Democratic (Party) Direction

DJI, the way that I see it, the Right in this country is currently guided by several "principles" (if you can call them that):
- white supremacy/fear and hatred of an Other (which includes non-white groups, as well as queer people, disabled people, sick people, etc)
- bootstraps ideation/mammon as evidence of virtue (which ties into prosperity gospel BS and the gutting of social welfare programs)
- anti-intellectualism
- an unswerving fealty to an idealized past
- militarism
- utilizing (occasionally quasi-) nationalistic signifiers as code for these other principles

Since so many of these principles can be tied directly to a total hatred and disregard for the poor AND minorities, it makes sense for the left to also treat "culture war" issues as directly affecting the material realities of its members, because the right obviously does and wants to use them to keep people poor, dumb, and just unbroken enough to be exploited.

You could make the argument (somewhat successfully) that rich, shadowy, evil people are manipulating "low-information" voters into fighting each other rather than uniting against their common foes in the 1%, but at this point, I don't even know anymore. So many people seem caught up in this nasty, cruel behavior/reward cycle.

― DJI

yeah i'd make that argument, and i'd also argue that you "not even knowing anymore" is the result of a _deliberate strategy_ by "rich, shadowy, evil people" - we might call them perhaps "capitalists" - to keep us ignorant and divided, because this is necessary for them to remain in power.

Totally, jimbeaux, but that's not a good thing about the GOP. Pitting people against each other based on their identities is not something we should strive for or emulate.

this seems like a variation of the "accelerationist" label that gets applied to me occasionally. this is not something _we are creating_, this is something that has _already been done_. we are already divided by sexuality, gender, race, class. i don't want to _create_ these, differences, i just want to _acknowledge_ those differences. to me, solidarity means that i acknowledge that i have different lived experiences, different material conditions, different ideals, goals, priorities, from other people who are not like me, that we do _not_ all way the same thing, that _conflict, class conflict, is an inevitable and necessary part of life_.

while i certainly work to resolve difficulties i might have with people who are not like me, to work together with people who are not like me for the common good, this is not _universal_, there always needs to be the option to walk away, to decide that i am not in coalition with somebody. if a cis person or group of cis people decides, for instance, that trans rights aren't important, then i'm not in solidarity with them, i have to walk away from them, we can't work together for our mutual benefit.

acknowledging diverse identities is the foundation of coalition-building, imo, and the next step to acknowledge identities, in a strategic sense, is to say, ok, what communities are most important for me to work to be in solidarity with? with what groups can i work to advocate most effectively for the common good against those whose notion of "good" is opposed to my well-being? and for me, personally, cishet white men are real, real low on that list, most of all because members of that group tend to _not conceive of themselves as a distinct, non-normative class_. no shade intended, just real talk here.

"that we do _not_ all way the same thing"

"want" not "way", god i used to be coherent, i swear

I guess I just believe that trying to spread economic security and education will result in the best policies and the most sustainable growth for the most people. Not that you'd agree with everyone on every issue but that no one would be so inconsiderate of others as to do them blatant or knowing harm. This is probably incredibly naive. (I also feel incredibly stupid for having momentarily read "college poll" incorrectly above; I remembered and just reminded myself that there was age data and know that the NYT conducts polls with other higher education and research institutions. Sorry about that!)

You could use preventive health as an analogy: instead of responding to bad news, you could try to take actions that decrease the likelihood of bad news. Bad news can (momentarily) energize and motivate ...

acknowledging diverse identities is the foundation of coalition-building, imo, and the next step to acknowledge identities, in a strategic sense, is to say, ok, what communities are most important for me to work to be in solidarity with? with what groups can i work to advocate most effectively for the common good against those whose notion of "good" is opposed to my well-being? and for me, personally, cishet white men are real, real low on that list, most of all because members of that group tend to _not conceive of themselves as a distinct, non-normative class_. no shade intended, just real talk here.

― Kate (rushomancy), Thursday, July 14, 2022

that's a deep feeling for me

I guess I just believe that trying to spread economic security and education will result in the best policies and the most sustainable growth for the most people.

― youn

i mean, i think that's a good belief! my question is, is that belief supported by empirical data? i'm not a radical because of theory, i'm a radical because it's the approach that seems most suited to the data available to me!

cishet white men are real, real low on that list, most of all because members of that group tend to _not conceive of themselves as a distinct, non-normative class_

Totally, and I guess that's why I (as a chwm) wish that for everyone - that their identities could be based on their beliefs, how they treat people, etc. That people could explore their gender and sexuality without having to "pick a team." But I guess what I want for other people is not necessarily what they want for themselves.

Totally, and I guess that's why I (as a chwm) wish that for everyone - that their identities could be based on their beliefs, how they treat people, etc. That people could explore their gender and sexuality without having to "pick a team." But I guess what I want for other people is not necessarily what they want for themselves.

― DJI

one of the things i had to unlearn hardest was, well, wanting things for other people, wishing things for _everyone_. i mean, people live their own lives, people make their own decisions, like, i was raised to want what's best for _everyone_ and there's some real, like, white man's burden shit in there, i think. there's nothing inherently bad or wrong or anything with being a white man, it's just lived experience. i was functionally indistinguishable from a cishet white man for several decades and i was fucked up in ways which are, in retrospect, really fucking clear to me, and it's _not_ just because i wasn't actually a cishet man. would i have _listened_ to someone who wasn't a cishet white man pointing those things out for my benefit? nah, even though i've done a lot of reading, like a lot of folks mostly i learn from _experience_. that's the thing, there are a lot of things that cishet white men tend not to get, and it would be _advantageous_ to a lot of people if they did, but it is _not_ within my power to make that happen.

What is politics, though, but wishing things for everyone?

I think I'm getting why you don't vote. :)

politics for me is trying to survive, no more and no less. this is kind of the fundamental disconnect!

i don't know how to explain to a cishet white guy how it feels to know that there are people, many many people, who want you dead for who you are, or think they own your body, again, because of who you are, think they have a _right_ to _dominion_ over you, have a right to decide whether you deserve to live or die, not _personally_, in the _abstract_, as a matter of _principle_, because they don't know you, don't _see_ you as a person. i never experienced anything like it, when i thought of myself as a cishet white guy, when other people thought of me that way. i'm not sure there are any cishet white guys who have felt that, who have lived that.

It may be reductive to associate the Democratic Party with the spread of democratic societies and stable institutions of government, but I think that is what the Democratic Party should strive to be, and after January 6, I am increasingly convinced that the Republican Party is not. If you accept this assumption, then I think you could look to the following examples:

• Dictatorship in North Korea sustained through poverty and control of information
• Education or employment of women in the U.S. after WWII, in the Arab countries, in Afghanistan, etc.
• Color revolutions of 2004
• Revolutions of 1848
• Protestant Reformation

man fuck history, just fucking _do_ something already, christ

politics for me. politics for me is telling a friend the reason she feels so bad is because she was sexually assaulted, even though she knows _what_ sexual assault is, because she grew up assuming, like most amabs grow up assuming, that sexual assault is a terrible thing that happens to other people. politics is doing that while wondering how long before other people will be explaining the same thing to me, because it's one thing to see something happen to others and another thing to experience it.

politics to me is the first time one of my friends threatens suicide and i ignore them, i walk away, i pretend i didn't see it, i block them if i have to, because i don't have the spoons, because i can't help them, because all i can do is hurt myself. politics is handicapping my friends, trying to figure out which ones are at the greatest risk, not so i can help them but so i can build emotional walls between myself and them, just in case. politics is being hurt and surprised anyway. politics is surviving when other people don't, and knowing there's no justice, no valor, no _virtue_ in that, just stupid fucking privilege. politics is knowing that _not being dead_ is fucking _privilege_ for people like me.

politics is listening to a friend who's thinking about detransitioning because her family are transphobic pieces of shit and telling her that she's welcome to try if she wants, that if she could have it like Before maybe it would be better for her but she can't, she doesn't have that option anymore, telling her that you can't unring a bell, that the more you know the truth, the more the lie hurts.

politics for me is fucking up, fucking up constantly. politics is making terrible mistakes, horrible misjudgements. then, when i realize what i've done, politics is shrugging, apologizing if there's any reason or point, and accepting the consequences. politics is learning not to hate myself for doing awful things.

politics is staying alive, not because i want to, but because there are enough dead trans women already. because the world doesn't need any more dead trans women.

politics is putting myself before everyone else in everything _but_ this. politics is being ruthless, cutthroat, being able to throw my best friend under a bus to save my own skin, understanding that any of my friends would do the same, that we try to be here for each other but in the end the only person i can really be here for is myself. it's knowing this and trusting my friends anyway, trusting _myself_ anyway. it's listening to that little nagging voice at the back of my head that says "hey, uh, kate, are you sure about this?", and laughing and saying "hell naw" and doing it anyway, because there _is_ no way to be sure. it's trusting that whatever i do will have to be good enough.

that's what politics looks like.

sometimes i vote too. i mean i got nothing against voting. it's just not the _important_ bit.

I’m not sure how much longer AOC can take dealing with her colleagues.

Siri, show me what “moderate” leadership looks like https://t.co/mCltOiZztg

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 15, 2022

this means taking the culture war seriously as a material struggle for access to resources to literally determine the life and death of workers

Sorry to dip back in now that things have moved on somewhat, but unpacking this is so simple, even simpler than the very good other explanations here. What we often refer to as "culture war" issues are a facile packaging of people's lived experiences of injustice. People in marginalized groups are excluded or gatekept out of professional fields and desirable jobs. They face discrimination in the housing market. They're treated poorly and suspiciously and rudely by more powerful people, day after day turning into a lifetime of hostility and fear and anger and, not incidentally, worse health outcomes. They're targeted for violence, including domestic violence in their intimate relationships, and the system of policing and incarceration we have never works for them.

Their MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES are much, much worse than people who hold privileged identities. They have access to less money. They have fewer, and worse, options in life. They are not protected against harmful things happening to them. It is a matter of life and death.

^ ^ ^

yes, thank you in orbit, otm

Here's what a Democratic administration that actually wanted to see its agenda enacted would do. https://t.co/WmWmwsZ1od

— Marshall Steinbaum 🔥 (@Econ_Marshall) July 15, 2022

(If the U.S. were to have a third party, one based on climate issues as the Greens are in the U.K. might make sense in that the party could claim high ground on what could be conceived of as a moral issue. Also, it could be thought of as avoiding future costs related to climate change and as prudent as reducing the national debt. The party could claim solidarity with similar parties in other countries and motivate young voters and attract funding from wealthy liberal Democrats. If climate change becomes a visible reality soon or is sufficiently visible already, people might not need much convincing.)

@ritaresarian please run for office imo

there are much bigger barriers to third parties in the US than UK (where getting a new one off the ground is still a fairly unsolved problem), and you still run into the vote-splitting problem even more blatantly. would not surprise me if a serious new party does emerge within the next decade given the sorts of turmoil that's possible, just there are a lot of barriers

in australia on the other hand, neither of those are the same sort of problem due to a better electoral system, so our greens contain those who'd be in the left of uk labour/us democrats in those contexts, and have had increasing success after moving to a corbyn-esque left-populist platform - there is broadly some sort of hope for the left here

A third party that focused on state and local races could be as successful as the LibDems or German Greens/Die Linke and maybe not be crushed by the Democrats if they still threw them support nationally, similar to what the DSA is doing under the Democratic or non-partisan banner. Unfortunately it's a project that needed to start 60 years ago.

germany's another case where a better electoral system means there aren't any of the same problems

Germany and Australia have only had federal governments lead by two parties - third parties entering into coalitions isn't all that different from the US system and why a third party that stayed away from Presidential politics (and had its AOCs caucus with the Democrats if it did play at the national level at all - we have two independents in the Senate caucusing with the Democrats now) could find success. It's also maybe the only way to actually exert leftward pressure on the Democrats in a meaningful way - an organized body in a position to negotiate for votes. The problem with the Greens and Libertarians has always been that they run vanity Presidential campaigns and take 3.25 years off in between, not that the system renders it impossible for them to build.

But it's already really moot because Florida will be underwater before headway could be made.

there's a huge difference between german-style proportional representation and FPTP in terms of how easy it is for third parties to get a serious foothold, and the US has a lot of problems around even just getting third parties on the ballot in many cases

australia is an in-between case where our senate has proportional representation, so it's possible for new parties to get a foothold there & wield some influence, but the house of representatives where governments are formed is single member districts elected via preferential voting (aka alternative vote/instant-runoff), which is more favourable to minor parties than FPTP but still a challenge for them. the current trend is that we could be moving away from the firm two-party system that previously existed to a more european-style system where coalition building is necessary to form government, but we'll see how it plays out, next election will be an inflection point

The Greens and Libertarians are on the ballot in almost all 50 states every cycle - ballot access is not really a difficult problem to solve. It just takes organization to gather signatures at the beginning - which, if you're trying to build a party, is a necessary first step in any case. I didn't say that building a third party was easy but it's not systemically impossible and if you evade the money involved in Presidential and Senate politics it becomes more viable. Given our two-party system, it also - Democrats aren't fighting for a lot of offices in red states and districts, giving this US party another opening.

The problem is not a lack of proportional representation - 'coalition governments' already exist, we just call them Democrats, in a system with a third party operating nationally they'd caucus with one or the other major party as already happens on a smaller scale - it's that no one has actually tried in a meaningful way since the turn of the 20th century (Strom Thurmond and George Wallace weren't building out a Dixiecrat third party in their times). Third party politics have been focused on Presidential campaigns to express disgust/raise awareness/etc. and that is an insurmountable problem - so you just don't do that.

On Roe, FLOTUS: “So many young girls, my own grandchildren included, went up to the Supreme Court & marched. I say OK, good for you, but what are you going to do next? You feel good about yourself bc you voiced your opinion, but what are you going to do next? What is your plan?”

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) July 16, 2022

you first Dr Jill

a top down approach! yes that seems all for the best. forget about those silly grassroots guiding the movement. the FLOTUS should take charge of this.

I dunno would be nice if the people who had actual political power now had a plan!

But yes, maybe a young tween today was inspired by the First Lady’s words to develop a fifty year plan to get back our right to an abortion.

how is this real

the question of what the "political power" of the First Lady consists of is an interesting one. Is she a lobbyist? A presidential advisor? Does she wield her power via 'pillow talk' (which seems like a peculiarly un-feminist concept)? Just how do you envision her power as different from anyone else with enough access to talk to the president directly?

...

Finally, Democrats found an election slogan that fits on a bumper sticker pic.twitter.com/jvTGhLSLiP

— Bill Scher (@billscher) July 15, 2022

(If not courting death, then peace of mind, or inspiration, might come from some kind of intellectual or ethical honesty not possible with broader coalitions. I had thought that in terms of realized benefits from policy, economic class might matter most, but perhaps what matters more is being able to live and work with those in your tent and being inspired, not daunted, by the differences.)

So much for the everybody-but-cis-het-white-men coalition

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/17/politics/republicans-voters-color-women-midterm-elections/index.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/18/democrats-murkowski-alaska-republican-fans-00046159

i saw a for real bumper sticker the other day that said "we're fucked"

Ah

Historically, have the two major parties in the U.S. coalesced around positions that express the divide between have and have nots? Could there be a fundamental shift in framing based on some other identifying factor? Likely candidates to me now seem to be the environment or age group.

Historically, have the two major parties in the U.S. coalesced around positions that express the divide between have and have nots?

the fundamental shift now appears to be a divide between rural/urban but whether that distinction is a proxy for something more fundamental like education, income etc i’m not sure.

I started reading. It seems as if he is talking about third parties that form in a very specific cultural moment around a specific set of issues and don't survive. I think the question I'm asking is slightly different; what has been the choice in the U.S. two party system and has the question behind that choice changed over time and if so how and why?

(disregarding for a moment the discrepancy between the popular vote and the effects of electoral districts and how they are determined)

he gets into that. keep reading :)

The article seems to be saying that third parties cannot survive the U.S. two party system but can produce changes in the two parties.

In fact, for most of American history after the Civil War, the two parties were less coherent national organizations than clearinghouses for information and influence trading among state parties and urban machines.

Part of this seems to be tied to forcing the two parties to take a stance on major questions (e.g., slavery).

Instead, a successful third party is one that integrates itself or its program into one of the two major parties, either by forcing key issues onto the agenda or revealing the existence of a potent new electorate.

But if one of the two parties is becoming extremist, is moving to the center necessarily bad strategy, even if the Forward Party is not the best example? (I think Obama more or less tried to follow that strategy, not that he tried to start a third party; also, he was disciplined and principled).

The most successful third parties in American history have been precisely those that galvanized a narrow slice of the public over a specific set of issues. They further polarized the electorate, changed the political landscape and forced the established parties to reckon with their influence.

The rural vs. urban question is interesting. (Is this the question that in a survey would predict answers to all other questions?) I think it also exists in France and South Korea vis-a-vis an influential capital and "the provinces." Political change seems so much slower than lived experience, with mass culture and the internet presumably making the quotidian more or less the same everywhere.

the fundamental shift now appears to be a divide between rural/urban but whether that distinction is a proxy for something more fundamental like education, income etc i’m not sure.

Couldn’t be…idk, race, could it? It’s not like the GOP has been manipulating white supremacy to get folks to vote against their own interests since the Reagan years. It’s not like Trump’s political career launched with conspiratorial dog whistles to exploit the reaction against our first black president.

And youn this party is as “centrist” as W’s administration. Not sure what Yang even brings to the table with those jokers.

There was an article awhile back describing how Nixon initially saw Reagan’s bigotry as extreme when he was governor of CA but later Nixon decided it was his only path to power hence the Southern Strategy. I tried searching but can’t find it now.

(I’m going to pass on the NYT political analysis, I’ll use the paywall as my excuse.)