|
I have been seriously wondering this since for a while but it's come up especially since the election. It seems that plenty of people seem to support Obama and the policies of Democratic party despite it's history of a lack of progressive policies and an expansion of war. At the same time, it seems like most people have easily accepted the lesser of two evils in the face of literal monarchists but is that really enough? Shouldn't Americans be demanding more, or at least what our ancestors have demanded? I many be mistaken, but has Clinton's "Third Way" really destroyed the American "not-Republican" stance? Seriously, this whole post is just asking questions because I want to know. I'll state what I feel later.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 13:18 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:58 |
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, you have to go for the lesser of two evils in the presidential elections. I also vote independent/green/whatever other third party I agree with when it comes to more local and regional elections, and also sometimes for the House and Senate if I think they have a chance to win. Change starts locally. According to my old-rear end dad, it's more or less been that way since he started voting, at least on the executive ticket.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 13:24 |
|
|
The unfortunate choice for me is between Republican policies from the 90's that the Democrats are currently espousing, and full on fascism. Tack on to that the socially regressive policies that the Democrats thankfully have not taken on, and my choice is clear. I think it's important to bury the Republicans first, then demand that the roadblocks that are crushing third parties be destroyed second.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 13:26 |
|
|
Only parties that may want to reform a two-party system are the ones that currently have very little or no seats - the minor ones. The more powerful players have no reason to reform the system that heavily favors them. Waiting for Republicans to die won't solve anything - Democrats wilk just split or another party takes their place on the left.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 13:44 |
|
|
Of course it's morally acceptable: real issues aren't black and white. Do I like everything Obama's done? No, but I recognize that there's no such thing as an electable politician that shares my stark progressive views. It's called 'progressive' for a reason, because there will always be ways the societal norm can progress. The same societal norm that has to vote that politician in. Obama may be clearly moderate, and arguably conservative, but at this point in time unfortunately that's probably the best we're getting due in part to political influences, but the other half is what has become the 'social norm' over the last 13 years.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 13:53 |
|
|
Atoramos posted:Of course it's morally acceptable: real issues aren't black and white. Do I like everything Obama's done? No, but I recognize that there's no such thing as an electable politician that shares my stark progressive views. So why not actually vote the way you think? A vote outside of the two-party system serves to delegitimize its very existence. I'm not an American, but I've heard enough third-party voters say "I'm not going to have voting a war criminal into office on my conscience" and I can absolutely respect that. Also, Obama isn't arguably conservative, he's just straight-up conservative by any objective metric you'd care to think up (outside of purely token insubstantive concessions to Democratic party pet issues), sooooo. Hmmmmmmmm.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:13 |
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:So why not actually vote the way you think? A vote outside of the two-party system serves to delegitimize its very existence. I'm not an American, but I've heard enough third-party voters say "I'm not going to have voting a war criminal into office on my conscience" and I can absolutely respect that. Because voting third party is useless. This has been proven time and time again.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:18 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:The unfortunate choice for me is between Republican policies from the 90's that the Democrats are currently espousing, and full on fascism. Tack on to that the socially regressive policies that the Democrats thankfully have not taken on, and my choice is clear. I think it's important to bury the Republicans first, then demand that the roadblocks that are crushing third parties be destroyed second. Full on fascism? Literal Monarchists? Do you guys even read what you're writing or are you not capable or rendering a thought without bombast and over the top hyperbole? Yes, it is morally acceptable to support the US Democratic Party, unless you are of the opinion that you should have somebody else's morality rule your decisions, in which case, you're kind of cheerleading for "full on fascism" and literal Monarchy. Does that mean you have to agree with everything they do? No. edit: posted too quickly. You may also consider getting involved at the local level. It may be impossible to move the needle in national elections, but it's VERY possible to get things done on the local level. Hell, sometimes it's just a matter of being a gadfly and pushing your pet topics at your town board meeting. Truthfully, the big national parties arent sitting around wriging their hands and getting the vapors over the fringe at either end. They know drat well that if they tack too hard left (or right for the other guys) they'll lose too much support. Dreaming of a progressive champion who will fundamentally change things is a waste of your time. Pauline Kael fucked around with this message at Feb 7, 2013 around 14:30 |
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:26 |
|
|
"Obama is a war criminal" is a loving meaningless statement. Every president in US history is probably a war criminal. All of us would probably become war criminals if we did what we had to do to successfully run and become elected (and stay elected) President. What I'm saying is it's likely impossible NOT to vote a war criminal into office.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:43 |
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Full on fascism? Literal Monarchists? Do you guys even read what you're writing or are you not capable or rendering a thought without bombast and over the top hyperbole? Yes, it was mildly hyperbolic of me, which was the intent. That is just how far the gulf between the Democrat and Republican platforms are in my view, primarily on social issues. And forgive me, but I didn't say anything at all about the choices of others to find the Democrats morally acceptable or not, simply that I do so and that I have to hold my nose to do it. The true issue at the national level, is that "left" has been redefined by the Republican media machine. They pretend that Moderate views are "far left" which poisons the publics view of actual "left" policies. We need to move the window back to the center before anything meaningful can be done with the message.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:49 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:Yes, it was mildly hyperbolic of me, which was the intent. That is just how far the gulf between the Democrat and Republican platforms are in my view, primarily on social issues. And forgive me, but I didn't say anything at all about the choices of others to find the Democrats morally acceptable or not, simply that I do so and that I have to hold my nose to do it. I wasn't really aiming at you, but the truth is, if you want the window to move back to the center, a good start would be that we refrain from declaring everything we disagree with to be "fascism" because that reflects worse on us than them, to anyone paying attention
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:57 |
|
|
Volcott posted:Because voting third party is useless. This has been proven time and time again. Voting for a third party is useless, nobody votes for third party because voting for a third party is useless...
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:57 |
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:So why not actually vote the way you think? A vote outside of the two-party system serves to delegitimize its very existence. I'm not an American, but I've heard enough third-party voters say "I'm not going to have voting a war criminal into office on my conscience" and I can absolutely respect that. Voting third party is meaningless at presidential elections because of winner-takes-all system in most states - whoever gets majority gets all elector votes of the state. It's a dumb system, since your vote changes nothing if you happen to live in state of mostly opposing view, but Americans stick to it for some reason. Also some territories don't have elector votes(various islands) and citizens living there don't get to vote at all. Pyromancer fucked around with this message at Feb 7, 2013 around 15:05 |
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 14:59 |
|
|
Doesn't participating in a dumb system make you dumb by default?
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 15:02 |
|
|
It's very easy to defend Obama when his opponent is Mitt Romney or John McCain or whoever the Republicans are going to field. That Obama doesn't deliver when it's time to poo poo-or-get-off-the-progressive-pot is unfortunate, but I don't believe it necessarily makes supporting him an immoral act. EDIT: This also implies that Obama deserves all the criticism he gets while he's in office, even if one would rather throw support behind him during the elections.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 15:25 |
|
|
If you think the franchise is a right that shouldn't be abridged on the basis of race - if you think voting democracy is, regardless of the candidates, a good or workable system - then yes, I think it's morally acceptable to support the Democratic Party because even a short-term period of control by Republicans leads to serious dismantling of state and federal protections for minority voters and straight up suppression of minority voters. I vote for the Democrats so I can keep voting. Basically, I think racist limitations on the franchise are deeply immoral and fighting them with the most effective tools available is morally acceptable if not morally praiseworthy.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:00 |
|
|
LP97S posted:I have been seriously wondering this since for a while but it's come up especially since the election. It seems that plenty of people seem to support Obama and the policies of Democratic party despite it's history of a lack of progressive policies and an expansion of war. At the same time, it seems like most people have easily accepted the lesser of two evils in the face of literal monarchists but is that really enough? Shouldn't Americans be demanding more, or at least what our ancestors have demanded? I many be mistaken, but has Clinton's "Third Way" really destroyed the American "not-Republican" stance? You know, I had these thoughts right around the year 2000. After eight years of GWB, I don't have those doubts anymore. As milquetoast as the Democratic Party is, it's a gently caress of a lot better than the alternative.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:04 |
|
|
LP97S posted:
What does this have to do with morality? Are you asking: "is it If so, then the answer I'll provide is: "maybe, how do you feel about voting to mitigate policies you see as harmful while you work to push positions that you support." Personally speaking, I'm not keen on the Democrats either, but they're leagues ahead of their opponents, in terms of "not being regressive shitheels", and they also have more than dreams of viability at the national level. I vote as progressive as possible on local and state matters, and Democrat in national matters. This is because as much as I prefer to improve things, I also recognize the importance of trying to keep things from getting worse at the same time. America isn't going to suddenly become a bastion of progressivism overnight, so if you want progressive policy enacted, get involved or support people who are involved. Hand-wringing/pearl-clutching about how you feel bad about voting Democrat won't help anyone.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:06 |
|
|
If voting for a third party is pointless then why bother to vote at all? Its incredibly unlikely that your one vote will make any difference in deciding the outcome so it seems equally "pointless". I'm saying this as someone who has voted strategically in the past, so its not like I'm a purist on this subject, but obviously at least part of voting is a statement of values so I find it weird why anyone who advocates voting would think that third parties are a complete waste of time but somehow voting is worthwhile. As for supporting the Democrats, there are two things worth considering: the first is that the Republicans have been the conservative vanguard for thirty years, and hastening the collapse of the Republican electoral coalition and its replacement by a Democratic coalition that includes a substantial number of latinos, blacks, women and youth is a good thing. The second consideration, however, is that with a Democratic President and a Democratic congress there's basically no check on executive power, and a lot of policies that the Democrat's would have reflexively opposed (assassinations, civil liberty violations, etc.) get supported instead since they are being proposed by a Democratic President. Personally I'd find it really hard to support a Democratic candidate at the federal level at this point, but perhaps the party can be reformed from within. I think that to effectively change the inner culture of the party, however, it would probably be necessary to have some base of organization that is outside the party itself and which doesn't have to get too bogged down in the quotidian dilemma's of actually getting candidates elected to audience.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:15 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:You know, I had these thoughts right around the year 2000. After eight years of GWB, I don't have those doubts anymore. As milquetoast as the Democratic Party is, it's a gently caress of a lot better than the alternative. A substantial portion of Obama democrats aren't Milquetoast, they are outright awful; union busting wall street serving murderers.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:17 |
|
|
Due to the lack of an informed populace and the subsequent tendency of most of the country to vote based on party affiliation rather than the actual candidate or platform, at this point I almost think it's unethical NOT to support the Democratic party. Not because they're The Best Thing Ever, but because they are, precisely as you stated, the lesser of the evils, and at least display some drive towards progressivism, even if they're not particularly effective at getting anything accomplished due to the current mix in the last three Congresses. The Republican party is... distasteful at best, due to constant attempts to dehumanize and segregate the population, and very close to fascist at its worst. This problem is exacerbated by the Tea Party surge having driven out most of the moderate and centrist members - it's very close to being an echoing chamber for the far Right. I normally don't post crap from webcomics, but this is actually a very well-done representation of what I'm saying. Voting third party is a nice ideal, but with how our election system works it's no more effective than just staying home. Until a third party gains enough ground to hold substantial offices from the local level clear up into Congress, and thus having enough citizens and representatives to vote party line, it'll never happen. It doesn't help any that all of the major third parties are a blend of common sense and pure crazy. Flarestar fucked around with this message at Feb 7, 2013 around 16:52 |
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:26 |
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:So why not actually vote the way you think? A vote outside of the two-party system serves to delegitimize its very existence. I'm not an American, but I've heard enough third-party voters say "I'm not going to have voting a war criminal into office on my conscience" and I can absolutely respect that. Voting on 'legitimacy' seems self-centered and morally bankrupt to me. The tradeoff (if we're talking about a voting block big enough to matter) is that the greater-evil gets elected. This will cause real harm to happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise. And the only up-side is that people can claim some sort of philosophical purity. Third party voting make sense if there's some long-term strategy (we don't vote and expect the government to collapse from lack of legitimacy). That's trading a short-term harm for a long-term benefit. But I can't see how any serious moral system could prefer a worse outcome, if it means people's hands staying clean.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 16:39 |
|
|
LP97S posted:Shouldn't Americans be demanding more, or at least what our ancestors have demanded? What our ancestors demanded? Like genocide and slavery? Obama is fine, he's exactly the kind of president America elects. Ruthless, and compromising. It's your picturesque image of America that's illusory. We might give praise to Jesus, but we make bloody sacrifices to Mammmon.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 17:56 |
|
|
It's perfectly logical to support your state's Democratic (or whatever) party because political parties in the United States are coalitions, not tightly wound things as in Europe. You can have a socialist (or thereabouts) be elected for your representative/senator/whatever even if the party as a whole is neo-liberal. If you feel so strongly about opposing the Dems though, just don't vote for the president. It's the only office that requires national vetting.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:05 |
|
|
Thundercracker posted:What our ancestors demanded? Like genocide and slavery? Obama is fine, he's exactly the kind of president America elects. Ruthless, and compromising. Abolitionists are just as much a part of the American tradition as slave holding is. And it was union activists in the Democratic party after WWII who insisted that desegration and equal rights be made a part of the official party platform - prompting a number of Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond to leave the party. Those decisions weren't pragmatic calculations to win votes, they were examples of men and women fighting for what they believed in and using the Democratic party to achieve their goals. I'm getting really fed up with the level of unproductive cynicism on these boards. Yes the situation is really bad right now, but no, it isn't hopeless. If you think its bad now just look at what conditions were like during the Guilded Age. Anyway I think its extremely dangerous to reject the legacy of past social movements in America. Abolitionists, progressives, labour unions, etc. have really made the country a better place and forced concessions from the ruling class. Nor has every white American before 1960 been monolithically racist or imperialist or whatever. I know history can be depressing at times, but it should ultimately be a liberating force. History shows us that real changes can be made, real victories can be won for the working class or for oppressed people. We need to strike a middle ground between mindless optimism and complete cynicism. Yes the American past can be depressing, but there are also plenty of examples of incredible and unexpected victories. America can and should expect better than the Obama Democrats.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:13 |
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:So why not actually vote the way you think? A vote outside of the two-party system serves to delegitimize its very existence. I'm not an American, but I've heard enough third-party voters say "I'm not going to have voting a war criminal into office on my conscience" and I can absolutely respect that. In some states, which is who runs our elections, third parties are de facto legally barred from recognition.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:17 |
|
|
A vote for any President is a vote for someone who will lead the premier capitalist and imperialist power of the world which has no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands and exploiting the mass of its own people (and everyone else) for the benefit of its elite. Outside of voting for someone who intends to dismantle this system or just not voting at all, you are reinforcing the status quo. Whether or not that is immoral is up to you. Personally I am not going to bother voting for Red/Blue in my life, I'll throw it to leftist third parties. When ultimately my vote will change nothing why vote for evil, whether it be lesser or not? And ultimately, both parties are simply shades of the same evil. a bad enough dude fucked around with this message at Feb 7, 2013 around 18:21 |
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:17 |
|
|
That's a fair attitude but I hope you're getting involved in local politics or activism or something if you really intend to abandon any kind of strategic engagement at the federal level. If you're just disengaging altogether then that is kind of a cop-out.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
Helsing posted:America can and should expect better than the Obama Democrats. Under Obama, the president has for the first time publicly endorsed equal marriage rights. Joe Biden said that transgender rights are the civil rights issue of our time. The current administration had poor economic policies, but their civil rights stances are pretty much objectively the most progressive in American history. I support the Democrats because our system makes it an option between Democratic policies and Republican policies, and I think the current Republican policies would be worse in almost every way. I voted for Jill Stein last election because I'm in California, but in a swing state I definitely would have voted for Obama to block Romney.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:30 |
|
|
I'm not sure, there's a pretty broad swath of Americans on the margins who lives are meaningfully impacted by whether the greater or lesser evil gets elected. I think opposing mitigation is tricky, because that leads us to "do nothing unless you will change everything by doing so," which is basically rubberstamping inaction. One way to get around this is local activism, but I think total federal disengagement ignores that yeah, it matters to people on the margins and marginalized people whether Red or Blue carries the vote.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:32 |
|
|
a bad enough dude posted:A vote for any President is a vote for someone who will lead the premier capitalist and imperialist power of the world which has no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands and exploiting the mass of its own people (and everyone else) for the benefit of its elite. Outside of voting for someone who intends to dismantle this system or just not voting at all, you are reinforcing the status quo. Whether or not that is immoral is up to you. I am curious what countries don't fall under the later part of your definition considering every nation has some sort of moneyed elite. I am also curious what alternative you would desire for the world in place of a single stable superpower. I assume it is some functioning version on the United Nations where everyone respects human rights, but then I would ask how you'd imagine us ever reaching that point.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:36 |
|
|
a bad enough dude posted:And ultimately, both parties are simply shades of the same evil. This is objectively not true. The country would be a very different place if Democrats got all they wanted or Republicans got all they wanted. There may be some areas where there is little difference (mostly foreign policy), but pretending like it doesn't matter either way is an incredibly narrow view. As for the original question, political parties change and shift over the years and I think the best way to make leftward progress is to keep voting for the most left leaning, even if they're not ideal. When people soundly reject the far-right ideas being put out by the Republicans and it forces them to move back towards the left, the Democrats will also shift left to maintain the distinct differences between the two. That and participating in the primary system to help further push them in the direction you want them to move are probably the best hope of real progressive reforms. Hoping for the rise of a third party is silly given the way our political system is setup. At least at a Federal level. At a local level it's more doable, plus it has the benefit of saying "if Democrats want to win in this area, this is the kind of person we want", which serves to help push things overall.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:40 |
|
|
Ever since November I've been smuggly saying "Don't blame me, I voted for Stewart Alexander" whenever politics come up at dinner parties or whatnot, and with the whole illegal assassination program thing being in the news recently I can feel even more smug when I say it. Beyond that I do my part and vote in every democratic primary for whoever seems like the most left-leaning candidate for each office. It's slim pickings, especially where I live, but I think that's all you really can do, along with just accepting your general powerlessness as an American voter.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:41 |
|
|
I certainly believe in activism and do my share.Chamale posted:I voted for Jill Stein last election because I'm in California, but in a swing state I definitely would have voted for Obama to block Romney. I don't understand this logic at all. A single vote will never change the way a state goes in a Presidential election. Even if you had voted in every single presidential election in the most contested districts of the most contested states every single President would be the same, and it verges on impossible that this will actually happen in future elections. There have only been about a dozen elections that have been decided by a single vote, at least in the US/Canada, and they were all tiny municipalities. If you are going to vote, vote for what you sincerely believe in or as close as it gets. "Strategic voting" is simply... stupid. a bad enough dude fucked around with this message at Feb 7, 2013 around 19:05 |
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:47 |
|
|
Helsing posted:A substantial portion of Obama democrats aren't Milquetoast, they are outright awful; union busting wall street serving murderers. I sure can't tell the difference between Al Franken and Keith Ellison vs that rear end in a top hat Scott Walker who lives next door. Or hell, even a much less liberal Dem like Governor Mark Dayton vs Chris Christie. Indistinguishable corporatist swine, one and all. 
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:52 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I sure can't tell the difference between Al Franken and Keith Ellison vs that rear end in a top hat Scott Walker who lives next door. Or hell, even a much less liberal Dem like Governor Mark Dayton vs Chris Christie. Indistinguishable corporatist swine, one and all. You do know what "a substantial portion" means, right? And you do realize that it means something different than "every single one"?
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 18:54 |
|
|
Helsing posted:You do know what "a substantial portion" means, right? And you do realize that it means something different than "every single one"? And whom of the substantial portion of the Minnesota DFL delegation should I vote against?
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 19:02 |
|
|
Your vote literally does not matter, so vote however you want, it's not affecting anyone in any way.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 19:04 |
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Your vote literally does not matter, so vote however you want, it's not affecting anyone in any way. I just want to check if I shouldn't be phone banking for Rep. Ellison, Sen. Franken and Gov. Dayton next year.
|
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 19:07 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:58 |
|
|
Pyromancer posted:Voting third party is meaningless at presidential elections because of winner-takes-all system in most states - whoever gets majority gets all elector votes of the state. It's a dumb system, since your vote changes nothing if you happen to live in state of mostly opposing view, but Americans stick to it for some reason. It's also impossible for a third party candidate to win the presidential electoral college. (see: Ross Perot 1992, won 18.9% of the popular vote, received 0 electoral votes) Still, I wouldn't call it useless. It's voting for what you want (the lesser of two evils still leaves you with evil in the end) and if a popular candidate wins enough of the vote, regardless of how unlikely that is, it opens the discussion for election reform. But who knows. I voted for Rocky Anderson in the last election despite living in a swing state and he received less votes than a joke candidate like Roseanne Barr. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at Feb 7, 2013 around 19:14 |
| # ? Feb 7, 2013 19:09 |
|
