There is no “local community” when each representative represents several million people. A system designed to govern less than 10 million people across a few states simply CANNOT govern 300 million across most of a continent
1 Like
You gotta build Pyramids to deal with that stuff.
3 Likes
Part of the reason it makes sense is because liberals historically don’t bother to vote then. The reason we have a blockade in Congress and “bathroom bills” is because of the 2010 sweep-in of Tea Party wahoos. 2018 will go the same way if history repeats itself. 2016 doesn’t have as much stuff up for grabs (though it’s not nothing!), and it has had less time for the “Bernie Democrats” to consolidate around local candidates.
I think you’re completely right. And identication with or as a local community is also complicated by factors including identification with narratives in corporate media, housing status and frequency of relocation, debt, dependency on non-local economic systems and intersecting cultural identities.
You’re confusing the Newspeak definition of the word “conservative” with its traditional meaning.
There are lots of us who are by nature conservative (dictionary definition) but who won’t vote for anyone connected with the current Republican party because of their extreme reactionary positions on such subjects as abortion (and human rights in general), including a lot of formerly high ranking Republicans who have publicly denounced what the party has turned into.
1 Like
Whether you describe it is “new speak” or not, there is a block of conservative voters who genuinely find those social issues to be the most important thing above all else. And those voters are extremely unlikely to back candidates or a party who has the exact opposite position on those issues (and others), simply out of anger. Just as the more old school conservatives (who tend not to be socially conservatives) are, as you point out, unlikely to back a Republican candidate in large part because of the parties commitment to said social issues. You’re mistaking my argument. It doesn’t matter what variety of conservative, what variety of liberal. What particular ideological block we’re talking about. Pick one, and they aren’t going to vote for the opposite of their pet issues or ideological position in general just because they’re pissed. At least not in the sort of numbers suggested. And not in an environment of highly partisan political polarization. We’re sitting in a political atmosphere where the other-side is routinely demonized. “Liberal” is a dirty word, “Conservative” less so but that approach is still used. And the “moderates” oh they’re the worst, they might as well be the other guys! At least when they’re not secret Illuminati style Trojan horses! People might get pissed, and there is and will be interest in non-establishment or independent candidates because of that. But to assume that interest will uniformly move large groups of people towards any independent so long as they are independent regardless of ideology is bizarre. To assume those large groups of people will just happen to back your particular guy is wishful thinking. Where people do so they’ll tend to find their other option in someone/something that has some crossover with their own ideology.
One of the BNC people replied to my inquiry about the issue, and confirmed that they changed the language on the sign-up form to make clear that a donation is not needed.
1 Like
Thanks for looking into it! 
1 Like
You’re correct, @Bloo, it’s a multi-election goal. From their site: “Never stop campaigning as a national movement for more seats until we get the super majority we need to make real change!”
1 Like
I predict some trouble with that word, “completely.” They may need a bigger tent.
Are you talking about their flawed branding, particularly the “1 ticket” portion? I just whimsy-ed that away as crappy wordplay that few people would catch onto, and that what they meant was that they intend to culture candidates for each district regardless of the timing of their respective elections.
I think this effort as described will bring in some money and fizzle, which is why I think it should be a party built on what Sanders has helped to activate. For my tastes they seem not to place as much stock in the fact that Bernie is only a Democrat by pure necessity.
That if they don’t want to see the next progressive hopeful shut out by the establishment as Sanders may yet be, they should get to work seeding the ground with something other than Democrat and Republican hybrid seeds, designed to sterilize their efforts.
1 Like
As far as I can tell, “what they want” amounts to free health care (the very best, and delivered with no delay), free college tuition, lower taxes, dollar a gallon gas, bigger Social Security checks, 5% interest on their savings (hey, I want that!), paying off the national debt, and a pony.
Clinton, Trump, Sanders, pfui !! We need Rumpelstiltskin.
1 Like
Those were the talking points in the 1980s. You need to keep up. Although, I will give you partial credit for dropping the reference to a Cadillac, at least.
2 Likes
Well we only listen by listening. So neither of us are in a position to say what a community wants until there’s been enough listening and cooperation for trust to form and the community then asks us to speak for them on an issue.
The first practical issue that concerns a group of community members and which they entrust to you to help address will not be a national issue.
And even assuming for the sake of discussion, the consensus goal matched that ambitious platform, that’s not really different than the histories of the welfare rights movement or civil rights movement or suffrage or abolition or other movements.
Those movements generally started small and local, realigned with other groups, issues and programs and eventually, over time, produced comprehensive political programs, including national legislative and policy change.
It’s basically how people everywhere have always identified which tasks they want done. It’s not bad to start small with whoever shows up ready to work.
In my experience, it’s more likely that a small group of say, parents, who are out of money and time, might choose a bulk purchase of diapers. Or a farm share. Or a child care co-op. Or an after-school program. Or an art and music festival. Or a tutoring group.
All of those sorts of projects can also support alternative political cultures — far more powerfully than another ActBlue or national branding campaign.
Too many of us — democratic socialists — have forgotten how to help organize and support those projects.
We sometimes don’t like not winning everything. Or relying on other people that we want to think are not as “smart” as we think we are.
And organizing nonviolently and cooperatively and kindly in the middle of an oppressive fascist regime is hard. It’s inherently shared work.
It’s easier to vow we won’t vote “this time” for a compromise candidate and then cocoon for two to four years.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
