Lesser Evilism vs Addressing Reality
In the Democratic party today, there are two schools of political thought. One says that their opponent to defeat is the "Republican menace"- which means any policy perceived as slightly better than said Republicans is fair game. This view is held primarily by insulated, corporate serving politicians who have built careers out of strategic sponsorships of profitable "incrementalism." Through defending ineffective measures as pragmatism while attacking bold action as radical extremism, the well-off wing of our "People's Party" gained enough control to stop reflecting the will or needs of the masses, instead indoctrinating them to manufacture consent.
This has led to a Democratic party nearly indistinguishable from the Republican party in terms of fiscal and foreign policies. They separate themselves instead using wedge issues such as LGBTQ+ and abortion debates. While important, filling the government's role as valid representation for We the People means delving into deeper and broader issues than personal identity conflicts. That cannot happen so long as the minority business class continues to fund both political "options." Democrats who allow monopolies to write their own laws are representing only themselves and their rich sponsors, not us. They're merely socially liberal Republicans.
Which brings us to the second school of thought, which addresses our reality in rational and historical contexts. This situation has occurred before, after all. FDR had to fight very hard to pass his "New Deal," which gave us many of the services we now take for granted- such as Social Security. While wages have stagnated and wealth inequality has skyrocketed, pay-to-play politicking has become increasingly legalized, keeping a minority in power and continually re-elected- despite record low public approval ratings. This is neither sustainable, nor does it qualify as legitimate representation. We need another FDR-style political course correction.
Locked in perpetual partisan soap opera gridlock (whilst moving right financially and militarily) has become the norm for American politics. Treating it like a team sport has kept it profitable but cost all authenticity and trustworthiness. This has gone on for many decades now, and the evidence is irrefutable: nearly half of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford an emergency. Our children are swamped with debt, have a lower standard of living than the previous generation, and our life expectancy is now decreasing. Healthcare costs have people dying from rationing insulin and using GoFundMe for critical surgeries. This is not okay.
Anyone claiming that just being better than who's currently in office is sufficient needs to check their privilege, and voters need to follow the money pushing that message. Maintaining a status quo that doesn't work for everyone isn't any form of success. And the old cry of middle-ground half-measure incrementalism which got us here won't undo this worsening situation either. Contrary to the few who own the microphones and media, the many are not served merely fighting for a color banner that doesn't respect them. If there is always money for war and buying elections, then there is money to invest in education and the well-being of our citizenry.
Don't believe those claiming that's a radical notion; many industrialized nations have universal health care and free tuition. And it would have already happened in America, but for a firewall of minority-paid politics protecting minority profit with legalized media public relations fronts to justify it into normalcy. Again, when caring for our own is smeared by wealthy political figures, follow that message back through their campaign donors. Empty rhetoric is easy to contrive, but unpurchased principles are what makes real leaders trustworthy. Capitalism must get balanced via humanity, or else we are simply disposable slaves in a corporate machine.
So when you listen to candidates trying to win your vote, consider more than the softball topics raised or identity pandering offered on the surface. Ask the real question- how will this resolve the worsening fate of our children? Is "better than the worst" really our only goal when facing climate change, increasing despair and budget-hungry eternal power and resource wars? Or should we just finally raise the bar above scripted superficial talking points and corporate network poll consensus to select bold plans for change that a majority can support? That's our actual choice. That's the path to real representation. And that's what this election is about.