I get the argument, I really do. I used to make it, too.
But this guy:
holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas
Was told 30+ years ago that we desperately need to hit the brakes. He has failed to do so because he’s wholly in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, and knows he’s among the most insulated from the worst effects of the crisis.
The answer to “which would you rather convince” is that neither can be convinced. One just has to put up a bit of a facade because more of his voters take the issue (marginally) more seriously. If that guy hasn’t done it in a generation, why would he do it now?
It’s also getting harder to justify the “accelerating less” part when Democrats do stuff like that article describes.
I get that. The problem for me is that this is a systemic issue, and it’s something that’s going to happen whether or not you as an individual participate, but it will impact your ability as an individual to fight for change.
We have a two-party duopoly. We have two bad choices. One is worse than the other, but neither will save us outright.
But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power. If you want to, say, fund more social programs, you’re going to watch Democrats possibly let you implement it, while Republicans will actively strip away what already exists the same day they get into office, then bar any new progress for the length of their term.
If you want to implement a system like ranked choice voting, you don’t want a wannabe dictator in power, because he’s obviously not going to make that as easy for you.
I don’t think the Democrats will actually save us in any way, nor do I think they’re currently pushing us in a very good direction overall, but the last thing I want is to increase the chance of someone like Trump staying in office by acting as though the Democrats are exactly equal, because all that will do is make any movement against right-wing policy extraordinarily difficult.
If I want to give myself the best odds of making a change, I want the people most sympathetic, even if only a little more than the alternative, to my cause, and right now, that’s the Democratic party, as unfortunate and depressing as that may be.
But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power.
I also used to make this argument. And for a few decades after Democrats stopped routinely trying to do major things for their constituents (the 60s), it had some merit.
But since the scientific community started really sounding the climate change alarm bells in the early 90s, we’ve had 20 years of Democrats in charge. They’ve failed to meaningfully address the issue, and failed to either keep Republicans out of office or implement policies strong enough to withstand Republican attacks. We tried it the way you’re suggesting and it hasn’t worked.
We’re at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option. It doesn’t help that the last 30+ years of inaction means we can’t afford another 30 years of making small changes and hoping against hope that some new technology solves the problem for us.
It’s not just party policies and their direct actions that their position in power influences though, correct?
The party in power also influences how individuals can make changes the government is unwilling to. For example, the Trump administration wants to revoke the nonprofit status of certain charities, especially those working on the climate, and social justice issues.
If Democrats were in power, this threat wouldn’t likely exist, and thus these nonprofits wouldn’t have to fear their funding being put in jeopardy. These nonprofits often do substantially more work than the government on many issues, and even though the party isn’t directly implementing policy that supports their goals, it likely wouldn’t do anything to actively hinder their goals directly. Whereas in this case, we’re seeing Trump pursue just that.
While yes, I do think that if you have a party that’s more sympathetic to your cause, no matter how little, you stand a much greater chance at changing the party’s policies overall, I also think you have to look at the wider picture of how their policy impacts the ability of other groups and individuals to make personal changes too.
We’re at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option.
I doubt destruction is a viable option, simply because a one-party system is somewhat an inevitability of how our voting system works if you allow the consolidation and persistence we’ve seen down to 2 parties continue into just 1. If we got to the point of only one party due to the Democrats being erased, I don’t believe it would pave the way for a better new party, I think it would just entrench the Republicans.
That said, I do think a radical change within the Democratic party is possible if enough people demand it, but the problem is that without the Democrats even having a proper seat in office, how are they supposed to even pass any policy, no matter how leftward they go on the political spectrum? And if the left continues fracturing and refusing to vote for them because “both sides are the same,” then all that happens is they keep shifting more and more right to try and capture Republican voters, which is exactly what they did this election, and many elections before it.
You don’t make the Democratic party platform more progressive by limiting the voters they can rely on to those increasingly more and more on the right. You do so by voting for them, getting them into power, then demanding change that the Republicans would never even consider allowing you to call for, let alone actually implement.
It’s not a guarantee, but at least it gives you a chance.
Differing treatment of nonprofits falls under “driving off the cliff at 95 vs. 100 mph.” The bare minimum approach to the climate crisis would be something on the scale of the Green New Deal. Better treatment of nonprofits is probably more than canceled out by approving more fracking permits, too.
I’m also of the opinion that taking over the Democratic Party from within is a better strategy than trying to destroy it and start over, if only because of how large a task the latter is.
without the Democrats even having a proper seat in office, how are they supposed to even pass any policy, no matter how leftward they go on the political spectrum?
As we’re seeing with Trump, you can do a lot with executive power and declaring an emergency. Over time you can translate this into more legislative support if what you’re doing is actually good.
if the left continues fracturing and refusing to vote for them because “both sides are the same,” then all that happens is they keep shifting more and more right
Democrats chasing the right dates back to the 70s. It is what is causing the left wing of the party to stop voting for them, not the other way around. As Bernie showed, even a moderate social democrat can bring in those voters and then some. You also see lower-level candidates win by outflanking Democrats from the left, e.g., the whole progressive prosecutor movement.
Besides, the only way to get a politician to move towards you is to threaten not to vote for them. They don’t chase voters they have in the bag; they chase voters who are on the fence. That’s part of why they’ve been moving right – they think they’ll pick up more voters from the center than they’ll lose from the left. The task is convincing them that unless they move left, they’ll lose.
I get the argument, I really do. I used to make it, too.
But this guy:
Was told 30+ years ago that we desperately need to hit the brakes. He has failed to do so because he’s wholly in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, and knows he’s among the most insulated from the worst effects of the crisis.
The answer to “which would you rather convince” is that neither can be convinced. One just has to put up a bit of a facade because more of his voters take the issue (marginally) more seriously. If that guy hasn’t done it in a generation, why would he do it now?
It’s also getting harder to justify the “accelerating less” part when Democrats do stuff like that article describes.
I get that. The problem for me is that this is a systemic issue, and it’s something that’s going to happen whether or not you as an individual participate, but it will impact your ability as an individual to fight for change.
We have a two-party duopoly. We have two bad choices. One is worse than the other, but neither will save us outright.
But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power. If you want to, say, fund more social programs, you’re going to watch Democrats possibly let you implement it, while Republicans will actively strip away what already exists the same day they get into office, then bar any new progress for the length of their term.
If you want to implement a system like ranked choice voting, you don’t want a wannabe dictator in power, because he’s obviously not going to make that as easy for you.
I don’t think the Democrats will actually save us in any way, nor do I think they’re currently pushing us in a very good direction overall, but the last thing I want is to increase the chance of someone like Trump staying in office by acting as though the Democrats are exactly equal, because all that will do is make any movement against right-wing policy extraordinarily difficult.
If I want to give myself the best odds of making a change, I want the people most sympathetic, even if only a little more than the alternative, to my cause, and right now, that’s the Democratic party, as unfortunate and depressing as that may be.
I also used to make this argument. And for a few decades after Democrats stopped routinely trying to do major things for their constituents (the 60s), it had some merit.
But since the scientific community started really sounding the climate change alarm bells in the early 90s, we’ve had 20 years of Democrats in charge. They’ve failed to meaningfully address the issue, and failed to either keep Republicans out of office or implement policies strong enough to withstand Republican attacks. We tried it the way you’re suggesting and it hasn’t worked.
We’re at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option. It doesn’t help that the last 30+ years of inaction means we can’t afford another 30 years of making small changes and hoping against hope that some new technology solves the problem for us.
It’s not just party policies and their direct actions that their position in power influences though, correct?
The party in power also influences how individuals can make changes the government is unwilling to. For example, the Trump administration wants to revoke the nonprofit status of certain charities, especially those working on the climate, and social justice issues.
If Democrats were in power, this threat wouldn’t likely exist, and thus these nonprofits wouldn’t have to fear their funding being put in jeopardy. These nonprofits often do substantially more work than the government on many issues, and even though the party isn’t directly implementing policy that supports their goals, it likely wouldn’t do anything to actively hinder their goals directly. Whereas in this case, we’re seeing Trump pursue just that.
While yes, I do think that if you have a party that’s more sympathetic to your cause, no matter how little, you stand a much greater chance at changing the party’s policies overall, I also think you have to look at the wider picture of how their policy impacts the ability of other groups and individuals to make personal changes too.
I doubt destruction is a viable option, simply because a one-party system is somewhat an inevitability of how our voting system works if you allow the consolidation and persistence we’ve seen down to 2 parties continue into just 1. If we got to the point of only one party due to the Democrats being erased, I don’t believe it would pave the way for a better new party, I think it would just entrench the Republicans.
That said, I do think a radical change within the Democratic party is possible if enough people demand it, but the problem is that without the Democrats even having a proper seat in office, how are they supposed to even pass any policy, no matter how leftward they go on the political spectrum? And if the left continues fracturing and refusing to vote for them because “both sides are the same,” then all that happens is they keep shifting more and more right to try and capture Republican voters, which is exactly what they did this election, and many elections before it.
You don’t make the Democratic party platform more progressive by limiting the voters they can rely on to those increasingly more and more on the right. You do so by voting for them, getting them into power, then demanding change that the Republicans would never even consider allowing you to call for, let alone actually implement.
It’s not a guarantee, but at least it gives you a chance.
Differing treatment of nonprofits falls under “driving off the cliff at 95 vs. 100 mph.” The bare minimum approach to the climate crisis would be something on the scale of the Green New Deal. Better treatment of nonprofits is probably more than canceled out by approving more fracking permits, too.
I’m also of the opinion that taking over the Democratic Party from within is a better strategy than trying to destroy it and start over, if only because of how large a task the latter is.
As we’re seeing with Trump, you can do a lot with executive power and declaring an emergency. Over time you can translate this into more legislative support if what you’re doing is actually good.
Democrats chasing the right dates back to the 70s. It is what is causing the left wing of the party to stop voting for them, not the other way around. As Bernie showed, even a moderate social democrat can bring in those voters and then some. You also see lower-level candidates win by outflanking Democrats from the left, e.g., the whole progressive prosecutor movement.
Besides, the only way to get a politician to move towards you is to threaten not to vote for them. They don’t chase voters they have in the bag; they chase voters who are on the fence. That’s part of why they’ve been moving right – they think they’ll pick up more voters from the center than they’ll lose from the left. The task is convincing them that unless they move left, they’ll lose.