I hear a lot of people talking about Boycotting the General. Lets talk.
I want to approach this from multiple angles, and I do tend to blather on and sometimes bounce around a wee bit but a free form rant style so please try bear with me. (Also, grammar and punctuation Nazi's, I know, I do indeed suck. 
apologies in advance for any migraines I may cause.)
Ok, as to the subject at hand. I think this is an overall self defeating idea and would not get us any kind of result we are hoping for in the time frames necessary.
This course of action would be A-OK with the Oligarchs. They don't want us pesky progressives gumming up the works. What do you think all those voter disenfranchisement laws are there for in the first place?
We would be better off voting Green or for ANYONE else but Clinton over not voting at all if we wanted to send a loud message. Voter turnout is already at terrible levels, the fact that it got a little more terrible? That's not gonna make people take notice in numbers big enough to matter. The fact that more people voted for neither of the mainstream candidates even if the candidates themselves that they voted for didn't win? That might get some attention.
Unfortunately, as much as we may not like it, short of armed insurrection the only thing we can do now is work with what we have, take over the system via the rules currently in place, and then change the fucking rules. I just don't see any other way around this. (That is, barring us pulling a Soviet Union style collapse and fragmenting apart into about 7-9 different 'ally' nations similar to the EU, but that is another topic in and of itself that I intend to explore deeper in a later article.)
Once we have enough elected officials in power and a solid third party, we can call for a constitutional convention and address a lot of stuff that should have been addressed decades ago. Our nations founders for the most part thought that this was something that would happen at least every generation from what I have read in many of their letters and writings, and was why they put the provision in for them in the first place.
But realistically, what other choice do we have if we are going to get things done in a time frame that would make a difference? I don't think things are near bad enough for popular support for insurrection at this time, and I would prefer to avoid that route if at all possible. (Not that I would be totally against it if there was no other option and things were bad enough that the lives lost would outweigh the lives saved over the long term.)
I am willing to see if we can build a New Progressive Party by 2018, take a bunch of down ballot seats and build a machine that works for US to challenge their Machine in 2020.
Think about it. Is it really that much harder to accomplish than what we already have achieved with the Sanders campaign in under a year? I mean REALLY think about it.
What we have pulled off? Well, to be blunt, was FUCKING AMAZING!
I am not losing spirit, I am gaining it. I never thought we would even make it anywhere close to this far into the primary, let alone laid the foundation for a real chance at a viable 3rd party. One that actually could stand up against those that have corrupted the process so thoroughly.
So, when you think about it from that perspective does it really sound so impossible?
I don't believe so.
I think we can, and must, make this happen.
This time however, we have WAY more time to get it done than we had to get to where we are now, and as long as we don't let them undermine our will to do so we absoultely pull off "Operation Bernie". (We really should call it something like that, he did help get this ball moving at the pace it currently is.)
The people behind DNC/3rd way type bullshit have completely compromised this party to the point where it would take more time, time that we don't have, to take it back than to build a viable new party.
It's like an old, wood frame house that is completely infested with termites. It would take more work to fix than it would to build a new one, and even if you did fix it, it would still contain flaws that you could avoid with good design in the new one.
One major hurdle is we need some seriously experienced progressive organizers, activists and community leaders that we can tap to help form the core of this new party and help keep the momentum going and help recruit people willing to run.
I hope we can get Sanders to be our "Rally Point" for the building of this new party, at least for now, but we need to look for a LOT more Bernie's for our future. If not, we can look for another standard bearer There are many worthy choices out there that with solid grass roots support could help pull together a core team to build it.
I am willing to bet there are a lot more out there than we think, they just never bothered to run because they figured they wouldn't stand a chance.
Bernie has broken that wall down. We now know with 100% certainty, not just theory, that it can be done because we just ran one hell of a test and the results were, lets just say a tad impressive.
If Tim Can take DWS seat down here in Florida (A fellow Berniecrat) that is gonna send some shock-waves through the system as well, and I fully see our new party working with the Democratic Party and the Greens on issues that we share agreement on.
Hell, I may even decide to try to run for some low level position myself at some point just to have our party showing up on ballots down here in Florida if for no other reason.
We need to fertilize, water and tend lovingly to the seeds we have planted this year, because to watch them sprout only to wither and die due to apathy would be a horrible thing to witness.
Anyway, that's just my own two cents on it but as I am fond of saying, WTF do I know, I am just another asshole with a keyboard.
Comments
the guillotine
resulted in a military dictatorship. Is that what you're looking for?
It would be a damn sight more noticeable
than a boycott, for one thing....
disemboweling,
that's pretty noticeable, too. So is plucking out people's eyes. Burning at the stake, that tends to attract notice. Public hangings—that used to be real big, here in the States. Lots of notice. Firing squads. Shoving people into "showers," and then dropping the cyanide. Go for it. Do it. Go all the way. March on a road of bones.
Going Godwin on lunachickie? Paranoid and uncalled for. n/t
not at all
People who think the guillotine accomplished anything, they should open a history book. Originally, the guillotine was to be used against only the really bad people—royalty, the high aristocracy. But then the definition of "bad people," it kept expanding. Until the guillotiners, they were guillotining each other. And then up stepped the military dictator. Who crowned himself emperor. But wait. We thought the guillotine, it was to get rid of royalty. Oops. Never mind. And armies marched to and fro, and millions of people died. And the dictator went off to an island, and the royals and the aristocrats, they returned to France. And promptly employed the guillotine on the common people. For 150 years.
Bloodletters, they are all the same. And once they let blood, they do not stop.
And as for Godwin—the Nazis, they guillotined more people, than the French ever did.
I didn't say a guillotine was a good idea
I merely said it would be more noticeable than a boycott of the election in this cycle.
Whoa, really, you don't disagree with that, do you?
i don't agree
that "notice" is a valid criterion when it involves cutting off people's heads.
Well, I guess
you don't agree. But if you think anybody's going to notice a boycott of our elections, well, that's just flat-out silly...
you'll find
I have expressed no opinion on an electoral boycott.
America ♡ Saudis who are very big on cutting off people’s heads
Why go off on lunachickie rather than on (for instance) the Saudis, is what I’m saying.
Would it be O.K. to guillotine Saudi royals who themselves flout world opinion and insist that publicly cutting off lots of heads is holy and right?
i don't see
any Saudis in this thread saying guillotining "would be a damn sight more noticeable than a boycott, for one thing."
Of course you don't.
The entire point all along that I see most people making here to this seeming insistence that it would be great to "boycott the elections" is that it's a really bad idea.
The Guillotine is a metaphor for physical action.
Though I do believe that if you took Jamie Dimon out in the public square and lopped his head off, Wall Street would behave better pretty quickly. I've always said just one or two is enough to get results. I'm not thinking whole groups of any kind at all.
Ok, sorry, kidding aside.
Yes, history is a damned bloody thing isn't it?
And it will be in the future, until we become only the better angels of our nature.
But we live in this time.
It is wise to look to history. We've never faced a global climate crisis that endangers the lives of billions, if not all, of the people living on this planet before. So we're going to have to find our own way I think.
I think action is needed urgently.
I think we are far past any Military Dictatorship.
What exactly are all these secret courts making secret rulings on secret matters relating to constitutional rights, mass surveillance, detainment and who knows what else?
I'm not sure exactly what you call the mess we're in but I'm sure we're in deep.
Again, I think action is needed urgently.
The era of the guillotine was also the era of the American Revolution.
Would a musket be more acceptable to you?
hecate, I've personally known some of those thousands and thousands upon thousands of men who shed the blood of others in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, who shed no blood no more.
To fight doesn't mean you love fighting.
Pray tell, what was it that led the princes of Europe to give up their kingdoms for representative government?
I believe the most correct answer would be that it was the will of the people.
I don't want to see any actual guillotines OR muskets.
I would like to see large scale physical action.
It's on us to keep or lose our freedoms and democracy, our rule by consent.
We've lost too much already.
Oddly, I believe I'd almost welcome a military coup if a Smedley Butler was anywhere to be found and if it left the constitution in place and intact AND resulted in quick, fair elections relinquishing power to the elected.
Of course I'd also like a horse but I can't see any way either of those things will happen.
I'd like a peaceful transition to a better world for all the people.
But I won't promise you that I won't try to make the PTB shit their pants in fear.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
like i said,
bloodletters, they are all the same.
Same is true of those who would make people shit their pants.
You must be a very peaceful soul
I can respect that.
I would like to know one thing hecate if you will.
Should violence be used to save the life of another?
To save your life?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
The correct question is "when does it become self-defense?"
Stay on track. Stay in lane. Don't throw rocks.
they liked to make
people shit their pants, there in Abu Ghraib.
Any "revolution" that involves the guillotine, or wanting to make people shit their pants, is just more of the same ol' meet-the-new-boss, same-as-the-old-boss. Dead on arrival, stillborn, in the exercise of power.
I believe you've made my point
UNTIL we become ONLY the better angels of our nature.
Then we are living in the now. As the 'now' is.
Our leaders are not saints or yogi's and neither is they vast majority of humankind.
Neither am I.
I would love to see that evolution in society.
Until it happens there will be unpleasantness.
I believe only real things are real.
I believe that would be more wisdom than folly.
I' sorry the world sucks and that there is conflict.
You'll have to take that up with our creator or nature or physics.
I am not responsible for the world, only for what I can do to make it better.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
nope
Didn't make your point at all. Made the opposite of your point. Try reading it again.
Making people shit in their pants, that doesn't make the world better. Doesn't matter whether it's a guard at Abu Ghraib, or you. Just more of the same ol' beating on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
I guess we'll have to disgree
When I see
I say yes until the better angels of our nature rule us. However to say that no societal change can bring this transcendence of the heart is unproven conjecture.
When I see
I say, that's what I said above. Until we become saints or yogi's how things are is how they will be.
When I see
I say I call for that 'new fraternity' too. We as a species may one day reach that spiritual climate, if we survive long enough.
But that day is not this day.
What does 'escape from the folly of 'realism'' mean if not that we need to be spiritual beings?
That is a wonderful goal, but again, we are not there yet and must deal with reality as it is.
I agree we must change the individual human heart, which is the primary reason I believe we must talk with wingnuts rather than demonize them or laugh at them.
I think you ask us to be 'the saint, the yogi, the man who saves his own soul at the expense of ignoring the community'.
I am not that man.
I very much love the pacifist and the spiritual.
I would fight to protect their ability to be just as they choose.
I love the gentle souls among us.
That love is not lessened by any disagreement with them over reality.
Peace love joy Hecate.
I too work for and await that better day.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
you're not
getting it. You have not abjured power. Quite to the contrary. You've told us that you want to make people shit their pants. Just like a guard at Abu Ghraib. You are the same. And that is "reality as it is."
you say i'm not getting it
I'm saying that I most SURELY am not the saint or yogi. You agree.
I'm saying (as your excerpts author also says) we are not there yet and until we are, the world will have strife and I choose to use force if necessary to keep that hope alive. You disagree.
I understand we disagree.
You would liken me to the worsts of beasts. I stand guilty as accused. For I AM human. I live in the physical world. The potential for evil is surely in every man's heart. We agree.
I believe the use of force to be a necessary thing, at times, in this physical world. We disagree.
What am I not getting?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
that you
claim that "I am not responsible for the world, only for what I can do to make it better," and yet, you can't make it better, because you want to make people shit their pants. Just like a guard at Abu Ghraib. And, therefore, and just like a guard at Abu Ghraib, you can only make the world worse. And, again like a guard at Abu Ghraib, you fall back on "realism," to justify your violence. Yet "realism," that is precisely what, in that quote, Orwell and Koestler, they condemn as failed. "Realism," as they say, is over. Power, is over. All the "warriors," they are over. We're in the age of healers now. And healers, they are not avid, to make people shit their pants.
Guess we disagree again
You say I can not make the world better and yet I do, every day. I've been on a mission from God if you will for many a long decade. A mission of love, respect, caring for my fellow man. I follow the better angels of our nature the best that I can.
Personally I think you've jumped the gun on the age of warriors and healers. To say it is so, does not make it so.
You condemn me for saying it is better to scare the bankers than to actually cut their heads off.
I think you make the good the enemy of the perfect.
We stand in disagreement, and that's ok.
God bless you and peace be with you Hecate.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
The rich and powerful aren't going to pack it in due to chatter,
guilt, or shame.
If these folks are not at least shitting themselves and more than likely carried out on a rail then they aren't going to be moved.
Every situation is not resolveable by the same means on every occasion.
Sorry, on this one the raising consciousness and winning hearts and minds thing isn't applicable at least directly here.
There are no better angels to appeal to this time. There is no sickened England or white shame to leverage on this deal.
Hell, even with the Civil Rights era there had to be the threat of a Malcolm to make King someone to work with.
In the real world as much as it really sucks some bullies ONLY understand getting their ass kicked and only respect those willing to do so.
I grew up a mixed kid in Kentucky during desegregation, to refuse to fight was to invite more asswhipings from all angles and dealing some out to some loathsome motherfuckers ever reduced the need to do so.
When a motherfucker gets in through their skull that not only will they literally have to kill you and will have to take serious risk of getting murdered or maimed themselves in the process they get a whole new attitude adjustment and peace is far more common.
I'm of the "don't start nothing then it won't be nothing" school and am in no way ashamed. That was my ticket to neither being a bully nor being a punching bag.
There are bullies in the world
And a sensible person keeps in his/her back pocket the ability to become violent. Violence, like war, is the tool of last resort.
I will not become a slave. I would rather die than become one and I would kill before I died peacefully.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
a person
who "keeps in his/her back pocket the ability to become violent" is not "sensible." That person is a slave. To fear. And other first-circuit imprints.
Too, in my work, I deal every day, with people who "keep in [their] back pocket the ability to become violent." And believe themselves to be "sensible." They're called cops.
I'm with hecate here, Dennis
You really, really don't want to welcome a military coup. I am somewhat astounded that you would even write that.
Stay on track. Stay in lane. Don't throw rocks.
I'm not sure we aren't already living under one.
Don't worry Miep, I didn't flip out and the only meds I take are blood thinners and this steroid I'm almost weaned off of.
It's just a forlorn wish that some hero could make everything right.
I did say 'almost' and placed impossible qualifications upon any approval such that it would never happen. Just like my getting a horse.
Still, one can dream.
Can you imagine Hillary in jail, Thomas off the Supreme Court, Citizens United over ruled. Lots of good to dream of.
No realistic quick way to get there.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I hear your wish for a hero
The problem is, power corrupts. Even if some such hero could be found, having absolute power of the country would almost surely suddenly make them rethink turning power back to the people. Its happened over and over again. Suddenly, they think, wait - its the people that got us into this mess, much better if I keep the power, I know how things should be done.
There is no hero but us.
I'm not as adamant as hecate against all violence. But violence rarely works out the way you think it will. Much better to take violence off the table.
Far better for us to change the way people think. And sure, we can lock up the offenders when that happens, peacefully. But as long as we're looking at it as "who seizes power? who has power?" there's always going to be the same struggle between those in power and those not. We have to think differently, collectively. I don't know how that can happen, but its going to have to happen, and I don't think it will until we start seeing disaster after disaster from climate change. Unfortunately, humans are stupid.
And I know you are not seriously advocating for this - but I've given it some thought. It always seems quicker to effect change with violence - witness our endless string of wars - but its rarely effective and in fact usually makes things so much worse.
I agree with every thing you've said here
I do urge physical action.
My guillotine IS a metaphor for that action.
I wish not for violence, though I do foretell violence.
One day we will conquer that part of us, if we survive.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Or maybe we should consider
How using a guillotine can be defined as "self defense."
Stay on track. Stay in lane. Don't throw rocks.
That's Easy
A guillotine is used as self defense against criminals taking over the gov.
It's self defense when used to stop dictators.
It's self defense when used to stop oppressors.
See? That was easy. It's easy to answer a question.
It's a lot harder to answer it well. Nothing in this answer addresses the other questions that inevitably arise.
How do you keep dictators from arising to use this guillotine for their own good? How do you stop oppressors from using it the same way? Hecate, you are correct. That's exactly what happened in France. Nobody thought things through. And Robespierre arose to make his vision the only true and correct one.
However, I do not think Lunachickie was wrong to use the guillotine as a... visual aid, if you will. It's immediately understandable.
And I would hope that most here would understand that it was being used as a metaphor.
Pacifism is great. It's a wonderful ideal. But it does jack against those who do not honor it. It just means you won't be around to have to clean up the mess.
The more people I meet, the more I love my cats.
I don't know who brought up guillotines first
but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. Just to be clear--first place I saw the reference here was from Hecate, but it might have come up before that...
I did. Sorry you got caught up in it. n/t
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
No problem, Dennis :)
it originated
here. That's who I was responding to. It helps. To follow the thread.
Personally I strongly object to the Death penalty...
Hence one of the big reasons I will not support Hillary (but far from the only one).
However, that being said, I would be perfectly happy to see many of those criminals that have co-opted our system spend some lengthy times wearing orange jumpsuits...
If we executed people in the creation of our "new State" then would we really be that much better than the one we were hoping to replace?
However, that being said, I also agree with the old adage by Jefferson, "The tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."
I pray that it never comes to that, but if it does, while I abhor violence, I am also a realist, and that means recognizing that sometimes, there literally is no other way to counter an oppressive regime and sometimes the moral cost of doing nothing is greater than that of shedding blood.
Fortunately, we are not close to that point yet I don't think.
I wish as a species we were beyond this point in our history, but unfortunately we have not yet matured to that level.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
That Jefferson quote is always used out of context.
The reality of that speech/letter was admonishment to those who called for rebellion and blood. Was it the whiskey rebellion?
I'll go source this and add as edit later.
Or.. You all can go find out yourself if I'm wrong.
OR If you already know I'm wrong, Speak up.
It's not like I've never been wrong before.
One more thing. About, how close we are to that point. How long of a drought with shortages of foodstuffs would it take to reach that point?
How far from those conditions do you think we are?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
To break the mood, with your ultimate question
I would say under 10 years. Not a pretty or appealing thought for those of us not profiting from unstable conditions.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Thanks, loti!
I appreciate the bigger sentiment, I definitely get it--but I really always thought of "Godwin's Law" as a quite distasteful little propaganda device when used outside its original scope anyway
Americans and now increasingly even Israelis ♡ the Saudi royals
In a way this is really symptomatic of what’s wrong with the whole situation.
Hypothetical, rhetorical mention of decapitation by a few poor people on a blog —> oh noes! great indignation and shock!
Actual decapitations by the hundreds by the very richest of rich people who are so rich they own their own country and can afford to buy billions in arms from the U.S. —> . . . (no reaction)
Its not that we don't care about the actual violence
by the Saudis and everyone else.
It's that you really can't fight a thing by becoming that thing.
Do I think reacting like someone is really going out back to build a guillotine is unnecessary? Sure.
But its still an important conversation to have in the larger scheme of things. Do people really want violence? Most don't. But its important to talk about before one finds oneself in a situation that could lead to it.
The thing is, on some deep level I agree with hecate
But in a way perhaps I’m not as courageous as he is. Convince people that even against the Third Reich and imperial Japan, violence was wrong? Convince Israel that even in defense of a Zionist homeland, violence is wrong; or conversely, convince Palestinians that even in resistance to occupation, violence is wrong?
Very hard sell. At my age I don’t have the energy.
Peace is a noble cause, perhaps the noblest cause — but it’s hard to be even-handed. It’s hard to demand non-violence equitably and justly, both from the powerful (whose daily business already involves violence on an industrial scale) and the powerless.
you might be
interested in a book called Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed. It is about a group of villages in southern France, under German occupation in WWII. It begins when the Germans ask for a list of the area's Jews. And are told: "We do not know what a Jew is. We only know men." The villagers told the Germans they were not going to hand over any Jews, but were instead going to hide them and save them. And this they did. They did not violently resist the Germans, and so the Germans did not kill them. Because the Germans were not killing them, the villagers convinced the Resistance to lay off those particular Germans. And that happened. And so, as all the world writhed in madness, in this place, there was no killing. It can happen. It has. And will. Already happened.
Beautiful and uplifting. Mahalo nui loa! n/t
That is about to blow up.
Israel and the Saudis have long had an unholy alliance and a final solution: The complete ethnic cleansing of the Shiites throughout the Middle East. The US became their golem on September 11, 2001.
But, that is all about to change. Perhaps in a matter of days. And that will change everything. The crisis came down while Americans were busy in New York with a primary that means nothing in the larger scheme of things. The Saudis threatened to cash out of the Petrodollar, like China is aggressively doing, (dumping a trillion last year). Now that China has a global banking and clearing network for trading nations, its own reserve currency, and an alternative SWIFT system that the US can't see — the world can finally trade without being subject to US financial terrorism or sanctions (which are an act of war).
The US blew its stack that the world might render the Dollar undesirable.
So, the US threatened the Saudis that they would finally tell the American people who really attacked the World Trade Center and why. Publicly.
The Germans are breaking the story:
Saudi-Arabien droht mit Angriff auf den Petro-Dollar
Something big was always going to hit the US before the elections. Particularly if Hillary looks to become President. The world knows what she is. That's what geopolitical strategists of the world have been talking about all year.
The only constant is change. The planet is wobbling on its axis.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
The U.S. was Israel's golem/patsy
long before now.
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
Hmm!!!
I never thought of it this way...
I always planned on concentrating on down-ticket advocacy anyway. It's going to be really, really tough this cycle, because Mrs. Clinton has no coattails and Sanders has those to Bern (I'm sorry, I just could not resist that!) I'm serious, though--if Sanders loses to Clinton, it's time to dig in and get a Dem majority Congress for WHOEVER.
If you end up with Trump, a Dem Congress stymies his agenda; If you end up with Clinton, and either Party Congress, you probably put the kibbosh on any bad parts of her agenda. Sure, shit doesn't get done for four years, but there's rampant corruption going on with our voting, so we're likely to be stuck with her whether we like it or not. Might as well do as much as we can to mitigate damage.
if it's well organized and widely publicized
I can see a boycott sending an effective message, but only if it is well organized and widely publicized -- and if enough people participate. Great numbers of people.
However, if great numbers of people were going to participate, then they could, instead, organize to vote for Jill Stein and actually get her -- and her running mate -- elected.
Whatever we do, it needs to send a clear message AND result in effective change.
⍢
Yep. You change what you can
boycotting elections does exactly nothing to effect needed changes.
Use that energy for THIS, thank you for putting it thusly:
Half the voting age population has essentially boycotted our elections for decades. And here we all are, with exactly nothing to show for it. There is no good reason to do that. We have a HUGE opportunity in the making as a Plan B. We need to be smarter than that.
Do everything we can at every level to hurt Saudi etc. interests
because that’s obviously who the established politicians care about.
Whether you don’t vote or vote Green, turning on and taking down their favorite lobby and money sources is how you get their attention.
If it's a safe state for the Democrats in November
and one is sure, I don't see the down-side of casting a protest vote. If I were in a state that was really in play, after tracking it closely, I would rather keep the Republican party out of power, and then it becomes something I'd think hard about.
The Green party is a largely electoral vehicle as far as I can tell, and they have some locals elected here and there, very local. They are good for what they are. They don't represent any sort of galvanized or energized social movement, i.e., "the anti-war movement at the polls," or "the black lives matter movement at the polls." Or even "the climate justice movement at the polls." I would have worked hard to elect Matt Gonzalez on SF in 2003, or in some other time and place where independent politics has substance and is not just a matter of fighting for a line on the ballot. But the Sanders movement by itself is not close or big enough to enough to mount a successful large-scale break with the two-party system, even though it does have some of the real chemistry of a movement. IMO of course. Organized labor is not remotely close to supporting a full break with the Democratic party, for example. The SEIU endorsed Hillary practically before she was out of the box, and they put more effort into organizing the unorganized than any other union. However if we could get local electoral reform-- proportional representation, instant run-off, enforce voting rights-- in a few relatively progressive large cities it would be a meaningful reform and a good place to start. But if we can't even get that, we are nowhere nearly strong enough to create a true national 3rd party of the left , one that people take seriously and that wins seats in Congress, in state legislatures and so on. There are several valid political vehicles for protest votes, but they haven't solved the problem of how to be more than that. Just saying "break with the Democrats" because they suck doesn't resolve that. And, many people see actual substantive differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, at least some of the time. When the left tells people that the stuff that they intuitively feel or can see is true isn't true--like that there's no difference between the two parties (even though what we mean by that is something meta and long-term that is also true)-- it makes people think we just don't tell the truth. So if there is going to be a successful independent politics I don't think it can start from the premise that we must convince people that there is no difference between the two parties that is ever meaningful or worth acting on.
(There is no conclusion, this is as far as i got... )
"Don't believe everything you read online." -- Epicurus (Greek philosopher, 341–270 BCE)
OK, I'll try
Just from here:
It depends on who you're telling this to, and it depends on if they're willing to listen. If I'm telling it to someone on the Right, they're more inclined to agree with me straightaway. If I'm telling it to someone on the Left, they might already be intuitively feeling it or seeing it already and they'll agree. If people think "we don't tell the truth", and you're presenting facts, that's not on you, it's on them. We're not going to convince everybody, for sure...
Oh, yeah, I said I'd try "conclusion"...
Votes of any sort don't have to be "more than" what they are. It's a vote. You use it to vote for who you want to vote for. The End.
Yes, it does. It's the same reason you don't vote Republican--they suck. Not all Dems are "bad", but the party itself is corrupted beyond redemption. Stop supporting it and it will either get its shit together, or it will continue being Another Minority. These two political "parties" do not have a lock on the minds of all the people in this country. Not even close....
A new political party would take
a huge amount of organizing and activism, of people who want to be organized-- not just collecting protest votes. Or you get something like the Peace and Freedom party of California. Nice, like the Green Party, but never going to be the real third party we dream about..
It would also require a whole lot of people who are more or less on the left, progressive, left-liberal, or radical, to get on the same page about some very basic things.
What I see, no one has yet cracked the code about how to get enough people to do that, so that that statement becomes self-prophetically true. Of course I am not sure what the Democratic party getting its shit together means-- we may imagine different meanings for that.
My bit of an idea, that I am somewhat convinced of, is that independent political action has to be tied organically to strong and visible activism outside the electoral arena. If it's just a ballot line and the goal is ballot access for a new party, from what I see, it never becomes more than that. A political home for a small group that doesn't seem to know how to grow.
I think we may disagree about that. Sort of waiting for the people to realize they are wrong and to come join you is a passive strategy for change. You could wait a very long time....
I think it's time to close my eyes and sleep. Sincerely thanks for your thoughts
"Don't believe everything you read online." -- Epicurus (Greek philosopher, 341–270 BCE)
Yes, we'll disagree on that
and that's fine!
Just sayin', though:
No one has never had a good shot at it before. So all conventional wisdom goes right out the window.
I personally would like to see compulsory voting
to get started in one city or town, and spread from there. Pres. Obama has stated a call for mandatory voting last year 2015.
You get fined $20 dollars in Australia for not voting.
"...compulsory voting significantly increases electoral support for leftist policy positions in referendums by up to 20 percentage points."
See "Does Compulsory Voting Increase Support for Leftist Policy?"
American Journal of Political Science 14 OCT 2015
I strongly agree with this
We need to be putting a lot of energy into changing the voting structure of this country. I think people would be AMAZED at the support for progressive issues if everyone had to vote. My husband is a good example. Very progressive in his beliefs, but thinks and insists both parties are the same and don't represent us, so he doesn't vote unless I drag him with me, which I usually do.
I used to argue endlessly with him that both parties were not the same, that there is a lesser evil, but I've come around to his point of view. I'll still always vote because I feel its a responsibility in a democracy, even a non-functioning one, if you don't want to lose even more ground.
But if everyone had to vote, then a non-establishment candidate could get real traction from all those people who refuse to vote for the major parties and thus don't vote. If they had to vote, they'd likely vote for the third party.
If only voting were the same
If only voting were the same for all states, open Primaries with fluid registration, no the NY stone like lock down. All voters getting true impartial information on the platforms, enough of the TV ads.
Have impartial observers do the counts, not cheating party officials.
Make sure polling places are well marked and hours posted.
Mail in ballots kept track of and counted.
Big money out, we really need to make political office a JOB, not some sinecure career for Greedy ass-hats to get in with billionaires as pals to get them jobs when they decide to leave.
Public Servant needs to be what a senator or Representative are, what they happen to be now in obscene.
I have my mail-in ballot filled for Bernie, and will mail it in for the May 10 Primaries here in West Virginia.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Why Green Party Is Not A Wasted Vote.
Alphalop, thanks for the diary to get this discussion going. I agree with you on voting Green.
First, I hope Bernie wins the nomination. If he does, I'll of course vote for him.
To all the Green skeptics...
NO! Voting Green Party Is Not A Wasted Vote!!
rather voting for Dem and Repub parties is wasting your vote.
The Green Party needs votes to reach a threshold to qualify for election funding from the govt. That is checkbox on your tax return that asks if you want to donate a dollar to election funding. That will help strengthen it.
And if an internet campaign can be started to get Bernie supporters and Independents to abandon the Dem and Repub parties (both Neo-Liberal parties now), the Greens could crush both of them THIS YEAR. The caveat is that Greens need signatures to get on the ballot in half of the states.
----------------------------
I see a couple "I'll vote for Hellery" diaries on the list this morning. Here's my one word answer to that: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
For all the Lesser Of Two Evils voters, please don't bug me. I am done with the Neo-Liberal parties. If you don't know what that means, educate yourself. It is what is plundering and looting the US and will bankrupt it sooner or later (I believe sooner).
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I don't think the greens could win BUT
that's beside the point. A strong showing that skews the election for either Trump or Clinton - a vote that shows that 5% or 10% of regular voters are opting out of either big party, would make a stronger statement than anything else we can easily do right now. It gives notice that people are not happy and not willing to continue to support policies which harm them. It gives strong encouragement to the Establishment party to move to the left to recapture those votes.
Do I think it will fix everything? Of course not, but anything we can do to start moving the conversation is important.
If we hold our nose and vote for the Establishment, than they can firmly believe that despite our little love affair with Bernie, we are really just fine with the status quo. Because WHY would you vote for someone you don't support???
Your vote is your only chance to be "heard" in an election. You are not obligated to prevent Trump or Cruz. The Democratic Party is obligated to represent its members and put up reasonable candidates. Don't let them put their bad choices on your shoulders. You are not required to clean up after them and protect them from the consequences of their greed and self-interest. Your only obligation is to vote your conscience. Your actual conscience, not some strategic triangulation of voting. That misperception is what has allowed this nonsense to persist so long. If people had stopped voting for the lesser evil years ago, and gave their vote elsewhere, we wouldn't be facing the horrible choices we are facing in this election.
I understand the argument for the lesser evil - Goddess knows I've defended it many years. But we are out of time. There just isn't time to keep going down the path we're headed. Pain is coming our way, and whether its the pain of a Trump presidency or the pain of a Clinton administration that takes no action on climate change, I'm not sure its going to matter all that much to the peons. Suffering is suffering.
Things only change when people change. If people continue their same voting behaviors and strategies, how can we honestly expect anything to change?
ETA: I'm not arguing with you - just kind of got ranting and thinking out loud. This wasn't a refutation of your comment, but a support of and response to it.
Rant on
I understand and agree.
And remember when Obama won. He loved to say "I got a strong mandate from the people". Then he would do some suckass neoliberal bullshit. I'm done handing "mandates" to neoliberals.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Oh, hell yeah....
HaikuKitty,
I often find myself agreeing with what you post. You have a sensibility that knits together our idealism with real action.
This line is important to me which is why I am now considering voting Green if Clinton is the nominee.
And this too. We can no longer allow ourselves to be held hostage to the lesser evil or whatever hostage the establishment Dems throw at us. We have seen that all it does is make the cuts smaller and more often. At some point we must summon up enough courage to take that risk in order to try to effect real change for the people.
IMHO, we can no longer afford to keep treading water. Sometimes things have to get worse in the short term before they can get better for the long term. I am willing to take that risk in this election.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thanks for your thoughts COE!
Very interesting and easily digestible summation of Neo-Liberalism.
Both parties are now so in the grasp of the Oligarchs that it has become more of a "Which Oligarch Candidate will you accept" rather than which candidate do you want to represent YOU...
So sad a state of affairs...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Oregon will pick up more points for Bernie
But after this primary, I'm unregistering as a fucking democrat and never going back.
God damn Dems have lost me. Nothing but a bunch of corrupt liars.
Yeah... the Rapepublicans are bad. Trump is bad. But The Democrats are worse. They say their your friend while fucking you over.
Too many of our young kids are not looking anymore at how they are going to get to college, they are looking at how to get the fuck out of the US.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
Janet, I totally agree with this!
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I changed my registration to Dem
To vote for Bernie in our primary. Went back the Green this morning.
Go Oregon...we need lots of your help.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
What To Do Now?
A down and dirty analysis of how to bust up the Dem party, as it has been revealed (reviled?) to us, is on the table. I think we can learn a thing or two from the Koch Bros, yes, and their astroturf invention, the Tea party. For decades, the Kochs threw money at odious causes, but it wasn't until the faux populist Tea party reared its ugly head and attached itself to the Rethuglicans, that things started to happen for them. It sure helped Ted Cruz. Why they shut down the government for chrissakes and moved the Rethuglicans farther right than I thought possible. And it didn't take long either. Why can't Democratic socialists do the same thing? I think we MUST adopt that label, not Green party or Socialist party or Working Families party, because Bernie is campaigning as a Democratic socialist and his ideas for the country have become familiar to MILLIONS of new and existing voters. Can't say the same for those other parties mentioned by other commenters.
What I Keep
thinking about since NY, is this. Whether people vote Green, or Bernie ran as an Independent, or somehow folks put together a new party, makes pretty much zip difference. The reason being that the same corrupt people counting and/or hacking votes are still in place!
We won't know how many people actually vote Green or left their ballot blank for President, or whatever. We're only going to know what the people in charge of counting, and the machines tell us.
I think the First thing we have to do is get all paper ballots, all hand counted for elections. There is time for that to happen before November since paper ballots hand counted are very low tech. But it will take an army of people demanding it to make it happen.
Pages