for loss are too high to justify the signalling value, particularly since the Dem leadership seems to habitually (or intentionally) “misunderstand” any close call and run away in the wrong direction instead of figuring out how to win votes.
Hence my suggestion to build the foundation for that change from the bottom up: You won’t topple the tip while its base stands firm, but if that base starts shaking or shifting, the top will have to follow.
This is where my grudge lies primarily with the (voluntary) non-voters, as well as those who advocate for not voting at all, which is also why my understanding of your position fundamentally pivoted when I realised that that’s not actually your stance. To vote third party and send a signal is far more valuable than to not vote at all. It is a form of protest, rather than indifference.
Our disagreement is a nuance, but in the end, we want the same thing, and I respect your stance and integrity all the same.
Thank you, I’m glad we could reach an understanding.
My view on that is that voting in a presidential election (especially if you’re not in a swing state) is primarily performative and an expression of loyalty, rather than actually influencing the outcome. The presidential race is, unfortunately, the only thing anybody cares about. I voted for democratic candidates in downballot races, where my vote is far more likely to matter, but nobody I talk to cares about that, at all.
The fact that this is the way that everyone engages with politics and forms their political identities makes me see it as all the more important to make a point of voting third party in presidential elections, as part of defining myself and my positions as distinct from the democrats. I sometimes feel that people use the talking point of third parties starting small in local races as a way to shove them into something they don’t give two shits about so they can stop thinking about them entirely. Because presidential races are such a spectacle, the primary way in which people engage in politics, I view it as necessary to engage with them on that front.
If someone makes a big deal out of my third party vote (particularly in a safe state, like most Americans), that’s a clear sign to me that their perspective is all out of whack. And conveniently, they tend to come at me for it, which gives me a perfect window to criticize their views.
My view on that is that voting in a presidential election (especially if you’re not in a swing state) is primarily performative and an expression of loyalty, rather than actually influencing the outcome.
This “team loyalty” shit beyond all nuance and reason is a blight anyway. If it wasn’t stupid enough in sports or fandoms, it definitely would be in politics.
I wish third parties had received more visibility and significance long before this crap got so out of hand. I also wish FPTP would become an important part of the history of democracy, as a case study how enfranchisement alone doesn’t make a fair democracy, with the emphasis being history as in “no longer present”.
The presidential race is, unfortunately, the only thing anybody cares about.
I sometimes feel that people use the talking point of third parties starting small in local races as a way to shove them into something they don’t give two shits about so they can stop thinking about them entirely.
I feel like caring about elections at every level is a civic responsibility, and it saddens me to see that many people are so apathetic about it.
In my view, Trumpism is not a spontaneous thing that came out of nowhere and might disappear just as easily, but rather something that emerged as a natural result of declining material conditions. You can’t hope to just weather the storm, because it’s not just Trump as an individual, and when Trump is gone whoever the right turns to will be just as bad, if not worse. Furthermore, as things stand, they will continue to gain power over time and will become an inevitability. This inevitability is caused by two things.
The first is the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. In regular language, what that means is that as an economy gets more developed, the number of untapped, productive ventures shrinks, it becomes harder and harder to make profits through the development or expansion of productive industries. That’s why we get things like the enshittification of the internet, because companies have to find ways to increase their profits and if there’s no more room to grow, all you can do is squeeze customers more. This is the general, overarching cause of economic decline.
The second part of the inevitability of the far-right is that they are the only ones who are positioning themselves as an alternative to the existing status quo. Liberals are very much wed to the existing system, and they do their best to shut down any leftist voices calling for change.
Now, what happens when you have an economy that is declining because of fundamental structural reasons, and the options are sticking with that forever, or… the Mystery Box? People are going to chose the Mystery Box. And as it stands, the only Mystery Box out there is fascism. Now, we could offer our own Mystery Box, but any time we endorse a status quo candidate, we discredit ourselves as actually being distinct from the status quo. We are telling people, “This is acceptable, this is good enough” even when we know that’s not true, and as a result, when they fail they drag us down with them and discredit our messaging.
Because I see defeat as a near-certainty in the long term, I am willing to accept risks of the whole thing blowing up in the short term in an effort to avert that. There is no gamble if we were doomed anyway. If it is a political impossibility to actually address the structural problems, then we at least have to provide alternative explanations and an alternative vision. We have to hold a candle in the darkness, even if all we accomplish is guiding a few lost, confused souls towards the truth and away from the enemy.
The ship is sinking, and I’m saying, “We have to plug these holes,” and the liberals respond, “It’s actually really antisemitic for you to say the holes exist, and if you try to fix them we’ll break your legs.” And so, what can I do except rip planks off so I at least have something to cling to when it all goes down?
Holy shit, I love that analogy.
All in all, I mostly agree with your comment. I also advocate for third-party voting, like I said before, to signal what you do want. I don’t believe that defeat is inevitable, and I agree that structural change is necessary, whether by propping up the progressive wing within the Democratic Party or by propping progressive movements outside of it.
Our disagreement on methods is effectively just about the federal level in swing states, where I believe that the risk for a Spoiler Effect and stakes for loss are too high to justify the signalling value, particularly since the Dem leadership seems to habitually (or intentionally) “misunderstand” any close call and run away in the wrong direction instead of figuring out how to win votes.
Hence my suggestion to build the foundation for that change from the bottom up: You won’t topple the tip while its base stands firm, but if that base starts shaking or shifting, the top will have to follow.
This is where my grudge lies primarily with the (voluntary) non-voters, as well as those who advocate for not voting at all, which is also why my understanding of your position fundamentally pivoted when I realised that that’s not actually your stance. To vote third party and send a signal is far more valuable than to not vote at all. It is a form of protest, rather than indifference.
Our disagreement is a nuance, but in the end, we want the same thing, and I respect your stance and integrity all the same.
Thank you, I’m glad we could reach an understanding.
My view on that is that voting in a presidential election (especially if you’re not in a swing state) is primarily performative and an expression of loyalty, rather than actually influencing the outcome. The presidential race is, unfortunately, the only thing anybody cares about. I voted for democratic candidates in downballot races, where my vote is far more likely to matter, but nobody I talk to cares about that, at all.
The fact that this is the way that everyone engages with politics and forms their political identities makes me see it as all the more important to make a point of voting third party in presidential elections, as part of defining myself and my positions as distinct from the democrats. I sometimes feel that people use the talking point of third parties starting small in local races as a way to shove them into something they don’t give two shits about so they can stop thinking about them entirely. Because presidential races are such a spectacle, the primary way in which people engage in politics, I view it as necessary to engage with them on that front.
If someone makes a big deal out of my third party vote (particularly in a safe state, like most Americans), that’s a clear sign to me that their perspective is all out of whack. And conveniently, they tend to come at me for it, which gives me a perfect window to criticize their views.
This “team loyalty” shit beyond all nuance and reason is a blight anyway. If it wasn’t stupid enough in sports or fandoms, it definitely would be in politics.
I wish third parties had received more visibility and significance long before this crap got so out of hand. I also wish FPTP would become an important part of the history of democracy, as a case study how enfranchisement alone doesn’t make a fair democracy, with the emphasis being history as in “no longer present”.
I feel like caring about elections at every level is a civic responsibility, and it saddens me to see that many people are so apathetic about it.