robillionaire wrote:also I am curious if we wake up in November to a trump victory, for those who believe that if trump wins again "the american experiment is finished" or that it will be catastrophic (I agree with you) if they will consider a change of course from the it takes time principle and consider the need for immediate responses for us to sustain our lives. because at that point you will certainly begin to feel the walls closing in around you. would that change your outlook or approach?
This is a good question. To answer it though, I think the table needs to be set a little.
First off, I mostly agree with your post above:
Spoiler:
robillionaire wrote:my thoughts on the "it takes time" vs. "demand better now" conversation
For one, it can't be denied that the current status quo is extreme. The things we are experiencing (do I need to list them all?) are not normal. To change things in this system it can take time. but we can't ignore in that time there will be a lot of preventable deaths. easy to say these things take time but harder to tell that to someone who lost a family member to a preventable illness or someone who had their village bombed. in addition to that, any reforms made in this time can be immediately rolled back or removed by the gop, starting us back at square one. We saw this over the past 4 years. So the question people may begin to ask themselves is "how much time do we have left before it's too late?" and alternatively "how many more?"
the incremental progress I have witnessed over the past couple decades is the incremental erosion of privacy and rights and the incremental rise of a fascist regime and police state and the incremental expansion of income inequality and funneling of wealth to the top 1%. I am not seeing the incremental progress or reasons to be hopeful about the future with the continuation of business as usual; the benefits of doing things the way we have been doing them are not readily apparent. Things are not better or even trending in that direction. They weren't for most people before Trump either. That's why he's in power. The system created the conditions and environment that could allow such a corrupt demagogue to preside over us and I have little doubt that someone much worse than him is coming down the pipeline if we stay the course. Any sigh of relief you have in November should be quickly replaced with concern about what comes next. No going back to brunch this time. The people who put Trump there aren't going to disappear.
For those who are not content with kicking the can down the road for an indeterminate amount of time, who are thoroughly disgusted to their core with this reality we are experiencing and can't live with it another day, we are staring down a contradiction. We can also take the "time" route and wait another 10-15 years for the demographics to change enough to where we MAYBE have the numbers to topple the status quo via electoral means(if the elections aren't obviously rigged with more voter suppression than ever thought possible). by then climate change may already be irreversible and we will be in a complete hellscape somehow even worse than we are experiencing today
The only other option we will have is to stay in the streets day in and day out in protest and to grind the entire system to a halt. no matter who wins this election I anticipate the entire decade of the 2020s to be one of mass sustained protest movements and uprisings as people's lives depend on it. Which is why the oligarchy is already having to ramp up the authority of militarized secret police in response. Good timing for them, because we now see that millions are about to be evicted and foreclosed starting next month, combined with record unemployment and loss of health care tied to that employment which will certainly result in massive medical bankruptcies(an abhorrent concept that should not exist). If we're being honest with ourselves I don't expect this type of militarized police suppression to be much different under Biden either, after seeing how occupy wall street, standing rock, ferguson and baltimore protests were handled under obama. Maybe slightly toned down rhetoric by Biden (obama did call the protesters thugs) but ultimately still pretty brutal. My big question is that under a dem president, will dems still side with protesters and acknowledge these types of federal crackdowns on peaceful protesters are tactics akin to fascism? Or are most just appalled now because it's Trump behind the wheel and not their guy? I hope it's the former, because I'm worried about how bad it will get if there is mostly bipartisan support for the roundups.
so let us vote and plan for the long game, but it's becoming apparent it may also take a bit more persuading than that if we want to secure a habitable planet and a future for humanity that isn't a nightmare. If we can't rely on our politicians to take principled stands on anything clearly it's going to be up to us. To replace them with those who will or take matters into our own hands
I don't see this as an adversarial philosophy to "it takes time". I see it as two prongs of the same attack.
I support protests in the street, primarying people who don't represent your agenda, and applying whatever levers of political pressure you have at your disposal to hold politicians accountable.
I also think that all of that gets you to the door. Protests are not going to get you healthcare, or voter reform, or end wars, or hold corporations accountable. We are a nation of laws, and only law makers can ultimately do that.
Showing up at the ballot box is what gets you inside. Every election is an opportunity to recalibrate the political landscape in your favor. If you win the elections, then you have a new set of options. If you lose them, then you have to adjust and operate within the confines of the new state of play, legislatively speaking. Either way, you need to own it. Elections have consequences.
Large steps are rarely made in Congress. It's a series of small ones. Democrats, of all stripes, have no one to blame for not caring about local and state elections in off-Presidential cycle years. We willingly concede that power to R's with their lack of follow through and pragmatism. Yes, there is voter suppression and such to contend with, but we gave them those powers with our apathy. Wresting power is never easy.
So if Trump wins in November, that means that a lot of Democrats dropped the ball, and didn't care as much as they said they did. That a lot of people professed to be mortified and terrified of what Trump represents, but not so much so that they were willing to mail in a ballot or stand in line.
If that is the case, then we deserve what we get.
But I still think that the protests and political pressure and all "outside the system" means of exerting influence should be utilized to their fullest extent. We should make his life as miserable as possible, and empower anyone who is willing to stand against him.
I just don't know how effective that will be without a legislative check.
robillionaire wrote: I am curious why this is not going to be considered a genocide or crime against humanity by the US government because this was totally avoidable tragedy and they chose to open the economy anyway and rail against masks and pretend it wasn't happening to keep markets afloat and it resulted in a mass death also disproportionately affected minority groups and the poor
I'll post it when I find it again, but there is an article that discusses how Biden's WH will prosecute Trump. The basic gist of it is that if you want to get to the bottom of Trump's crimes you'll need to empower the Justice Dept. and skip the congressional committees for the most part. I think there will be both. Biden has said no pardons will be forthcoming.
I'd love to see Adam Schiff be appointed Attorney General, clean out the Trump appointees from the Justice Department and the FBI and get down to the brass tacks of prosecuting these bastards. Schiff is a brilliant guy and he'd be the perfect man for the job. Schiff probably sees it like you do (I do too), but whether they'd prosecute Trump for homicide may be a stretch when they'd have a smorgasbord of immediately defined crimes to investigate and indict him, his family and his cronies for.
One thing I do expect is an investigation into Kavanaugh for perjury and his possible impeachment by congress from the SC. (Prayers for RBG to say with us for at least another year. Bless her.)
I also expect some GOP Senators and Congressmen to take a fall and some will do jail time. Kelly Loeffler, can you hear those footsteps?
Biden should make his campaign slogan "lock him up". I think it's something that could bring us all together.
.
____________________ ____________________
* We have a Brunson Burner™ * * Make the Knicks Champs Again * ** GO NY GO NY GO NY GO! ** ____________________ ____________________ . .
robillionaire wrote:qanon started as a larp on a popular anonymous image board that serves as a fascist breeding ground and epicenter for nazi activity in the US, I continue to be amazed to this day that anybody took it seriously and believed that it's real
I remember about a year ago, before QAnon got banned from Reddit, that one of their big "informants" was dropping "high clearance" info about how Trump was working hand in glove with Mueller while simultaneously whining in another subreddit that his Xbox Live server wasn't working.
It became pretty clear to me about two years ago there is very little separation between the fantastical idiocy of the Q universe and mainstream GOP rhetoric. The slide into counter-reality disinfo tactics were so prevalent from the top down with Trump tweeting that it become an inexorable black hole that sucked a good part of the GOP's congressmen and senators into its vortex of illogic.
The only true differential was that Q people actually believedthis crap (R.I.P. Earthmansurfer) whereas the GOP leadership mostly knew they were BS'ing for their own political ends. But I think we've seen the result of unrelenting chit talking like this. It results in even the cynical manipulators of crazy logic losing the ability to differentiate between what is fact or fiction. Now the GOP has a number of Q type people in their ranks.
And so goes a good chunk of America. Tens of millions of Americans submitted their brains to this fake news downgrade and now they are functionally incapable of any critical thinking. They've fallen and most of them are never getting back up. But ultimately this is not just a Q or GOP issue. This infection of the brain is not limited just to Trump supporters as the what about Hillary garbage infected minds across the spectrum.
The scary thing is when the Q insanity finds its way into seats of power though
robillionaire wrote:also I am curious if we wake up in November to a trump victory, for those who believe that if trump wins again "the american experiment is finished" or that it will be catastrophic (I agree with you) if they will consider a change of course from the it takes time principle and consider the need for immediate responses for us to sustain our lives. because at that point you will certainly begin to feel the walls closing in around you. would that change your outlook or approach?
This is a good question. To answer it though, I think the table needs to be set a little.
First off, I mostly agree with your post above:
Spoiler:
robillionaire wrote:my thoughts on the "it takes time" vs. "demand better now" conversation
For one, it can't be denied that the current status quo is extreme. The things we are experiencing (do I need to list them all?) are not normal. To change things in this system it can take time. but we can't ignore in that time there will be a lot of preventable deaths. easy to say these things take time but harder to tell that to someone who lost a family member to a preventable illness or someone who had their village bombed. in addition to that, any reforms made in this time can be immediately rolled back or removed by the gop, starting us back at square one. We saw this over the past 4 years. So the question people may begin to ask themselves is "how much time do we have left before it's too late?" and alternatively "how many more?"
the incremental progress I have witnessed over the past couple decades is the incremental erosion of privacy and rights and the incremental rise of a fascist regime and police state and the incremental expansion of income inequality and funneling of wealth to the top 1%. I am not seeing the incremental progress or reasons to be hopeful about the future with the continuation of business as usual; the benefits of doing things the way we have been doing them are not readily apparent. Things are not better or even trending in that direction. They weren't for most people before Trump either. That's why he's in power. The system created the conditions and environment that could allow such a corrupt demagogue to preside over us and I have little doubt that someone much worse than him is coming down the pipeline if we stay the course. Any sigh of relief you have in November should be quickly replaced with concern about what comes next. No going back to brunch this time. The people who put Trump there aren't going to disappear.
For those who are not content with kicking the can down the road for an indeterminate amount of time, who are thoroughly disgusted to their core with this reality we are experiencing and can't live with it another day, we are staring down a contradiction. We can also take the "time" route and wait another 10-15 years for the demographics to change enough to where we MAYBE have the numbers to topple the status quo via electoral means(if the elections aren't obviously rigged with more voter suppression than ever thought possible). by then climate change may already be irreversible and we will be in a complete hellscape somehow even worse than we are experiencing today
The only other option we will have is to stay in the streets day in and day out in protest and to grind the entire system to a halt. no matter who wins this election I anticipate the entire decade of the 2020s to be one of mass sustained protest movements and uprisings as people's lives depend on it. Which is why the oligarchy is already having to ramp up the authority of militarized secret police in response. Good timing for them, because we now see that millions are about to be evicted and foreclosed starting next month, combined with record unemployment and loss of health care tied to that employment which will certainly result in massive medical bankruptcies(an abhorrent concept that should not exist). If we're being honest with ourselves I don't expect this type of militarized police suppression to be much different under Biden either, after seeing how occupy wall street, standing rock, ferguson and baltimore protests were handled under obama. Maybe slightly toned down rhetoric by Biden (obama did call the protesters thugs) but ultimately still pretty brutal. My big question is that under a dem president, will dems still side with protesters and acknowledge these types of federal crackdowns on peaceful protesters are tactics akin to fascism? Or are most just appalled now because it's Trump behind the wheel and not their guy? I hope it's the former, because I'm worried about how bad it will get if there is mostly bipartisan support for the roundups.
so let us vote and plan for the long game, but it's becoming apparent it may also take a bit more persuading than that if we want to secure a habitable planet and a future for humanity that isn't a nightmare. If we can't rely on our politicians to take principled stands on anything clearly it's going to be up to us. To replace them with those who will or take matters into our own hands
I don't see this as an adversarial philosophy to "it takes time". I see it as two prongs of the same attack.
I support protests in the street, primarying people who don't represent your agenda, and applying whatever levers of political pressure you have at your disposal to hold politicians accountable.
I also think that all of that gets you to the door. Protests are not going to get you healthcare, or voter reform, or end wars, or hold corporations accountable. We are a nation of laws, and only law makers can ultimately do that.
Showing up at the ballot box is what gets you inside. Every election is an opportunity to recalibrate the political landscape in your favor. If you win the elections, then you have a new set of options. If you lose them, then you have to adjust and operate within the confines of the new state of play, legislatively speaking. Either way, you need to own it. Elections have consequences.
Large steps are rarely made in Congress. It's a series of small ones. Democrats, of all stripes, have no one to blame for not caring about local and state elections in off-Presidential cycle years. We willingly concede that power to R's with their lack of follow through and pragmatism. Yes, there is voter suppression and such to contend with, but we gave them those powers with our apathy. Wresting power is never easy.
So if Trump wins in November, that means that a lot of Democrats dropped the ball, and didn't care as much as they said they did. That a lot of people professed to be mortified and terrified of what Trump represents, but not so much so that they were willing to mail in a ballot or stand in line.
If that is the case, then we deserve what we get.
But I still think that the protests and political pressure and all "outside the system" means of exerting influence should be utilized to their fullest extent. We should make his life as miserable as possible, and empower anyone who is willing to stand against him.
I just don't know how effective that will be without a legislative check.
Yeah that's sort of what my conclusion was, a two-pronged approach and to not really disavow either approach but to use every tool at our disposal. I do think your analysis on trump winning in November is missing a crucial point that voter suppression is a major factor these days, so I wouldn't just chalk it up to laziness or not caring but also the systemic ways used to prevent people from voting. Either way, we do not deserve what we get. I don't think you really mean that, when you dig into what that means.
Clyde_Style wrote: I'll post it when I find it again, but there is an article that discusses how Biden's WH will prosecute Trump. The basic gist of it is that if you want to get to the bottom of Trump's crimes you'll need to empower the Justice Dept. and skip the congressional committees for the most part. I think there will be both. Biden has said no pardons will be forthcoming.
I'd love to see Adam Schiff be appointed Attorney General, clean out the Trump appointees from the Justice Department and the FBI and get down to the brass tacks of prosecuting these bastards. Schiff is a brilliant guy and he'd be the perfect man for the job. Schiff probably sees it like you do (I do too), but whether they'd prosecute Trump for homicide may be a stretch when they'd have a smorgasbord of immediately defined crimes to investigate and indict him, his family and his cronies for.
One thing I do expect is an investigation into Kavanaugh for perjury and his possible impeachment by congress from the SC. (Prayers for RBG to say with us for at least another year. Bless her.)
I also expect some GOP Senators and Congressmen to take a fall and some will do jail time. Kelly Loeffler, can you hear those footsteps?
Biden should make his campaign slogan "lock him up". I think it's something that could bring us all together.
Not even kidding. this was less than a year ago although it seems like a decade ago
So it's unproductive to think of politicians who agree with you 100% of the time as good, and the ones who don't as the enemy without exception. Not only does that give them more credit than they deserve, but you'll always end up with too many enemies to build a winning coalition that way.
It's the political math that should be focused on. Does alignment on this issue make the math more or less favorable to the overall cause you want implemented.
This is pretty well recognized and one of the driving forces behind the push by the left to find primary challengers for safe blue seats. Howie Klein has done a pretty good job in his weekly Feldman spots of pointing out times where primary threats have moved representatives on issues (for the best real time example in recent memory; watch the changes in the impeachment discussion and how often localized public opinion polls moved Senators rhetorically until Pelosi finally gave in).
So to drill down on that a bit, while it's important to recognize the differing constituencies and the need to have a blue voter; that's no simple cudgel to hide to behind on each vote. We have to contextualize the decisions a bit to really think about what type of electoral math was being played. Sometimes, a vote is made with constituents in mind and other times...it's about that sweet campaign donor collective. I'd point to Booker's no vote on a pharmaceutical imports bill not long ago (he cited technical problems with the bill but it was received as a spin job); the response he got for it was pretty harsh and a lot of people pointed to his donors. The next time a piece of legislation went up for importing pharmaceutical drugs, Booker's name was attached to it.
One more dig into that one; this survival dynamic is useful. We can't shift Joe Manchin when he curses at Schumer for trying to WHIP his support on a bill; but where you can get a concerted local effort, you can get some changes in legislative approach. I wish I could find the old Klein spots where he was mentioning Hakeem Jeffries asking Pelosi to give him cover on decisions (it's definitely from around the time Pelosi went after the Squad which should align with the Voting Rights Act push). But that was without any primary challenger in place; it was just a rumor that the DSA was looking for one floating around and the fact that AOC was fresh out of the same DSA crew along with some new state reps.
Very good post. I agree with you.
That's why I think the real question, when we're looking at politicians, should be "how do we yank this person's leash" right? I think that's more useful than just thinking of the person as the enemy, without nuance.
Going back to your example above Corey Booker has a corporatist bent to him. Yes, you can primary him, but that takes a lot of resources, and that's to remove someone who agrees with you 40% of the time and is pretty well established in some useful areas.
It takes less to apply pressure to him, and make recalculate his political math. But he was never an enemy in the truest sense of the word, if that makes sense.
GONYK wrote: I remember about a year ago, before QAnon got banned from Reddit, that one of their big "informants" was dropping "high clearance" info about how Trump was working hand in glove with Mueller while simultaneously whining in another subreddit that his Xbox Live server wasn't working.
It became pretty clear to me about two years ago there is very little separation between the fantastical idiocy of the Q universe and mainstream GOP rhetoric. The slide into counter-reality disinfo tactics were so prevalent from the top down with Trump tweeting that it become an inexorable black hole that sucked a good part of the GOP's congressmen and senators into its vortex of illogic.
The only true differential was that Q people actually believedthis crap (R.I.P. Earthmansurfer) whereas the GOP leadership mostly knew they were BS'ing for their own political ends. But I think we've seen the result of unrelenting chit talking like this. It results in even the cynical manipulators of crazy logic losing the ability to differentiate between what is fact or fiction. Now the GOP has a number of Q type people in their ranks.
And so goes a good chunk of America. Tens of millions of Americans submitted their brains to this fake news downgrade and now they are functionally incapable of any critical thinking. They've fallen and most of them are never getting back up. But ultimately this is not just a Q or GOP issue. This infection of the brain is not limited just to Trump supporters as the what about Hillary garbage infected minds across the spectrum.
The scary thing is when the Q insanity finds its way into seats of power though
Yep, it is indeed scary. These are the people who drift into the wrong lane because it may fulfill some of their desires, but once they fall in with absolutists they can easily become stormtroopers.
So it's unproductive to think of politicians who agree with you 100% of the time as good, and the ones who don't as the enemy without exception. Not only does that give them more credit than they deserve, but you'll always end up with too many enemies to build a winning coalition that way.
It's the political math that should be focused on. Does alignment on this issue make the math more or less favorable to the overall cause you want implemented.
This is pretty well recognized and one of the driving forces behind the push by the left to find primary challengers for safe blue seats. Howie Klein has done a pretty good job in his weekly Feldman spots of pointing out times where primary threats have moved representatives on issues (for the best real time example in recent memory; watch the changes in the impeachment discussion and how often localized public opinion polls moved Senators rhetorically until Pelosi finally gave in).
So to drill down on that a bit, while it's important to recognize the differing constituencies and the need to have a blue voter; that's no simple cudgel to hide to behind on each vote. We have to contextualize the decisions a bit to really think about what type of electoral math was being played. Sometimes, a vote is made with constituents in mind and other times...it's about that sweet campaign donor collective. I'd point to Booker's no vote on a pharmaceutical imports bill not long ago (he cited technical problems with the bill but it was received as a spin job); the response he got for it was pretty harsh and a lot of people pointed to his donors. The next time a piece of legislation went up for importing pharmaceutical drugs, Booker's name was attached to it.
One more dig into that one; this survival dynamic is useful. We can't shift Joe Manchin when he curses at Schumer for trying to WHIP his support on a bill; but where you can get a concerted local effort, you can get some changes in legislative approach. I wish I could find the old Klein spots where he was mentioning Hakeem Jeffries asking Pelosi to give him cover on decisions (it's definitely from around the time Pelosi went after the Squad which should align with the Voting Rights Act push). But that was without any primary challenger in place; it was just a rumor that the DSA was looking for one floating around and the fact that AOC was fresh out of the same DSA crew along with some new state reps.
Very good post. I agree with you.
That's why I think the real question, when we're looking at politicians, should be "how do we yank this person's leash" right? I think that's more useful than just thinking of the person as the enemy, without nuance.
Going back to your example above Corey Booker has a corporatist bent to him. Yes, you can primary him, but that takes a lot of resources, and that's to remove someone who agrees with you 40% of the time and is pretty well established in some useful areas.
It takes less to apply pressure to him, and make recalculate his political math. But he was never an enemy in the truest sense of the word, if that makes sense.
I look at it this way. Let's assume for the sake of discussion you are correct in that all their decisions are ultimately based on political math and winning elections. How would you convince them to change their mind on an issue? It stands to reason that you would have to convince them that the political math is contingent upon them changing their stance. That can be hard to do, but especially hard if they know you have no choice but to support them anyway no matter what and are not even pretending like they could lose your support. The ones who threaten to withhold their votes would by default be the ones who get the change they want to see. I'm not even saying don't vote for them, who people vote for in the ballot box only that individual will know. But seems lik the threat would need to be on the table to see progress
j4remi wrote:This is pretty well recognized and one of the driving forces behind the push by the left to find primary challengers for safe blue seats. Howie Klein has done a pretty good job in his weekly Feldman spots of pointing out times where primary threats have moved representatives on issues (for the best real time example in recent memory; watch the changes in the impeachment discussion and how often localized public opinion polls moved Senators rhetorically until Pelosi finally gave in).
So to drill down on that a bit, while it's important to recognize the differing constituencies and the need to have a blue voter; that's no simple cudgel to hide to behind on each vote. We have to contextualize the decisions a bit to really think about what type of electoral math was being played. Sometimes, a vote is made with constituents in mind and other times...it's about that sweet campaign donor collective. I'd point to Booker's no vote on a pharmaceutical imports bill not long ago (he cited technical problems with the bill but it was received as a spin job); the response he got for it was pretty harsh and a lot of people pointed to his donors. The next time a piece of legislation went up for importing pharmaceutical drugs, Booker's name was attached to it.
One more dig into that one; this survival dynamic is useful. We can't shift Joe Manchin when he curses at Schumer for trying to WHIP his support on a bill; but where you can get a concerted local effort, you can get some changes in legislative approach. I wish I could find the old Klein spots where he was mentioning Hakeem Jeffries asking Pelosi to give him cover on decisions (it's definitely from around the time Pelosi went after the Squad which should align with the Voting Rights Act push). But that was without any primary challenger in place; it was just a rumor that the DSA was looking for one floating around and the fact that AOC was fresh out of the same DSA crew along with some new state reps.
Very good post. I agree with you.
That's why I think the real question, when we're looking at politicians, should be "how do we yank this person's leash" right? I think that's more useful than just thinking of the person as the enemy, without nuance.
Going back to your example above Corey Booker has a corporatist bent to him. Yes, you can primary him, but that takes a lot of resources, and that's to remove someone who agrees with you 40% of the time and is pretty well established in some useful areas.
It takes less to apply pressure to him, and make recalculate his political math. But he was never an enemy in the truest sense of the word, if that makes sense.
Yeah, that's definitely true. Different strategies appeal to different circumstances. Booker's presidential ambitions probably peeled him left in places where he otherwise wouldn't have gone. There are other values to primarying too though; I was glad to see Larry Hamm's profile get a bump since he's done a lot of good things locally as an activist. He was always running on a slim to none margin (slim relying on something drastic like the Newark water scandal landing directly on Booker's desk). But I liked him getting a message out there and connecting with more people.
There are also places where it all converges. Cuomo vs Nixon is so dope to me fam. Cuomo kicked her ass, but to do so he continually adopted positions that countered Nixon's biggest proposals (setting goals to fix the subway, legalizing marijuana, acknowledging the IDC). It wasn't that Nixon was close in polling; Cuomo just wanted a big margin after he underperformed against Zephyr Teachout the time before...but if nothing else, I think the attention that turned to IDC alone was a massive shift for NY state politics as they were ousted damn near entirely.
I have two distinctions that I tend to apply to Dems: 1. Principled vs Unprincipled: In this case; I'm talking about a candidate following through on the promises of their campaign. Maybe they don't pass the legislation promised, but their written legislation and Congressional votes reflect their rhetoric and promises.
2. Useful vs Hopeless: Useful either means ideologically aligned with me or someone who will shift and evolve as long as it protects their seat. Kristen Gillebrand is my shining beacon of this; she will shift but I know exactly what causes her position shifts (that survival instinct). She's reliable in that way. On the other side is like Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema; they might be the only Dems capable of winning in their regions...duly noted...they also are highly unlikely to budge on the legislations I think are most important, so I'd like to test the notion that they're the only people who can win as Democrats every chance I get.
That ish is super oversimplified and I'm a big context guy (a word I absolutely obsess over because of Michael Brooks' work btw); but those simple ones help me distinguish between who I expect good things out of; who I know I should be pushing; and then who I'm not as concerned about losing.
Didn't know they had Trump on the flight manifest to Lolita Island too or that he'd already implicated Prince Andrew. Guy always projects his guilt on to others for doing the same. Truly hope Trump goes to prison for his sex crimes. That would be the ultimate combination of justice + public shame.
robillionaire wrote:also I am curious if we wake up in November to a trump victory, for those who believe that if trump wins again "the american experiment is finished" or that it will be catastrophic (I agree with you) if they will consider a change of course from the it takes time principle and consider the need for immediate responses for us to sustain our lives. because at that point you will certainly begin to feel the walls closing in around you. would that change your outlook or approach?
This is a good question. To answer it though, I think the table needs to be set a little.
First off, I mostly agree with your post above:
Spoiler:
robillionaire wrote:my thoughts on the "it takes time" vs. "demand better now" conversation
For one, it can't be denied that the current status quo is extreme. The things we are experiencing (do I need to list them all?) are not normal. To change things in this system it can take time. but we can't ignore in that time there will be a lot of preventable deaths. easy to say these things take time but harder to tell that to someone who lost a family member to a preventable illness or someone who had their village bombed. in addition to that, any reforms made in this time can be immediately rolled back or removed by the gop, starting us back at square one. We saw this over the past 4 years. So the question people may begin to ask themselves is "how much time do we have left before it's too late?" and alternatively "how many more?"
the incremental progress I have witnessed over the past couple decades is the incremental erosion of privacy and rights and the incremental rise of a fascist regime and police state and the incremental expansion of income inequality and funneling of wealth to the top 1%. I am not seeing the incremental progress or reasons to be hopeful about the future with the continuation of business as usual; the benefits of doing things the way we have been doing them are not readily apparent. Things are not better or even trending in that direction. They weren't for most people before Trump either. That's why he's in power. The system created the conditions and environment that could allow such a corrupt demagogue to preside over us and I have little doubt that someone much worse than him is coming down the pipeline if we stay the course. Any sigh of relief you have in November should be quickly replaced with concern about what comes next. No going back to brunch this time. The people who put Trump there aren't going to disappear.
For those who are not content with kicking the can down the road for an indeterminate amount of time, who are thoroughly disgusted to their core with this reality we are experiencing and can't live with it another day, we are staring down a contradiction. We can also take the "time" route and wait another 10-15 years for the demographics to change enough to where we MAYBE have the numbers to topple the status quo via electoral means(if the elections aren't obviously rigged with more voter suppression than ever thought possible). by then climate change may already be irreversible and we will be in a complete hellscape somehow even worse than we are experiencing today
The only other option we will have is to stay in the streets day in and day out in protest and to grind the entire system to a halt. no matter who wins this election I anticipate the entire decade of the 2020s to be one of mass sustained protest movements and uprisings as people's lives depend on it. Which is why the oligarchy is already having to ramp up the authority of militarized secret police in response. Good timing for them, because we now see that millions are about to be evicted and foreclosed starting next month, combined with record unemployment and loss of health care tied to that employment which will certainly result in massive medical bankruptcies(an abhorrent concept that should not exist). If we're being honest with ourselves I don't expect this type of militarized police suppression to be much different under Biden either, after seeing how occupy wall street, standing rock, ferguson and baltimore protests were handled under obama. Maybe slightly toned down rhetoric by Biden (obama did call the protesters thugs) but ultimately still pretty brutal. My big question is that under a dem president, will dems still side with protesters and acknowledge these types of federal crackdowns on peaceful protesters are tactics akin to fascism? Or are most just appalled now because it's Trump behind the wheel and not their guy? I hope it's the former, because I'm worried about how bad it will get if there is mostly bipartisan support for the roundups.
so let us vote and plan for the long game, but it's becoming apparent it may also take a bit more persuading than that if we want to secure a habitable planet and a future for humanity that isn't a nightmare. If we can't rely on our politicians to take principled stands on anything clearly it's going to be up to us. To replace them with those who will or take matters into our own hands
I don't see this as an adversarial philosophy to "it takes time". I see it as two prongs of the same attack.
I support protests in the street, primarying people who don't represent your agenda, and applying whatever levers of political pressure you have at your disposal to hold politicians accountable.
I also think that all of that gets you to the door. Protests are not going to get you healthcare, or voter reform, or end wars, or hold corporations accountable. We are a nation of laws, and only law makers can ultimately do that.
Showing up at the ballot box is what gets you inside. Every election is an opportunity to recalibrate the political landscape in your favor. If you win the elections, then you have a new set of options. If you lose them, then you have to adjust and operate within the confines of the new state of play, legislatively speaking. Either way, you need to own it. Elections have consequences.
Large steps are rarely made in Congress. It's a series of small ones. Democrats, of all stripes, have no one to blame for not caring about local and state elections in off-Presidential cycle years. We willingly concede that power to R's with their lack of follow through and pragmatism. Yes, there is voter suppression and such to contend with, but we gave them those powers with our apathy. Wresting power is never easy.
So if Trump wins in November, that means that a lot of Democrats dropped the ball, and didn't care as much as they said they did. That a lot of people professed to be mortified and terrified of what Trump represents, but not so much so that they were willing to mail in a ballot or stand in line.
If that is the case, then we deserve what we get.
But I still think that the protests and political pressure and all "outside the system" means of exerting influence should be utilized to their fullest extent. We should make his life as miserable as possible, and empower anyone who is willing to stand against him.
I just don't know how effective that will be without a legislative check.
Yeah that's sort of what my conclusion was, a two-pronged approach and to not really disavow either approach but to use every tool at our disposal. I do think your analysis on trump winning in November is missing a crucial point that voter suppression is a major factor these days, so I wouldn't just chalk it up to laziness or not caring but also the systemic ways used to prevent people from voting. Either way, we do not deserve what we get. I don't think you really mean that, when you dig into what that means.
No, you're right. I don't mean it in the full sense. I do mean it in the sense that a Trump victory means we didn't do everything in our power to overcome the resistance we knew we'd face. Voter suppression is a major factor. I'm not denying it, but there is every indication that the anti-Trump numbers should still prevail provided we don't let up. It won't be as easy as it should be, but it's not a steep uphill battle either. In my opinion, we aren't going to improve if we chalk it all up to that and don't look towards the part we played.
robillionaire wrote:I look at it this way. Let's assume for the sake of discussion you are correct in that all their decisions are ultimately based on political math and winning elections. How would you convince them to change their mind on an issue? It stands to reason that you would have to convince them that the political math is contingent upon them changing their stance. That can be hard to do, but especially hard if they know you have no choice but to support them anyway no matter what and are not even pretending like they could lose your support. The ones who threaten to withhold their votes would by default be the ones who get the change they want to see. I'm not even saying don't vote for them, who people vote for in the ballot box only that individual will know. But seems lik the threat would need to be on the table to see progress
All of the "outside the system" stuff. Protest. March outside of their house, shame them, primary them. I'm just saying all of those take resources and has so much mileage. You can't get a progressive voted in to Manchin's seat, so you use other means. I'm not sure not voting at all is productive though, because then he just either becomes more conservative to make up support or a Republican replaces him.
I totally understand the paradox of that, so now we're back in the "it takes time" path. As Remi said, you remove his base of support at the more local levels. You build coalitions where you can. You partner with him on some issues if you can if it gets you one step closer.
But I think the ballot is always the priority, if that makes sense.
j4remi wrote:This is pretty well recognized and one of the driving forces behind the push by the left to find primary challengers for safe blue seats. Howie Klein has done a pretty good job in his weekly Feldman spots of pointing out times where primary threats have moved representatives on issues (for the best real time example in recent memory; watch the changes in the impeachment discussion and how often localized public opinion polls moved Senators rhetorically until Pelosi finally gave in).
So to drill down on that a bit, while it's important to recognize the differing constituencies and the need to have a blue voter; that's no simple cudgel to hide to behind on each vote. We have to contextualize the decisions a bit to really think about what type of electoral math was being played. Sometimes, a vote is made with constituents in mind and other times...it's about that sweet campaign donor collective. I'd point to Booker's no vote on a pharmaceutical imports bill not long ago (he cited technical problems with the bill but it was received as a spin job); the response he got for it was pretty harsh and a lot of people pointed to his donors. The next time a piece of legislation went up for importing pharmaceutical drugs, Booker's name was attached to it.
One more dig into that one; this survival dynamic is useful. We can't shift Joe Manchin when he curses at Schumer for trying to WHIP his support on a bill; but where you can get a concerted local effort, you can get some changes in legislative approach. I wish I could find the old Klein spots where he was mentioning Hakeem Jeffries asking Pelosi to give him cover on decisions (it's definitely from around the time Pelosi went after the Squad which should align with the Voting Rights Act push). But that was without any primary challenger in place; it was just a rumor that the DSA was looking for one floating around and the fact that AOC was fresh out of the same DSA crew along with some new state reps.
Very good post. I agree with you.
That's why I think the real question, when we're looking at politicians, should be "how do we yank this person's leash" right? I think that's more useful than just thinking of the person as the enemy, without nuance.
Going back to your example above Corey Booker has a corporatist bent to him. Yes, you can primary him, but that takes a lot of resources, and that's to remove someone who agrees with you 40% of the time and is pretty well established in some useful areas.
It takes less to apply pressure to him, and make recalculate his political math. But he was never an enemy in the truest sense of the word, if that makes sense.
Yeah, that's definitely true. Different strategies appeal to different circumstances. Booker's presidential ambitions probably peeled him left in places where he otherwise wouldn't have gone. There are other values to primarying too though; I was glad to see Larry Hamm's profile get a bump since he's done a lot of good things locally as an activist. He was always running on a slim to none margin (slim relying on something drastic like the Newark water scandal landing directly on Booker's desk). But I liked him getting a message out there and connecting with more people.
There are also places where it all converges. Cuomo vs Nixon is so dope to me fam. Cuomo kicked her ass, but to do so he continually adopted positions that countered Nixon's biggest proposals (setting goals to fix the subway, legalizing marijuana, acknowledging the IDC). It wasn't that Nixon was close in polling; Cuomo just wanted a big margin after he underperformed against Zephyr Teachout the time before...but if nothing else, I think the attention that turned to IDC alone was a massive shift for NY state politics as they were ousted damn near entirely.
I have two distinctions that I tend to apply to Dems: 1. Principled vs Unprincipled: In this case; I'm talking about a candidate following through on the promises of their campaign. Maybe they don't pass the legislation promised, but their written legislation and Congressional votes reflect their rhetoric and promises.
2. Useful vs Hopeless: Useful either means ideologically aligned with me or someone who will shift and evolve as long as it protects their seat. Kristen Gillebrand is my shining beacon of this; she will shift but I know exactly what causes her position shifts (that survival instinct). She's reliable in that way. On the other side is like Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema; they might be the only Dems capable of winning in their regions...duly noted...they also are highly unlikely to budge on the legislations I think are most important, so I'd like to test the notion that they're the only people who can win as Democrats every chance I get.
That ish is super oversimplified and I'm a big context guy (a word I absolutely obsess over because of Michael Brooks' work btw); but those simple ones help me distinguish between who I expect good things out of; who I know I should be pushing; and then who I'm not as concerned about losing.
I think this framework pretty succinctly sums up what I was trying to get at.
Gillibrands are useful. Manchins are tricky.
Knowing how to tell the difference between the two is essential when trying to effect change.
well, this is the way that the gop operates. they are tell us this straight up. they are seizing power by any means necessary. they believe they are ordained by god to do so. if dems refuse to match them with an equal desperate resistance and taking the offensive at every opportunity, blocking everything they do, reversing everything they do, and pushing through everything we can, we are all in trouble. well, we already are in trouble and it's a result of acting like droopy dog hoping we can all just get along while mitch and the gop rams through everything they want with minority support from the people.
So it's unproductive to think of politicians who agree with you 100% of the time as good, and the ones who don't as the enemy without exception. Not only does that give them more credit than they deserve, but you'll always end up with too many enemies to build a winning coalition that way.
It's the political math that should be focused on. Does alignment on this issue make the math more or less favorable to the overall cause you want implemented.
This is pretty well recognized and one of the driving forces behind the push by the left to find primary challengers for safe blue seats. Howie Klein has done a pretty good job in his weekly Feldman spots of pointing out times where primary threats have moved representatives on issues (for the best real time example in recent memory; watch the changes in the impeachment discussion and how often localized public opinion polls moved Senators rhetorically until Pelosi finally gave in).
So to drill down on that a bit, while it's important to recognize the differing constituencies and the need to have a blue voter; that's no simple cudgel to hide to behind on each vote. We have to contextualize the decisions a bit to really think about what type of electoral math was being played. Sometimes, a vote is made with constituents in mind and other times...it's about that sweet campaign donor collective. I'd point to Booker's no vote on a pharmaceutical imports bill not long ago (he cited technical problems with the bill but it was received as a spin job); the response he got for it was pretty harsh and a lot of people pointed to his donors. The next time a piece of legislation went up for importing pharmaceutical drugs, Booker's name was attached to it.
One more dig into that one; this survival dynamic is useful. We can't shift Joe Manchin when he curses at Schumer for trying to WHIP his support on a bill; but where you can get a concerted local effort, you can get some changes in legislative approach. I wish I could find the old Klein spots where he was mentioning Hakeem Jeffries asking Pelosi to give him cover on decisions (it's definitely from around the time Pelosi went after the Squad which should align with the Voting Rights Act push). But that was without any primary challenger in place; it was just a rumor that the DSA was looking for one floating around and the fact that AOC was fresh out of the same DSA crew along with some new state reps.
Very good post. I agree with you.
That's why I think the real question, when we're looking at politicians, should be "how do we yank this person's leash" right? I think that's more useful than just thinking of the person as the enemy, without nuance.
Going back to your example above Corey Booker has a corporatist bent to him. Yes, you can primary him, but that takes a lot of resources, and that's to remove someone who agrees with you 40% of the time and is pretty well established in some useful areas.
It takes less to apply pressure to him, and make recalculate his political math. But he was never an enemy in the truest sense of the word, if that makes sense.
More like Corey Booker is still someone that will agree with Progressives 95% of the time.
He’s a good example of how the term Progressive has been coopted to just mean if you agree with Bernie or not. I dare someone to listen to him talk about criminal justice reform, corporate regulations and baby bonds and not come away thinking he’s not Progressive. He represents a state where a ton of Pharmaceutical companies have their head quarters and are pretty large employers. As long as he’s not the deciding vote, he shouldn’t be villainized for playing the long game (sure criticized) because as his voting record indicates his lifetime in the Senate shows he’s still very Progressive.
j4remi wrote: This is pretty well recognized and one of the driving forces behind the push by the left to find primary challengers for safe blue seats. Howie Klein has done a pretty good job in his weekly Feldman spots of pointing out times where primary threats have moved representatives on issues (for the best real time example in recent memory; watch the changes in the impeachment discussion and how often localized public opinion polls moved Senators rhetorically until Pelosi finally gave in).
So to drill down on that a bit, while it's important to recognize the differing constituencies and the need to have a blue voter; that's no simple cudgel to hide to behind on each vote. We have to contextualize the decisions a bit to really think about what type of electoral math was being played. Sometimes, a vote is made with constituents in mind and other times...it's about that sweet campaign donor collective. I'd point to Booker's no vote on a pharmaceutical imports bill not long ago (he cited technical problems with the bill but it was received as a spin job); the response he got for it was pretty harsh and a lot of people pointed to his donors. The next time a piece of legislation went up for importing pharmaceutical drugs, Booker's name was attached to it.
One more dig into that one; this survival dynamic is useful. We can't shift Joe Manchin when he curses at Schumer for trying to WHIP his support on a bill; but where you can get a concerted local effort, you can get some changes in legislative approach. I wish I could find the old Klein spots where he was mentioning Hakeem Jeffries asking Pelosi to give him cover on decisions (it's definitely from around the time Pelosi went after the Squad which should align with the Voting Rights Act push). But that was without any primary challenger in place; it was just a rumor that the DSA was looking for one floating around and the fact that AOC was fresh out of the same DSA crew along with some new state reps.
Very good post. I agree with you.
That's why I think the real question, when we're looking at politicians, should be "how do we yank this person's leash" right? I think that's more useful than just thinking of the person as the enemy, without nuance.
Going back to your example above Corey Booker has a corporatist bent to him. Yes, you can primary him, but that takes a lot of resources, and that's to remove someone who agrees with you 40% of the time and is pretty well established in some useful areas.
It takes less to apply pressure to him, and make recalculate his political math. But he was never an enemy in the truest sense of the word, if that makes sense.
More like Corey Booker is still someone that will agree with Progressives 95% of the time.
He’s a good example of how the term Progressive has been coopted to just mean if you agree with Bernie or not. I dare someone to listen to him talk about criminal justice reform, corporate regulations and baby bonds and not come away thinking he’s not Progressive. He represents a state where a ton of Pharmaceutical companies have their head quarters and are pretty large employers. As long as he’s not the deciding vote, he shouldn’t be villainized for playing the long game (sure criticized) because as his voting record indicates his lifetime in the Senate shows he’s still very Progressive.
the term progressive doesn't really seem to mean much to me other than to suggest that this individual would like to see some sort of vague ill-defined progress to some non-specific objective. I don't really like to use the label at all because I don't think it really tells you anything tangible about what someone really stands for in their political views other than that they would like to improve society somewhat. Most people do. So it's not my concern about what labels people slap on Booker. Has he supported a lot of good measures? Yes. Was he rightfully criticized for taking money from big pharma and then voting in their favor siding with the GOP to prevent us from being able to get cheaper medicine? Sure. It's not really villainizing it's just accountability and holding feet to the fire when it needs to be done.
Pointgod wrote: Ummm maybe it’s because these things can’t be fixed by snapping your fingers and need to take into account the long term effects. How well did Trump do ending wars when he had a Republican controlled House and Senate? Progress is incremental and the immediate focus needs to be getting rid of the Party that’s actively blocking progress and trying to roll things back.
We’ve been in these wars for 20 years. We aren’t accomplishing anything there. Breaking News: Bin Ladin is dead. What am I missing?
Trump never wanted to end the wars. Please.
my thoughts on the "it takes time" vs. "demand better now" conversation
For one, it can't be denied that the current status quo is extreme. The things we are experiencing (do I need to list them all?) are not normal. To change things in this system it can take time. but we can't ignore in that time there will be a lot of preventable deaths. easy to say these things take time but harder to tell that to someone who lost a family member to a preventable illness or someone who had their village bombed. in addition to that, any reforms made in this time can be immediately rolled back or removed by the gop, starting us back at square one. We saw this over the past 4 years. So the question people may begin to ask themselves is "how much time do we have left before it's too late?" and alternatively "how many more?"
the incremental progress I have witnessed over the past couple decades is the incremental erosion of privacy and rights and the incremental rise of a fascist regime and police state and the incremental expansion of income inequality and funneling of wealth to the top 1%. I am not seeing the incremental progress or reasons to be hopeful about the future with the continuation of business as usual; the benefits of doing things the way we have been doing them are not readily apparent. Things are not better or even trending in that direction. They weren't for most people before Trump either. That's why he's in power. The system created the conditions and environment that could allow such a corrupt demagogue to preside over us and I have little doubt that someone much worse than him is coming down the pipeline if we stay the course. Any sigh of relief you have in November should be quickly replaced with concern about what comes next. No going back to brunch this time. The people who put Trump there aren't going to disappear.
For those who are not content with kicking the can down the road for an indeterminate amount of time, who are thoroughly disgusted to their core with this reality we are experiencing and can't live with it another day, we are staring down a contradiction. We can also take the "time" route and wait another 10-15 years for the demographics to change enough to where we MAYBE have the numbers to topple the status quo via electoral means(if the elections aren't obviously rigged with more voter suppression than ever thought possible). by then climate change may already be irreversible and we will be in a complete hellscape somehow even worse than we are experiencing today
The only other option we will have is to stay in the streets day in and day out in protest and to grind the entire system to a halt. no matter who wins this election I anticipate the entire decade of the 2020s to be one of mass sustained protest movements and uprisings as people's lives depend on it. Which is why the oligarchy is already having to ramp up the authority of militarized secret police in response. Good timing for them, because we now see that millions are about to be evicted and foreclosed starting next month, combined with record unemployment and loss of health care tied to that employment which will certainly result in massive medical bankruptcies(an abhorrent concept that should not exist). If we're being honest with ourselves I don't expect this type of militarized police suppression to be much different under Biden either, after seeing how occupy wall street, standing rock, ferguson and baltimore protests were handled under obama. Maybe slightly toned down rhetoric by Biden (obama did call the protesters thugs) but ultimately still pretty brutal. My big question is that under a dem president, will dems still side with protesters and acknowledge these types of federal crackdowns on peaceful protesters are tactics akin to fascism? Or are most just appalled now because it's Trump behind the wheel and not their guy? I hope it's the former, because I'm worried about how bad it will get if there is mostly bipartisan support for the roundups.
so let us vote and plan for the long game, but it's becoming apparent it may also take a bit more persuading than that if we want to secure a habitable planet and a future for humanity that isn't a nightmare. If we can't rely on our politicians to take principled stands on anything clearly it's going to be up to us. To replace them with those who will or take matters into our own hands
I estimate that it will take two decades of Democrats controlling all three branches of Congress if you want to the progressive dream to become reality. The US government is a slow ocean liner not a speed boat. There’s a set of checks and balances for good reason. If you have the President unitary power you’d quickly slip into authoritarianism. Trump has obliterated the guard rails of Democracy and they’re barely holding on because the Senate is so craven and immoral. Even in the best situation for him Republican are so dysfunctional that they weren’t able to get really anything passed.
It will probably take more than 3 decades to repair the damage Trump has done and that’s just the reality unless Democrats just continue to turn out and dominate elections. That’s been the biggest their biggest problem even before the voting rights act was gutted. But if people had shown up for Hillary the way they showed up for Obama the country would be 2 years at least two years ahead of where you are now. You can’t scream at Democrats for not doing anything if they don’t have power
It’s a long process and there are setbacks and disappointments along the way but take Black Lives Matter for example. Ferguson was 6 years ago, Trayvon Martin was 7. They could have remained a protest/activist organization, but what did they do instead? They worked through the system, they joined Obama’s task force on policing, they pressured politicians to the point where 70% of the country supports them. I never would have imagined that even 3 years ago. And I know that what the Democrats passed is not everything they want but they understand perfect can’t be the enemy of good and they need to keep the pressure on at all levels to move the ball down the field.
Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
* We have a Brunson Burner™ * 
