|
It seems to me that if you are an American and you are left-wing (or anything but right-wing) and you want to make an actual difference in something, the best thing to do is to basically ignore everything the GOP does until it's time to cast your vote in a general election. What I mean is this: As far as I can tell, there are three main groups of voters/supporters that would be in the Always Vote Republican category: 1. Rich people and bigots, who pretty much are acting out of self-interest. Yeah, of course they want lower taxes and for minorities to get screwed - that's kind of their whole thing. People like Mitt Romney and your racist uncle. 2. The True Believers who actually believe in this poo poo despite their own self-interest. Middle-class Tea Party organizers, people who stopped reading books after The Fountainhead, etc. People like Dr. Ben Carson or those white dudes I saw outside the campus Chic-Fil-A a few years back advertising for a Young Libertarians organization. 3. People who vote conservative because that's what they do, or because they're dumb swing voters. People who for whatever reason don't follow politics, might be swayed by a radio ad they hear on the way to go vote, or just vote Republican because their parents did. Like the "independent conservative" running for county commissioner in your area, or your dad who votes Obama and then straight R for the rest of the ticket without looking. (There's also 4, which would be actual conservatives who have actual conservative thoughts like Pat Buchanan and Colin Powell and the guys on The American Conservative. I'm pretty sure this group is mostly irrelevant these days.) It seems incredibly unlikely that any of these people could be persuaded to not vote for Republicans. So unlikely, in fact, that the effort used in doing so would be entirely wasted. And if those voters (and rich donors) can't be swayed, it follows that their politicians are equally unshakable - why should they care what you say? They'll get re-elected with or without you. It follows from this, I think, that it is basically useless for a leftist to even engage with Republican voters or politicians. Sure, I guess you could argue that lampooning them on The Daily Show helps morale and gets people to the polls, but I don't think the problem is getting Republicans unelected. The problem is that the other major party opposite Republicans is still a right-wing party that primarily answers to corporate interests. I would say, then, that what leftists and progressives need to do is to focus as much energy as they can on Democratic politicians and candidates. Don't get me wrong - it's still probably a better idea to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. Aside from the odd accelerationist, I don't think many leftists would say that Romney was a better choice than Obama. But until that election - whether it's for President or for County Commissioner - I think pressure needs to be put on Democrats as hard as possible. Show up at local debates and party meetings and ask why candidates haven't considered the idea that maybe rich people aren't job creators. Challenge milquetoast candidates with primaries until they either grow a spine or get replaced. Run against whatever Blue Dogs and Liebermans still remain in elections, if you have to - even if you split the vote, could a GOP candidate really be worse? (Obviously I am speaking about local-level elections and state-level elections in smaller states; we don't have the money to do this starting from the top except in very specific cases like, say, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.) Basically, I just keep hearing about how we need to vote Democrat to keep the GOP out, the GOP will totally doom us immediately if they get in, at least with the Democrats we can stall for a while. But it seems to me that if we're going to do that we should probably have some Democrats that are actually going to have policies that we agree with, instead of Democrats who are just watered-down Republicans. And we can't do that if our bar for entry is "not as bad as Republicans." Shouldn't we get people who are good politicians regardless of what the GOP is doing? Any thoughts? Am I crazy for thinking this? Am I missing something obvious (aside from the difficulty of getting people to actually bother doing any of this)? Am I just saying things that everyone already knows?
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Just what leftism needs is to be even more irrelevant in the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
If you are a leftist you should probably ignore the Democrats as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:If you are a leftist you should probably ignore the Democrats as well. Is starting a third party or throwing in with the Green party or something going to do anything at all? I've never seen them be terribly relevant. Unless you mean start a left-wing Tea Party, which is basically just what I'm saying to do, but that would just mean starting a party for the express purpose of harassing Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Can you point out some of these appeals by leftists to conservatives? I can't think of any organized campaigns targeted at convincing GOP voters of the benefits of socialism/communism/whatever. The only time I see energy spent on that is personal flamewars on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
The Green party is completely worthless and should be given 0 support. Socialist alternative seems to be the ship to hop to but I don't know if they're outside the Pacific Northwest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Is starting a third party or throwing in with the Green party or something going to do anything at all? I've never seen them be terribly relevant. Unless you mean start a left-wing Tea Party, which is basically just what I'm saying to do, but that would just mean starting a party for the express purpose of harassing Democrats. That's really what the Occupy movement SEEMED to be trying to do when they started. But then it fell apart because it had absolutely no organization (one thing I will always give the Tea Party is they have structure) and never made the next step of fielding candidates and getting people elected. I think that's really the problem American leftists are having is the conservatives are just so damned well organized and determined (to the point where it's almost bullying) a left-wing party advocating social justice, safety nets and labor rights (the usual) would be shot-down via talking points after one Fox News evening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Can you point out some of these appeals by leftists to conservatives? I can't think of any organized campaigns targeted at convincing GOP voters of the benefits of socialism/communism/whatever. The only time I see energy spent on that is personal flamewars on Facebook. Oh, I mostly mean stuff like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report which are more concerned with making fun of Republican assholes than addressing the assholes in the Democratic party, or the people on this forum who are very concerned that you make sure Republicans don't get elected but don't seem quite as concerned that the Democrats are useless. I didn't really mean that we need to spend less time trying to convince GOP voters of socialism; my main point was that since we can't (and since we all know that we can't), why bother even caring what GOP politicians are doing? They'll be assholes either way. Justin Godscock posted:That's really what the Occupy movement SEEMED to be trying to do when they started. But then it fell apart because it had absolutely no organization (one thing I will always give the Tea Party is they have structure) and never made the next step of fielding candidates and getting people elected. Yeah, this is why I'm trying to emphasize local-level stuff. Obviously if you live in New York or Chicago that's gonna be tougher, but I live in a small enough town that everyone already is vaguely aware of everyone else - one of the candidates for county commissioner here was the principal of the only high school for twenty years or something. I've also seen that people are way more likely to vote outside of party lines if they know who they're voting for. Again, that's gonna be tough if you live in a big enough city that you need corporate money just to get your name out, but I figure there's still at least something you could do. I would also argue that part of what was wrong with Occupy is that as a protest they didn't really actually do much to make life inconvenient for the people they were protesting against, but that's kind of a different issue. DoubleDonut fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Is starting a third party or throwing in with the Green party or something going to do anything at all? I've never seen them be terribly relevant. Unless you mean start a left-wing Tea Party, which is basically just what I'm saying to do, but that would just mean starting a party for the express purpose of harassing Democrats. That said, I think if you want to focus on a third party, you need to be willing to reach out to the Democrats (or, potentially, the Republicans) if you want policy passed. The role of a third party in America's electoral system seems to be more about pressuring than about sweeping the legislature - at least in the short term. The Green Party would probably, in the event of runaway electoral success that lasted more than a couple of cycles, replace the Democrats the same way the Republicans replaced the Whigs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Agreed OP we need to isolate as far into our own echochambers as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Agreed OP we need to isolate as far into our own echochambers as possible. Yes, engaging with local governments and not judging democratic candidates based on how Not Republican they are is exactly that. Good job reading; I'm sure you'll get a 100 on the quiz tomorrow. Nessus posted:Personally I'd say organize for a leftward movement, whether in the Democratic party or in a third party organization. In the actual election, vote your heart - however, inform your heart that if you're in Florida or some other swing state, you might just prefer to give the less bad option your vote. I agree; I don't think there's any chance of the country sustaining a three-party system anytime soon. Even Ralph Nader primarily became known through pressuring Democratic and Republican politicians into supporting loving seatbelt laws, of all things, and he's probably the first- or second-most well-known third party presidential candidate in recent memory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:That said, I think if you want to focus on a third party, you need to be willing to reach out to the Democrats (or, potentially, the Republicans) if you want policy passed. The role of a third party in America's electoral system seems to be more about pressuring than about sweeping the legislature - at least in the short term. The Green Party would probably, in the event of runaway electoral success that lasted more than a couple of cycles, replace the Democrats the same way the Republicans replaced the Whigs. This is really what the NDP was like in Canada for the longest time whenever the Liberals or Conservatives (mostly the former, though) had a minority government where they would say "OK, we'll support this big measure you campaigned on and your voter base expects...but you need to do this one small thing for us". This is also likely what will happen in 2015 if Trudeau gets a minority government. That's what a true third party does and really does help with breaking the predictable two-party system and get more radical ideas out there. It sucks that America has a big problem with third-parties because they exist but that impression of "throwing your vote away" is so endemic and pervasive that I argue it's the first thing that needs to be shot down before another GOP policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Primaries are the time to push for more ideological candidates. General elections are for keeping the other side from winning. The Tea Party realized this. The reason they're feared is not because they're good at general elections; in fact, they have a habit of not being able to shut up about rape and race during general election runs. But, they create credible threats against established candidates during GOP primaries. I get a bit annoyed when people show up at the last minute, when there are only two choices left, and complain about always having to choose the "lesser of two evils". gently caress you. Show up earlier, when there are more choices. We live in a system that only allows two parties at a time, and the current ones are not on pace to topple any time soon. It's no use fantasizing about starting a new party, so effort is probably best used trying to work with what we've got.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Can you point out some of these appeals by leftists to conservatives? I can't think of any organized campaigns targeted at convincing GOP voters of the benefits of socialism/communism/whatever. The only time I see energy spent on that is personal flamewars on Facebook. Bernie Sanders made some noise about how white men in the South are voting against their own interests but the crowd he was addressing was not white men (though it was in the South).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
If you are a sorcerer and you can undo the Southern Strategy then please disregard everything I've said and go do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Yes, engaging with local governments and not judging democratic candidates based on how Not Republican they are is exactly that. Good job reading; I'm sure you'll get a 100 on the quiz tomorrow. Yes, it super is. Welcome to modern politics. For someone who glibly dismisses others as needing a wizard you sure are basing your question on the assumption we have a magic unicorn that shits votes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yes, it super is. Welcome to modern politics. For someone who glibly dismisses others as needing a wizard you sure are basing your question on the assumption we have a magic unicorn that shits votes. Do you actually have anything to say about anything I actually wrote or are you just lost on your way back to the Imp Zone? I'm sorry you apparently don't live in a place with a local government, man. Also please learn what a dismissal is; if you have a way to fix the Southern Strategy that isn't magic I'm all ears but so far no one has suggested one!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Basically, I just keep hearing about how we need to vote Democrat to keep the GOP out, the GOP will totally doom us immediately if they get in, at least with the Democrats we can stall for a while. But it seems to me that if we're going to do that we should probably have some Democrats that are actually going to have policies that we agree with, instead of Democrats who are just watered-down Republicans. And we can't do that if our bar for entry is "not as bad as Republicans." Shouldn't we get people who are good politicians regardless of what the GOP is doing? The issue you're going to run into is that getting "good" politicians is only relevant so long as you can persuade enough of the general populace that votes in that election to support them. If you want an example of your plan in action, the Tea Party serves well: they have been heavily focused on primarying Republicans who aren't Conservative enough. This has been of some benefit to them in the short term but it hasn't convinced the broader public of the merits of their views and I think a lot of political watchers expect a backswing in 2016 and beyond. If through some miracle tomorrow we managed to pressure the Democratic Party into supporting Kshama Sawant for President in 2016 (note that she rejects working in that framework anyway), what would be the advantages and disadvantages? On the plus side, you'd hopefully see a broader scope of views enter the discussion which can be a catalyst for moving people to be more accepting of your views (an Overton window shift for instance). On the negative side, if she's not broadly electable then you hand control over to your least preferred candidate, a "perfect is the enemy of good" scenario. You can't simply ignore conservative voters and not engage with them if the result is your ideal candidate cannot win. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:The issue you're going to run into is that getting "good" politicians is only relevant so long as you can persuade enough of the general populace that votes in that election to support them. If you want an example of your plan in action, the Tea Party serves well: they have been heavily focused on primarying Republicans who aren't Conservative enough. This has been of some benefit to them in the short term but it hasn't convinced the broader public of the merits of their views and I think a lot of political watchers expect a backswing in 2016 and beyond. Yeah, you're probably right. I mostly just feel like so much of the Republican base is so far right that it's incredibly difficult to make any progress with engaging them at all - at least, it seems like almost all of them are either so apathetic that they barely even hold conservative views and only vote because you're supposed to vote (and so they are hard to convince to vote opposite of how they do now) or they're of the opinion that the government should be totally abolished - outside of the military and police, of course. I guess I am overstating it a lot, but I do still think that it would benefit leftists a lot to spend less time being mad about conservatives and more time trying to figure out why Democrats are always so toothless. I also think that if you could get more Democratic politicians who actually did things, they'd have an easier time getting re-elected, primarily because "it's the economy, stupid." Also, I'm not sure how much of the backswing against the Tea Party is due to their strategies against Republicans; I think it's more likely that any backlash is due to their far-right stance or due to associations with racism. Of course, a left-wing counterpart would probably be seen as being too far-left, even if they weren't actually as extremist as the Tea Party, but I have a lot of trouble seeing another way to influence Democrats without being obscenely rich.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Actually, from my experiences conservatives are anti-centralization more than anything else. They're willing to help those in their community and town (note that this can be as large as a few hundred thousand people) but are wary of national or just large endeavors because they feel they aren't accurately represented. This actually manifests in interesting ways - recently there was talk of unionization in some Alabama factories, but one of the main things the workers wanted in the deliberation process was no AFL-CIO influence. They were happy to form their own little thing but when a national entity got involved, they'd rather not deal with it. It's almost anarchist in nature, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:(There's also 4, which would be actual conservatives who have actual conservative thoughts like Pat Buchanan and Colin Powell and the guys on The American Conservative. I'm pretty sure this group is mostly irrelevant these days.) I think even most of the AmCon people favor voting for Democrats a lot of the time. They basically seem to favor whoever is more dovish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:If you are a leftist you should definitely ignore the Democrats as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:If you are a leftist you should probably ignore the Democrats as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Any thoughts? Am I crazy for thinking this? Am I missing something obvious (aside from the difficulty of getting people to actually bother doing any of this)? Am I just saying things that everyone already knows? You're absolutely right that it's unhealthy for left-leaning news outlets to focus so much on ridiculous Republicans instead of attacking the bipartisan support for prisons, bosses, and bombs. (Have you seen John Oliver's show on HBO? Some of the jokes are overdone but it consistently explores deep issues, not just "State legislator said something stupid".) I'd also agree that progressive orgs should focus most of their efforts on making Democratic candidates better. I think you're wrong that Republican voters can't be persuaded to vote Democratic or even adopt progressive stances on issues. I don't understand how you could label a category of GOP supporters ignorant swing voters but not believe they could be swung to our side. There are also a couple of issues that have cross-ideological support (ending the drug war, reducing dumb subsidies) that might be worth trying for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually, from my experiences conservatives are anti-centralization more than anything else. They're willing to help those in their community and town (note that this can be as large as a few hundred thousand people) but are wary of national or just large endeavors because they feel they aren't accurately represented. Yes, there is a remarkable amount of double think involved with being both for and against conglomerates simultaneously. These are the seeds of incoherence that will sprout and break apart modern society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Most conservatives I know abandoned the GOP sometime in the last 15 years. You have to be really brainwashed to believe anything that comes from them. Its like trying to engage a Scientologist. What leftists need to do is stop shunning conservatives that share their feelings on things that matter, and to stop playing culture warrior. Its the only way to break the two parties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Yes, there is a remarkable amount of double think involved with being both for and against conglomerates simultaneously. These are the seeds of incoherence that will sprout and break apart modern society. I mean, it's as logically consistent as wanting to be a socially democratic nation but not wanting to join the EU because then more people will take advantage of your social democratic institutions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Leftism has little traction in the US because, despite all the bitching, its conservative political system has resulted in a consistently high standard of living and abundance of opportunities for the majority of its citizens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:And if those voters (and rich donors) can't be swayed, it follows that their politicians are equally unshakable - why should they care what you say? They'll get re-elected with or without you. Are you talking about Democrats or Republicans here? In either case, though, you're wrong. Sure, there's plenty of deep-red districts where the Republican is guaranteed to get reelected no matter what as long as he doesn't acknowledge liberals as human beings. But there's also tons of purplish districts where they have to have some bipartisan appeal to get elected, and that means there's a decent number of GOPers willing to cross the aisle on some policies - they just get less attention than Rep. rear end in a top hat Haterson who comes from a Deep South county that voted 80% Republican last election and thinks gay people should be executed. This is also where Blue Dogs came from - they were Dems who managed to get elected in purple or red-leaning areas, and held onto those seats by leaning right because if they didn't satisfy the voters' desire for conservatism, they'd just get replaced by Republicans. It's almost as if party ID is of relatively minor importance in the US system, and that where a Congressman was elected and who his friends are is way more important than what color chair he sits in!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Leftism has little traction in the US because, despite all the bitching, its conservative political system has resulted in a consistently high standard of living and abundance of opportunities for the majority of its citizens. Our political system is slow to change which is both an advantage and a disadvantage, but US standard of living has been a combination of factors: material wealth, insulation from sectarian conflicts, and the state brokered alliance between labor and capital to counter soviet rhetoric. It cannot be simply attributed to our political system. But these are all temporary and socieites tend to build up contradictions and inertia while exceeding the carrying capacity of their environment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:21
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Leftism has little traction in the US because, despite all the bitching, its conservative political system has resulted in a consistently high standard of living and abundance of opportunities for the majority of its citizens. This is only true for the period following WW2. Before then, leftist political ideas had enough common currency for Huey Long to be credible as a presidential candidate and Looking Backward to be a pop novel, and it is likely that if the trend from the 1970s on of wage stagnancy for the majority of middle-class and working-class citizens continues without lots of easy credit, people will turn again to leftist ideas as the system fails to provide broad prosperity once again.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The Green party is completely worthless and should be given 0 support. Socialist alternative seems to be the ship to hop to but I don't know if they're outside the Pacific Northwest. Socialist Alternative has less than 1000 members, and about 1/5th to 1/4th of the membership in the Northwest. They do have some branches out east, including one in Alabama (!), but right now it's pretty small. They swing above their weight though, and have been running some surprisingly successful campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is only true for the period following WW2. Before then, leftist political ideas had enough common currency for Huey Long to be credible as a presidential candidate and Looking Backward to be a pop novel, and it is likely that if the trend from the 1970s on of wage stagnancy for the majority of middle-class and working-class citizens continues without lots of easy credit, people will turn again to leftist ideas as the system fails to provide broad prosperity once again. There's also the fact that American quality of life was/is subsidized by exploitation abroad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's also the fact that American quality of life was/is subsidized by exploitation abroad. American success isn't a big surprise: vast territory with mostly an arable climate, no real threats anywhere near it and 2 oceans on either side. We basically could continually expand because there wasn't anyone to stop us, and when someone got in our way we kicked their teeth in. That said, the post-war success wasn't much of a surprise either with high employment and wages (for whites) and increased worker protection. The worm has turned since the 1980s though and now the "dream" has become far more threadbare. The West was ultimately successful more than anything because it was a lot bigger and a lot richer, and if you have to trade blocs, the one that is multiple times larger is going to win. (It also helps that the US allowed its some allies to have a one way trade relationship with it (Japan/South Korea) in order to build up their industrial base). Also, I am having a real hard time with people talking about "American leftists" in this thread, outside of a handful of tiny parties and a couple prominent individuals, there isn't really much of a presence. Liberal and Leftist are separate words for a reason, especially since a leftist implies economic policy more radical than the center-left and many American liberals aren't even really center-left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Leftism has little traction in the US because, despite all the bitching, its conservative political system has resulted in a consistently high standard of living and abundance of opportunities for the majority of its citizens. Are you posting from 1928? Because the policies in place during the decades of post-war prosperity in America are completely different to the policies pushed by the 2014 GOP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The Green party is completely worthless and should be given 0 support. Socialist alternative seems to be the ship to hop to but I don't know if they're outside the Pacific Northwest. I was actually on their website the other day and they're actively organizing around the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:Sure, I guess you could argue that lampooning them on The Daily Show helps morale and gets people to the polls, but I don't think the problem is getting Republicans unelected. This is the bottom line for me. Conservatives with ugly minds hate being challenged and belittled for their poison beliefs. It's satisfying to do so, but in some cases it makes them either 1) shut up and disengage or 2) question their evil lives. In the worst case, they won't be saved but their children will see them as pariahs. To me, it seems like this kind of progress (the ostracism and concentration of right-wing hate) is more important than any single election. It comes down to everyone's wish to believe that they are fundamentally decent people. If they are not decent at all, don't let them get away with believing it, or at least keep pointing out that there are a whole bunch of people who question their decency. Let them question our decency, as well; they can't really do it outside of their manufactured echo chambers. Let a hundred schools of thought contend. Because their thought is toy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This is the bottom line for me. Conservatives with ugly minds hate being challenged and belittled for their poison beliefs. It's satisfying to do so, but in some cases it makes them either 1) shut up and disengage or 2) question their evil lives. In the worst case, they won't be saved but their children will see them as pariahs. To me, it seems like this kind of progress (the ostracism and concentration of right-wing hate) is more important than any single election. It comes down to everyone's wish to believe that they are fundamentally decent people. If they are not decent at all, don't let them get away with believing it, or at least keep pointing out that there are a whole bunch of people who question their decency. Congrats on copy-pasting some strategy right out of the conservative anti-gay cookbook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:That's really what the Occupy movement SEEMED to be trying to do when they started. But then it fell apart because it had absolutely no organization (one thing I will always give the Tea Party is they have structure) and never made the next step of fielding candidates and getting people elected. The Tea Party has ridiculous amounts of money and media propaganda. If the Occupy movement had ten percent of what they had they'd be much more "organized and determined".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually, from my experiences conservatives are anti-centralization more than anything else. They're willing to help those in their community and town (note that this can be as large as a few hundred thousand people) but are wary of national or just large endeavors because they feel they aren't accurately represented. Interesting observation. I live in a conservative town and used to belong to a Rotary club here. The members were mostly Republican. I found that this greatly affected how much local projects got funded vs. national or international projects. Building a new library in town and want to raise funds for it? Everyone gets out their checkbooks and donates something (anywhere from $100 to $10,000). Clean water project in Haiti? Mostly crickets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:29
|
|
