Jordan Peterson

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm presuming you'd award the Democratic party some degree of quality as a stopgap at least.

I consider them a turd, but that still beats a pressurized sewer pipe blasting a four inch stream 24/7/365.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm presuming you'd award the Democratic party some degree of quality as a stopgap at least.

The Democratic Party is as much of a stopgag as it's capable of making itself, which doesn't seem very far. I don't think that even the most moderate progressive owes them anything, simply for being the lesser of two evils, so I don't see the point in fretting over their electoral strategies.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The Democratic Party is as much of a stopgag as it's capable of making itself, which doesn't seem very far. I don't think that even the most moderate progressive owes them anything, simply for being the lesser of two evils.

They don't owe them anything, but how else would you suggest that they prevent the greater evil?

 

[Traitorfish]

They don't owe them anything, but how else would you suggest that they prevent the greater evil?

It's the "else" part that I take issue with- the suggestion that the Democrats actually represent a way of preventing the greater evil. The Democrats have proven themselves incapable of winning what should have been the most one-sided election in recent American history- albeit through a grotesque technicality, but the fact it was that close is itself significant- and it's not at all clear that the time and energy that would need to be invested to make them capable could not be better spent elsewhere. Consider that Sanders spent most of his career an independent, identified himself a Democrat only in recognition that nobody who's last name isn't "Roosevelt" is going to make a dent in the presidential elections on a third-party ticket.

I mean, it's not even clear the two are mutually exclusive. Competition is historically a surer way to force the centre-leftwards than trying to accommodate yourself to the center and convince it through rational argument.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's the "else" part that I take issue with- the suggestion that the Democrats actually represent a way of preventing the greater evil.

Democrats in recent memory who accommodated to the center have successfully repaired some of the damages inflicted by Republican administrations, and at the very least inflicted far less damage themselves by a large margin. In my mind their only major failing is that they couldn't satisfy the "buuuuuut weeeeee waaaaaaant it nowwwwwwww" style leftists who are willing to just embrace the greater evil at intervals out of spite, even though we are still trying to clean up after Republicans who are now dead and can't really expect to get around to cleaning up after the current Republican feces show in my lifetime even if we go on a straight democrat run for the entire duration...even if we went with a real "progressive" democrat (or otherwise). Allowing more damage to pile on isn't going to make it easier to fix the problems Nixon and Reagan saddled us with.

 

[Kyriakos]

Democrats in recent memory who accommodated to the center have successfully repaired some of the damages inflicted by Republican administrations, and at the very least inflicted far less damage themselves by a large margin. In my mind their only major failing is that they couldn't satisfy the "buuuuuut weeeeee waaaaaaant it nowwwwwwww" style leftists who are willing to just embrace the greater evil at intervals out of spite, even though we are still trying to clean up after Republicans who are now dead and can't really expect to get around to cleaning up after the current Republican feces show in my lifetime even if we go on a straight democrat run for the entire duration...even if we went with a real "progressive" democrat (or otherwise). Allowing more damage to pile on isn't going to make it easier to fix the problems Nixon and Reagan saddled us with.

I don't think there were many people in the "left" who voted for Trump. But a considerable number of them either voted third party OR abstained. And after the ridiculous defeat to Trump (as Bern said, it should never have been close to begin with, so in that light the saga with emails and CIA aren't the main issue at all) the dem party still chose to be run by the same cabal which led it to a historic defeat against a super-clown.

 

[Lexicus]

and at the very least inflicted far less damage themselves by a large margin.

With respect to Clinton, I'm not at all sure this is true. I believe he did as at least as much damage as Reagan or Bush I, and would have done as much as Bush II if Bush II hadn't invaded Iraq.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But a considerable number of them either voted third party OR abstained.

Effectively saying "we embrace the greater evil, that will show them."

 

[Kyriakos]

Effectively saying "we embrace the greater evil, that will show them."

I don't agree. Abstaining is the most usual way of showing you see no good option. I am not sure if it would be good to have people vote for a candidate they absolutely dislike, just cause Trump was even worse. Certainly some will do that - good for them. But others don't feel like doing so. And one should never for a moment think that a candidate who got elected "just cause many people voted him/her so as to avoid the other option" will keep in mind why they are there and behave and not disgust you even more.

Though a more systemic issue is the non-viability of more than 2 parties in the US.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

With respect to Clinton, I'm not at all sure this is true. I believe he did as at least as much damage as Reagan or Bush I, and would have done as much as Bush II if Bush II hadn't invaded Iraq.

You need to take a closer look at Reagan. Reaganomics is the primary source of the current and ongoing great wealth concentration, and every time anyone gets even close to starting to address that problem we elect another Republican and have to put out the massive fires that they leave burning before we can get to it.

 

[Lexicus]

Certainly some will do that - good for them.

That's what I did.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's what I did.

You first felt the bern, and then trudged up the hill

 

[Traitorfish]

Democrats in recent memory who accommodated to the center have successfully repaired some of the damages inflicted by Republican administrations, and at the very least inflicted far less damage themselves by a large margin. In my mind their only major failing is that they couldn't satisfy the "buuuuuut weeeeee waaaaaaant it nowwwwwwww" style leftists who are willing to just embrace the greater evil at intervals out of spite, even though we are still trying to clean up after Republicans who are now dead and can't really expect to get around to cleaning up after the current Republican feces show in my lifetime even if we go on a straight democrat run for the entire duration...even if we went with a real "progressive" democrat (or otherwise). Allowing more damage to pile on isn't going to make it easier to fix the problems Nixon and Reagan saddled us with.

Have fun voting Clinton 2020, I guess?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Have fun voting Clinton 2020, I guess?

I'll campaign for whoever winds up running against Trump. Heck, if Flake or Kasich tries to primary him I'll campaign for them in the primaries.

 

[Lexicus]

You first felt the bern, and then trudged up the hill

I mean, I didn't feel the bern super hard. I've known about Bernie for a long time and always liked him, but I was under no illusions that he was the sort of savior many people still seem to think he is.

I'll campaign for whoever winds up running against Trump. Heck, if Flake or Kasich tries to primary him I'll campaign for them in the primaries.

Honestly, as white men, the most efficient use of our time in the 2018 election is probably convincing Republican voters to vote for the Libertarians where applicable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Honestly, as white men, the most efficient use of our time in the 2018 election is probably convincing Republican voters to vote for the Libertarians where applicable.

For 2018 I will certainly be campaigning for the Democrat who might become the first Democrat sent to congress for my city in my entire lifetime, but my priority will actually be the local mayoral/city council races in which the wrong outcome stands to make my situation genuinely unlivable so rapidly that it has to take precedence.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'll campaign for whoever winds up running against Trump. Heck, if Flake or Kasich tries to primary him I'll campaign for them in the primaries.

And that's exactly the problem, that all the progressive energy in American gets funneled into advancing the careers of whatever lich is best able to manipulate the party machine, because, hey, you should see the other guy! That's not a democracy.

 

[Lexicus]

And that's exactly the problem, that all the progressive energy in American gets funneled into advancing the careers of whatever lich is best able to manipulate the party machine, because, hey, you should see the other guy! That's not a democracy.

That's not really the problem though. That's a reductive summary of a symptom of the problem.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's not really the problem though. That's a reductive summary of a symptom of the problem.

If the left is chained to an essentially conservative institution like the Democratic Party, the prospect for meaningful social change through electoral politics is sharply limited. That seems to be a problem in its own right.

Some might say it's limited either way. I certainly sympathise with that perspective! But if we're making the case for electoral politics, we surely have to aim higher than "not actively malevolent".

It's not a case of supporting or rejecting the Democrats on principle, but of refusing to frame the question of electoral politics as one of how you get Democrats into office, whether or not they deserve to be there.

 

[Lexicus]

If the left is chained to an essentially conservative institution like the Democratic Party, the prospect for meaningful social change through electoral politics is sharply limited. That seems to be a problem in its own right.

In the US change through electoral politics is sharply limited by design. That's kinda the deal here, to a greater extent than in most other systems, ours is designed to resist large, fast changes.

It's not a case of supporting or rejecting the Democrats on principle, but of refusing to frame the question of electoral politics as one of how you get Democrats into office, whether or not they deserve to be there.

Well, I certainly agree with this, which is why my position is generally along the lines of "vote for the Democrat then treat them as hostile once they're in office." The Democrats, if left to their own devices, will act as the "second-most enthusiastic capitalist party" or however the quote goes. So at least as important as actually voting them into office is making sure they behave when they're in office.