Indeed, and with the GOP response, be prepared to have your uncanny valley tickled pink.
[quote=âdavidasposted, post:40, topic:50356â]
you become a meaningful member of your own community in the process instead of spending your time chasing unicorns.
[/quote]I agree with most of your points, but I think despite the negative similarities of national politicians, itâs hardly chasing after unicorns to mobilize voting for the lesser evil in order to enable local agendas.
As a matter of fact, a lot of those small-scale agendas can be hampered or even destroyed by empowering greater evil at a national and state level. For example, as I mentioned in a previous response, the only way we, as local Denver activists, were enabled to get marijuana legalized locally in Colorado was a symbiotic combination of city/county, state and national voting results that put the lesser evil Democrats in power all at once.
Otherwise, we would have been chasing after unicorns (as you say) instead of making quantifiable, positive changes as we accomplished within our state locally thatâs now spreading nationwide (and worldwide).
In other words, local politics donât happen in a vacuum.
See also:
Sun Tzu - The Art of War
With lots of commentary:
Pretty much just the translated book:
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/1.1/Sun%20Tzu.pdf
More:
I agree that local politics does not happen in a vacuum, but I think that you have confused the prime mover for the moved, so to speak, when it comes to the issue of marijuana use in the U.S.
In fact, this particular issue is a good example of why focusing on state and federal politics is an inefficient use of oneâs energy and resources. It is no coincidence that (to my knowledge) every example of legalization in the U.S. (medical or recreational) has happened as a consequence of voter referendums / ballot initiatives and not legislation by elected bodies.
The issue of recreational (and self-medicinal) marijuana use has already been decided in our communities. People across the U.S. smoke dope, no matter whether it is legal to do so. There are dire consequences if citizens (especially people of color) and found in possession of marijuana, that is absolutely true. But when âsomeoneâ had to account for this fact in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, D.C., etc. it was not elected officials, but rather our own neighbors who asserted that marijuana use should be decriminalized. Moreover, for the unfortunate citizens of D.C., who have no local control over their own rules and regulations, Congress nullified the result of their democratic efforts in its omnibus bill, which president Obama signed into law.
The state and federal legislatures are so ossified that they can only respond to conditions as they trend in one direction of another. They are fundamentally reactive bodies. I would argue that nearly all of the major social/political achievements of the last few decades occurred at the local level â Congress and state legislatures merely codify after the fact.
[quote=âdavidasposted, post:44, topic:50356â]
I agree that local politics does not happen in a vacuum, but I think that you have confused the prime mover for the moved, so to speak, when it comes to the issue of marijuana use in the U.S.[/quote]Youâre incorrect, thatâs why I used the term symbiotic to describe the environment that was necessary for legalization. That also why I explained to you how we started locally with a symbiotic focus statewide and nationally. If your âcommunity decisionâ-only theory was correct, marijuana would have been legalized in the late 1960âs or early 1970âs. It wasnât. Also, if marijuana was so important on the minds of so many communities and they were self-propelled and empowered (they are not if you had done hands-on, extensive, local research throughout this nation), then most of this nation would spontaneously spurt local city and county legalization despite anything else thatâs going on statewide and federally. That hasnât happened and it wonât happen. Again, local actions arenât happening in a vacuum, itâs very much intertwined with various state and federal environments.
You say that you agree with me that local actions donât happen in a vacuum, but the things you keep saying doesnât really reflect that.
Youâre obviously taking a hands-off, theoretical, ivory tower approach here. I know this because I was deeply involved in the legalization process and any activist who worked on this in Colorado will tell you the exact, same things Iâm telling you. Legalization at the local level never would have happened without all the symbiotic work at the state and federal level, period.
In fact, this particular issue is a good example of why focusing on state and federal politics is an inefficient use of one's energy and resources.Errr... you do realize it's legalized in CO at a state level, correct? Did you not research this issue at all? Many counties in CO at your glorious local community level still do NOT support legalization here. Do you also understand how federal enforcement also had to be reckoned with before we could push forward and maintain at a state level and even just in Denver? Have you been working with us to get banks to handle the money? If you did, you'd understand how deeply intertwined that is with federal (and state) lobbying, activism, etc. - It would be a laughable farce to try otherwise.
Youâre grasping for straws at this point. As I asked earlier, have you accomplished anything tangible with your local vacuum methodologies? It sure wasnât marijuana legalization. Youâd still be chasing unicorns (as you say) instead of getting the real-world results weâve already gotten by being vastly more realistic and strategic (along with vastly benefiting by voting drives locally, statewide and nationally).
If youâd worked with climate action, living wage activism, prison reform, etc. youâd know this as well. As much as you may like progressive progress to fit into your own predetermined voter suppression paradigm, thatâs not seated in a working reality that we deal with in the field with many high-impact progressive issues.
Moreover, for the unfortunate citizens of D.C., who have no local control over their own rules and regulations, Congress nullified the result of their democratic efforts in its omnibus bill, which president Obama signed into law.Er... you just made my point on the importance of not working in a local vacuum and the harm that voter suppression, disenfranchisement and apathy brings. If more people had voted in the midterms, we likely wouldn't have been in that situation of a greater evil trumping the will of the people. You've obviously never had any personal chats with anyone within the DNC and RNC. I'll put it this way, the DNC is vastly less conflicted on the issue. We still "court" the GOP for strategic reasons (and in a vastly different manner), but I'm sure you already knew that? Thanks for your response, although, you're starting to remind me of [this kind of conversation][1]. :smile:
2 Likes
Yes, itâs much easier to remain pure by staying home. 28% turnout is also why the Republicans control the Senate.
3 Likes
With a lot of these issues, I am not convinced that the Republicans would have done nothing. What they have often been calling for would be a definite step backwards, so even no difference is better than the alternative. Even showing approval for change and not seeking to block it removes some barriers. While a lot of these changes werenât actually brought about by Obama, I doubt that many of them would have gone through so quickly under Bush. Itâs faint praise, but it is something. WRT the environment, I would rather have a stalemate where any movement is more likely to be in a positive direction and more elected people accept the basic issues than a stalemate in the other direction where people making decisions are questioning whether climate change even exists. If the midterms were decided by 28% of eligible voters, this means that non-voters have handed a significant amount of power to people with very irrational opinions that probably donât represent those of the general population.
With international relations, you do have to recognise the difference between degrees of military engagement or diplomacy. Iâm not in America so I donât have the full picture, but it does seem to me that Republicans have generally been pushing for tougher, earlier action on Syria, ISIS, Russia, Lybia, Iran etc. Where they have opposed it, it may well just be that they dislike Obama and want to be contrary, as seems to be the general trend. Obama also seems a lot more ready to talk with countries like China and Iran rather than merely upping the rhetoric against them.
Healthcare: the fact that at one time Romney and Gingrich supported something with a degree of similarity does not mean that they had any intention of doing it in 2010. The fact that Gingrich shut down the government twice in part because he wanted to limit healthcare spending seems much more indicative of his intentions. The rabid opposition to health care reform by the right throughout Obamaâs term and the watered down version that was only allowed to go through with howls of protest either shows that they are not just wanting to iron out a few policy differences, or that they would rather put personal opposition to Obama and the Democrats in front of the interests of the country (or both). Either way, I would rather stand behind the group thatâs actually doing something positive.
I have to largely agree with you WRT the FOIA and terrorism: where government response to whistleblowers remains the same, drone attacks are increasing and supposedly free Guantanamo prisoners are still there five years later, words are pretty meaningless. Some of the increased CIA spying and drone attacks would be down to developing technology and capability rather than policy choices, but itâs still pathetic.
Well, that was my point: I donât support Democrats and I want to see more progressive leadership, but if you act like the difference between the two main parties is âever so slightâ, I really canât agree with you. I wasnât claiming that Obama was a great leader, just that we should acknowledge some of the positive things that have come during his leadership.
At the end of the day, you wonât be heard in any system if you arenât engaged in the process. Itâs all very well to call for a system that will never happen, but in the meantime people need to recognise the power that they actually have (and use it). Voting Democrat wonât change everything, but it could shift the Overton window so that certain views in areas like climate change become untenable. Acknowledging that while the ACA isnât everything it could be, but not allowing the narrative that it was a complete failure, makes it more likely that it will be built on and further developed rather than torn down and not replaced. Of course democracy also requires action outside of the ballot, but helping to shift the balance of power at least makes local and regional change easier to implement.
3 Likes
So your argument is that âsupporting evilâ and âstaying homeâ are literally the only two options? And where did you come up with the idea that this was about âpurityâ?
And then the hilarious idea that 28% turnout is the reason the Republicanâs control the senate, as if the majority of the population that didnât vote would be any more likely to vote Democrat (and that if they did, somehow, the Democrat party would be better for it). Because governor Nixon and Democratic control over places like Ferguson helped the people out there so much. Instead of dealing with the reality that the reason Republicanâs control a majority in the Senate is because a very large, very significant number of Americanâs want them to, and even if they were to vote for Democratâs theyâd vote for Democrats that support those same values - for many us the Democrats being a lesser but still evil evil is a serious consideration, and heck, sometimes they arenât the lesser evil at all!
Not all of us have as naive and simplistic an understanding of politics as you seem to. Voting wonât fix our problems - only organization can do that, and voting might be one of the methods they voting is a tool, not a solution, and the idea that more votes would somehow lead to better government is pretty absurd.
1 Like
I actually do not think that our ideas re: organization are nearly as different as it appears and at least some of our differences on this issue are the result of terminology â weâre talking about similar things but with different words.
That said, if this conversation is going to become a dick-swinging contest and you want to rhetorically treat me for a fool then Iâm sure we both have better things we could be doing. Thatâs not the kind of conversation that I want or am willing to have.
Good luck with your organizing.
[quote=âdavidasposted, post:49, topic:50356â]
if this conversation is going to become a dick-swinging contest
[/quote]Going?
It went there within your first contact with me. If you didnât want it to go in that direction, Iâm not sure why you immediately started in that manner.
When you ignorantly refer to strategies (that are already working) as âwishful thinkingâ, âtortured explanationsâ, âchasing unicornsâ, etc. and ask someone if they ârememberâ things they just wrote in a repeatedly confrontational manner â you really shouldnât be surprised when someone may not appreciate your stunted attitude.
Itâs especially grating when you offer factual inaccuracies, an obvious lack of proper research and hollow platitudes on top of your unnecessarily confrontational approach.
If you read my first response to you, I took the high road and ignored offering a tit-for-tat response to your insulting drivel and answered politely despite your rudeness. However, after you continued the same course of rudeness yet again within your following posts, you began to grate on me.
If you canât take what you dish out, then good riddance.
1 Like
Hilarious, possibly, and naive and simplistic as well, but there is solid evidence to back this up.
1 Like
[quote=âGlyphGryph, post:48, topic:50356â]
And then the hilarious idea that 28% turnout is the reason the Republicanâs control the senate, as if the majority of the population that didnât vote would be any more likely to vote Democrat[/quote]
Itâs not a hilarious idea, itâs our current reality and itâs been that way for many decades.
While there are certainly anomalies in which higher turnout is bad for Democrats usually within areas that are heavily regressed by Republican district gerrymandering, thatâs not the case in general for most of the country where voting is more equitable among the general population beyond wealthier, older, white males.
Hereâs the greater reality of midterms without the conservative slant that attempts to disingenuously promote anomalies (and district gerrymandering results) as the norm:
Beyond that, itâs also very telling to look at national elections that tend to be a bit less affected by Republican gerrymandering and tend to reflect the overall national trend.
One of the only Democrats to win in recent times with lower turnout from his predecessor was Carter (but still higher than Reagan). Reagan won with even lower turnout than Carter and HW Bush won afterwards when turnout went even lower (almost its lowest in modern times).
When voting shot upwards again after being in a slump for 20 years, it was Clinton who won. Of course, yet another Democrat. You might focus on the voter turnout slump for Clintonâs reelection but then youâd have to be unaware of the scandal where errant pre-election polls drastically overstated Clintonâs lead over Dole and swayed voter apathy on both sides. It was one re-election anomaly.
Obama won with extremely high voter turnout. Very much near the level we saw with Kennedyâs levels (yet another Democrat who won with extremely high record voter turnout)⌠and Obama did it twice with his extremely high turnout. Actually, it was the highest turnout in 40 years within all of those elections that favored Democrats when turnout was higher.
This isnât a âhilarious ideaâ. This is reality based upon the actual history of the United States of America and our Presidential elections in modern history.
2 Likes
Thereâs a long-standing argument that the purpose of parliamentary governments is to pre-empt popular, direct democracy. When Draper wrote the essay I linked above, the movement against the Vietnam War was trying to work out what to do about the upcoming election; his point was that the whole point of the âlesser evilâ argument in the context of elections was to pre-empt discussion that the real alternative is in mass action, outside the narrowly circumscribed set of alternatives. In May, 1968, in Paris, France, student protests escalated and connected to a general strike; the head of state, de Gaulle, fled the country. Established left political leaders urged de-escalation and a redirection of energies to the national election, months later. The Socialist candidate, Mitterand, defeated de Gaulle, but could not pursue the progressive agenda he had promised, since finance capital was still in place but the masses in the streets had long since gone home.
My recurring experience of the Democratic Party, as an organization, is that it intervenes in popular movements in order to demobilize them. Most often, this involves explicit instructions to drop any activist work and concentrate on an upcoming election â even though the candidates expressed no support for us or our cause. Iâve been in several coalitions on different issues that evaporated in the space of days because of such an intervention.
2 Likes
Itâs a good essay and a good point.
[quote=âFoolishOwl, post:53, topic:50356â]
Iâve been in several coalitions on different issues that evaporated in the space of days because of such an intervention.
[/quote]In recent times? Which ones?
Iâm very curious to see evidence that involves explicit instructions to drop all activist work. As a long-time activist who knows many other activists currently in the field throughout the nation, Iâve never seen nor heard of this myself where the Democratic party actually instructs us to stop our progressive agendas and not resume them after âget out the voteâ drives, etc. or any other DNC actions related to campaigns. If there was a concerted wide-spread effort, I really think other progressive activists and myself would have heard about this by now and/or would have received these requests?
Iâm not saying it doesnât exist, but Iâd really enjoy seeing some evidence to back that up.
Then again, perhaps you mean they do it subversively by failing to live up to many campaign promises that foster anger and disillusionment from their base? But, I chock that up to being a side effect of modern DINO corporatists doing what corporatists do whilst they have Republicans to pretend to blame for their inactions.
Depends how you define recent. This was my experience with a number of political campaigns in the San Francisco Bay Area, roughly 1996 through 2004, mostly anti-war work and anti-police brutality. It tended to be most direct in the case of anti-war work, where a few times I actually saw DP staffers show up to make that argument.
No, I donât have documentation. Iâm talking about groups of fifty to a hundred people at most, so itâs not like there were published minutes available online.
Thatâs not how itâs ever framed, of course. Of course, youâre supposed to return to your progressive agenda after the election! But itâs so very important to get the candidate elected now, or the Republicans will get in, and it all gets worse.
There are two practical problems: first, whatever group or coalition took a fair amount of work to organize to begin with, and now that group has been torn down, so at best youâd have to start over again in six months or a year after the election; second, when you work on a candidateâs campaign, youâre expected to campaign for the candidateâs platform, not your own. So if youâre an anti-war activist, and you accept the argument that you need to campaign for a pro-war Democrat, or if youâre an opponent of police brutality, working for a local candidate who wants to hire more police, youâve been silenced, and are working against your own interests.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
