I'm sure nazis/stormfront/proud boys are also a useful tool for trump to get re-elected and he definitely didn't start changing his policy to appease them... We aren't going to agree on this, obviously. You can't change your base without changing your policy eventually. And if Biden were to suddenly grow a spine and decide to be more progressive, the Nikki Haley voters will suddenly flip to being trump voters (or any reactionary equivalent to him) because they feel lied to. At best, Nikki Haley voters means Biden will be stuck politically, not able to move left even an inch. And at worst, he is free to move as far right as he wants due to liberals being generally okay with voting for him regardless of his support of genocide.
Like I said, we aren't going to agree on this.
Biden could suddenly appeal to nazis/stormfront/proud boys if he wanted to earn their votes, too, but he clearly doesn't. And therein lies the difference: Haley voters vs. Stormfront/proud boys. If you think there is minimal distance between these two groups then I don't know what to say. The mere point that we can't agree on this is exemplary as to why Biden must make concessions with the electorate in the first place in order to ensure the far-worse poison doesn't get into the White House in November.
Until you can provide an alternative solution to rally voters to put Biden over the 270 electoral votes, this is pie-in-the-sky dreaming in my view. Nevertheless, I appreciate the cordial discussion.
Honestly (and this is the point I thought you were going to make) there are more Nikki Haley voters than leftists in this country. I think nazis/stormfront/proud boys are too many, but not enough to influence an election.
The issue I'm seeing with Biden not giving concessions to leftists and progressives is that they're mainly the ones who have boots on the ground helping Biden get elected. Without politically active people who believe they can influence Biden helping him win, I'm not seeing any hope for his chances. The secondary effect is that once you lose leftists and progressives, they're VERY vocal online about why they aren't happy, which also hurts Biden's chances. So leftists and progressives might not be as numerous as Nikki Haley voters, but they still have influence over how people perceive this administration. I'm not sure if that effect is even quantifiable, or what matters more between the Nikki haley voters who choose to vote for him or the progressives/leftists who inadvertently cause apathy. Who knows. But if he cares about winning (which is still debatable as far as I'm concerned), he'd start giving concessions fast.
I see your concerns and find many of your points reasonable here. If you could be more explicit about what concessions to progressives he could give that he hasn't already and wouldn't otherwise jeopardizing another key voting-bloc in swing-states with swing-votes nonetheless, I'd be really interested to know. In that respect -- even among long-time progressives -- Biden has been one of the more progressive Presidents we've had. Even Bernie, AOC , Warren agree.
What I'm saying is I think it's clear that Bernie sat down with Biden in order to receive his endorsement, put Bernie in a leading budgetary role, and Biden pivoted left relative to where he was, say, 10-years-ago.
Circling back to my comment before: How far can he capitulate before it backfires with another voting bloc and again risks the literal nazi winning in just 8 months time?
I'll give you a glimpse into leftist spaces real quick: most people in there thinks Bernie, AOC, Warren, and even Katie porter are sellouts/traitors due to being slow or silent on their support of global colonialist projects. Likening them to a Kristen Sinema-esque person in progressive's clothing. Having them agree with Biden not only reinforces this opinion leftists have of them, but it becomes plainly obvious that none of them would have jobs anymore if Biden doesn't win, so it's in their best interest to capitulate towards the status quo.
If he was to break our arms partnerships with Israel and abstains from all future UN votes on Israel (which in no means fixes the situation here or abroad), I'm sure progressives could go back to holding their nose and voting for him. Honestly, so much shit needs to be addressed that's being ignored. The fact that there's multiple "cop cities" being built in the US is appalling and worthy of withholding voting for someone who won't address that alone, but still, progressives and leftists are used to holding our noses when it comes to horrific things we vote for, which is probably why hearing that we might be withholding due to genocide, liberals are collectively freaking out.
As far as the limits of his capitulation, he doesn't have to worry about liberals as they'll vote for him even if he's literally committing a genocide, so I'm not worried about them unless gas prices start to rise and they blame him for it. Republicans have been poisoned against democrats for decades- I honestly think maybe only 5% of Nikki haley voters would consider voting for Biden. The Arab community are watching their homes and families getting decimated with the help of Biden, so it'd honestly be hard to win them back through capitulation (even though he should try). Leftists and to a greater extent progressives are the people phone banking, going door to door, getting people registered, working polls, etc, and while their numbers aren't great, losing them is really rough for his chances at winning.
I think if he broke our arms deals, the right would scream that he's pro-hamas like they've been doing this whole time. CNN and other establishment news agencies might also saying that too since their profits relies on the status quo staying firm and headlines being emotionally charged. Immediately AIPAC donations would be halted and they would push candidates who are pro Israel to run against anyone who calls what is happening a genocide (this is already happening). Winning statewide elections would become more difficult if Biden capitulates to leftists and progressives with regards to financing a campaign. I think the backfire is less against a specific voting bloc and more with the sudden stoppage of political donations. Maybe he's waiting until AIPAC can't sponsor competition for state elections before voting season, but it's at the cost of Palestinian lives obviously. I'm also of a mind that the better and more relatable your ideas are, the less campaign money you need to advertise (to a certain extent). So honestly, if Biden wanted to be really sure he'd win instead of just winning back progressives and leftists, he should honestly pull out all the stops and push for popular policies. Call on congress to kill the filibuster and pack the court if you need to.
Thanks for the insight, I mean it. There is much agree with here — namely this: That the progressive grassroots organizers are the backbone of this country and that lacking voter-enthusiasm can cripple the momentum of the election, even if they vote themselves. I've made the same argument countless times when discussing the pitfalls of Hillary and to a lesser extent the risks to Biden. I also do agree there is merit to advocating for a policy that while it may be unpopular is the right thing to do. People with convictions are attractive; that's what distinguishes a good leader from an average leader — one who can see ahead of the curve and convince people of a direction before they get there. Unfortunately I don't think Biden is that; and I don't think that can happen in the 8 months we have left. What the polls are will likely be where they remain for many of these issues.
My response breaks down across 4 main points:
Whether liberals will break with Biden, or whether progressives will — and really, neither of these groups will likely break. These aren't the swing-voters in swing-states. What, are progressives who are traditionally the most-educated and civic-engaged ideological group suddenly decide to let Trump win? How will that advance their goals except for taking 2 or more steps back?
The vast majority of the shit that needs addressed and is being ignored as you mention is a direct result of the GOP obstructionism, combined with systemic such as the Supreme Court and Electoral College — NOT because Democrats don't desire to do it. Every single thing Biden is doing is related to how popular things are; that's the problem: appealing to millions of people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Sure you and I want the filibuster removed, but low-educated rural swing-voters in Ohio, Nevada, Arizona don't even know what a filibuster is.
I worry there's an element to the leftist movement that armchair purity tests at the cost of advancing progress. Instead of recognizing Bernie and AOC for what they're doing — actually running for office and seeing how the system operates from the inside — there are a lot who just cast them off as never being on their side in the first place, which I personally think is heavily myopic. In other words: What's more likely: that Bernie, AOC, Warren are traitors, or the Lemmy crowd of tankies of sub-22-year-olds are woefully out-of-touch with reality all the while possibly being subject to right-wing astroturfing to wedge-drive?
Yes the right-wing media machine will constantly call Biden Pro-Hamas, but it won't stick as effectively with critical swing-voters and apathetics as if he, for example, withdrew aid. Forget the the massive risk again in doing so when if Israel suffers another October 7th then everyone will paint Biden as leaving Israel defenseless and antisemitic. This is simply not good optics and would give the propaganda from the right legitimate bite with said swing-voters. I'm no advisor to Biden but if I was this would certainly be a consideration, for I don't even rule out a false-flag for Netanyahu.
Amazing discourse! Also, apologies in advance for being all over the place with my response because ADHD and dyslexia are hard when trying not to look like an idiot online haha.
Unfortunately I don’t think Biden is that; and I don’t think that can happen in the 8 months we have left.
This is kind of where we might differ here. Where Biden is staunchly pro-israel, his advisors know how much this issue is affecting his polling and could possibly get him to reverse his position if it becomes clear his position will lose him the election. I think that Biden's difficult decision is between doing the right thing, knowing that there could be a false flag attack that will happen and cause immense blowback against him among moderates (as well as known civilian casualties) or doing the politically expedient thing and waiting it out and hoping people forget about Palestine (guaranteeing civilian casualties) before November to prevent trump becoming president.
I think a big thing causing apathy is the fact that conservative voters want to break things and republican representatives happily oblige their requests, where the liberals and progressives generally want rights enshrined, which is nearly impossible with how this government is currently set up to run, so liberals and progressives never really get what they want unless it's attached to some pro-corporate or anti-privacy bill (or is watered down by republicans who just want to break it). From the perspective of someone not on the right, it seems like the government is broken because important things are never passed and terrible things are always passed. At some point, you start to think it's by design since the people who represent you never fight for you like the republican representatives fight "for their constituents" (there's a whole conversation about manufactured consent and propaganda to be had here, but to a conservative person, they at least are getting what they've been convinced they want).
I think some leftists are also accelerationists and would rather the worst case scenario happen so we as a society have to face the problems we've caused instead of slowly bleeding out, one minority group at a time. I'm not sure I'd put myself in this group, but knowing where our tax dollars are sent and seeing the carnage it creates even under a democratic president has made me view the system as inherently abusive. Being told that any amount of genocide could be classified as a "lesser evil" is such a wild take in my opinion and I'm not sure I could ever see a perspective in which my morals could bend like that to accommodate a president who would at least make my life easier than the other person when both of them have genocidal intent.
This is getting to be long and ranty, so I should probably address your 4 points.
"How will letting trump win advance leftist goals"
Metaphorically, if this was the trolly problem, leftists would rather push the trolly off the tracks or remove the people from the rails rather than pull the lever. If trump were to win and America did descend into a hellscape, I'd hope that anyone moderate and to the left would be willing to not accept that as reality. It would be 2 steps back, 10 steps forward if done correctly, which is way easier said than done, but if fascism's legitimately knocking at the door, you don't let it waltz in. You fix the gate outside so fascists can't get to your door again. Biden has appointed Garland to oversee the process to keep fascism out, which has failed spectacularly because securing our electoral process against fascists wasn't as important as possibly creating a political martyr. Just the fact that Trump is able to run again after J6 is reason enough for a lot of people to believe this political process has become farcical.
"Things that need addressing are being blocked by the GOP"
This will never not be the case though. It feels like we're stuck in a purgatory where the democrats can continually to slide to the right and we're forced to vote for them because a lame duck political party can never be worse than a fascist one. All while giving away our privacy, our ability to purchase a house or have the financial means to raise a child, our labor rights, our public land, our 3rd spaces, our clean water, etc because the alternative would be all of this plus fascism. It's not a democratic choice at this point. Either we have a malignant group who wants to destroy America or we choose the alternative however bad they might also be. Would people be okay voting for trump if hitler was running against him? At what point do you throw up your arms and say something has to change? That point for me and many others is now.
"are progressive representatives traitors or is something else going on"
I think there's probably some nuance missing specifically with these representatives when it comes to Israel Palestine. To change their tune on something that has been propagandized to us for decades as well as the collective understanding that antizionism actually isn't the same as antisemitism, I can give a bit of grace for politicians being slow to act or even speak when trying to also not embolden racists. Having a megaphone that big can cause a lot of damage if you speak too quickly. But being 6 months late feels long regardless. And feeling like you no longer are represented by someone who calls themselves progressive is fair, so it's up to them to make it up to constituents and it's up to constituents to forgive and restore support if positive and real action is made. I do suspect there is quite a bit of astro turfing going on everywhere honestly. Propaganda like that works because it takes existing issues and amplifies them to become a political flashpoint. But this isn't "teachers are putting litter boxes in classrooms because kids identify as cats" here. It's live footage of kids getting bombed from our phone and knowing Biden is bypassing congress to make it happen. It's a legitimate concern whether it has been amplified or not. I'm open to hear why I should consider their lives less important than mine, but I'm not sure I'm going to budge on my views there.
"Biden acting against Israel majorly affects moderates and their likelihood to vote for him as well as a false flag attack being likely to have massive blowback"
I fully agree with you here. If there is another attack right after Biden pulls aid, it doesn't matter if it was the right thing to do, Biden will be crucified for it. I suppose we should get some counterintelligence people over there to make sure to prevent something like that. But even if Biden were to step down if another attack happened, I'm not sure if any moderate would vote for a democrat for a couple election cycles. Unfortunately for this game of political chess, I don't adjust my moral line in the sand based on popularity. If there was ever an issue to be a single issue voter on, I suspect it might be this one.
No worries I can relate and appreciate the comment and apologies for taking so long to respond. Holidays, work, etc. For the record this will likely be my final response and I'll oblige you with the final word
When we talk about "lesser" genocide, I'm referring to any friction, any resistance, any braking -- if that means merely one less death than the inevitable alternative, then we should logically take that. I don't have to like either option, but it's always wiser to take the less-potent poison when it's a forced dichotomy.
Like you I can't reside in that camp of accelerationist "let it all crash and burn" because entropy dictates that picking up the pieces will be orders-of-magnitude more cost-intensive in all resources including time and lives.
Genocidal Intent is another thing; for I believe Trump has full intent of genocide while Biden does not have the intent of genocide. I think it is imperative we recognize that it is Netanyahu specifically committing genocide.
With respect to protesting Biden, not voting, and letting Trump in yet somehow derailing him as the proverbial trolly in a manner presumably akin to January 6th, I think that's just a bridge too far. Why let it go that far to begin with when you can put the brakes on now while transforming the Democratic party as the nation shifts from being less conservative to more progressive as the old boomers die off?
This is the problem we have at hand: The vast majority of this country is still more conservative than we care to admit, and while there are people like us who are far ahead of the curve, we have to drag these people along with us like a ball-and-chain. We have to spoon-feed them reality at the right time and place, such as legalizing same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, universal healthcare, etc.... And eventually, we do get them to finally "catch up," but it takes time.
I'm not too much of a fan of the idea of violent revolution; after all I have my kids to think of and we have all the tools at our disposal to avoid that right here and right now. Further I have to part ways with you on Garland, for I think he's doing a fantastic job. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can have a strong legal case, or a fast legal case -- but you can't have both. Especially when concerning the unprecedented nature of the charges and status of the person you're indicting -- mostly because of the great amount of outside money that will prop up and defend Trump as your department will be smeared as a political witch-hunt. Garland is a straight-shooter in my book, and it was genius to appoint Jack Smith as special counsel. Whether it comes in time and whether the stacked SCOTUS will impact this is obviously the question, but perhaps we shouldn't have abandoned Obama in crucial midterms both in 2010 and 2014 and this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
I respectfully object to the notion that the GOP blocking everything will be a constant. I'm not sure how old you are but I remember a time when the line between the two parties was so blurred they really could be the same. Especially circa 2001-2003. It's incredible we have progressives like AOC and Bernie and Warren who are taking senior leadership roles and who have legitimate influence over the party. Such individuals didn't even exist within the Democratic coalition in Congress. Republicans are desperate. They know the writing is on the wall for their party. Their voting demographic is literally dying away and they are making enough inroads with other minority groups without ultimately disenfranchising the very base that is keeping them afloat: white males who are very often racist and bigoted. They've forked themselves, and every 4 years that drags by yields more to the Millennials and Zoomer generation. It's almost inevitable they go the way of the Whigs, which is why they are so scared. Either way, I don't feel this changes my original point which is to say that Biden cannot be blamed for not being more progressive when even the progressive policies he implements — such as a tuition bailout for the working-class — is blocked by the Right. Doesn't matter WHO you put in there, that would be a given. So first we must focus on convincing people to join hands and wipe Republicans out. Only then we can focus on policy and the direction of the country.
If it were between Hitler and Trump I'd vote Trump out of his sheer incompetence but it would still be a problem; but let's also not pretend that that the choices are remotely comparable to these; for I believe that's woefully disingenuous. Biden has many good intentions but again are blocked by the other side. Meanwhile Hitler and Trump effectively share the identical ideological banner.
With respect to progressives perceiving the likes of AOC and Bernie, I must lean to the notion that they are still more informed on the nuances of the issues compared to the average critics thereof. More importantly they see the bigger picture of what is at stake. They know Biden is persuadable. They know Biden at least has concerns about Palestinians. They know Trump would NEVER say that Israel is committing "indiscriminate bombing." They know there is no chance of withdrawing aid to Israel with Trump. They do know, however, there is a chance with Biden. Moreover such progressives absolutely did raise concerns sooner than 6 months; the only problem is that they know they can give the rope to let Israel hang themselves and in turn you USA can be perceived as reacting to their documented atrocities as opposed to getting ahead of polling and jeopardizing losing the election and letting the significantly-worse threat to Palestinians get in for 4 years. That is the gambit at play.
So my thought-process if distilled to bullet-points goes something like this:
Trump is far worse than Biden for both Palestinians, Ukrainians, and the American people.
The rematch and choice of these two candidates is inevitable.
Biden must therefore win the 2024 election.
Biden must toe the line between progressives and larger more critical voting-blocs of apathetic/ignorant swing-voters (of who 1/3 are undecided on Israeli actions and 1/3 support their actions), and progressive activists.
Biden cannot get ahead of the polls without risking reelection
Biden cannot withdraw aid without setting himself up for a false-flag.
The Democrats are softly pulling themselves away from Israel, which I think is the smart move.
Whoops. I was signed out and just now realized I had this notification. I do think a lot of our differences is just perspective that have led on to very different outcomes. I do appreciate the discussion, sincerely, because as someone who was in the liberal camp for the longest time, it's weird to feel such ire all the time from those same kinds of people online.
Here's some of the perspective differences we have:
You have a kid, where me and my partner have decided that the world is probably too fucked to ever want to bring a kid into this world. I can see how that would make you more protective of a status quo that keeps you and your family relatively safe where I see how so many people are struggling and me and my partner are willing to fight to make it right. I don't think either of us are wrong for these perspectives and I'd likely be where you are if I had children (and thought well enough about the future to want children).
2001-2003 was a wild time where everyone collectively decided that becoming more of an authoritarian surveillance state was a good thing under the guise of national security. I'm not sure if I'd consider the democrats sliding to agree with republicans on almost everything something that we should have rose tinted glasses on.
Both of us seem to be playing out our own version of "make the right decision, not the easy decision"
AOC and Sanders aren't, in my opinion, more measurably left than others in government nearly a decade ago. Harry Truman was pushing hard for Universal healthcare. Also In the Revenue act of 1935, there was a progressive tax rate of 75% for the top bracket. (that's only 37% today, and oftentimes many loopholes and tax havens make this percentage much lower). Bernie, I think, was mainly pushing for wealth, corporate, and estate tax changes, and they seem on par or less strong than the tax plans from ~90 years ago. I love both Sanders and AOC's views on their civic duty, but it will always feel like it falls short when AOC celebrates "taxing the rich" by instituting a 1% tax on stock buybacks when those shouldn't even be legal in the first place. And yes, I get that they're trying their hardest, but the issue is that both of them are fought hard by the rest of the democratic party and seen as antichrists from the republican party. Would republican voters who are struggling hate bernie sanders and AOC if they weren't being propagandized by every media outlet out there that their proposals were idealistic, unrealistic, and wasteful instead of doing things that would directly help them? It's a complicated series of cogs that make this machine work, so I can only judge democrats by what they as a group do rather than what a few of them want. I refuse to be swayed by the carrot and the string politics anymore by believing that democrats will all join hands around any policy bernie and AOC has without watering it down to make republicans more happy, only for republicans to water it down further, only for republicans to kill that bill.
These democrats won't wipe out the republicans without also wiping themselves out since both of them are parties that primarily support the growth of capital, not health/safety of residents, not equitability, not ethics, not the health of the planet. If those other things come, it won't come at the cost of capital (and to a lesser degree political power). Democrats know they don't have to sacrifice the capital of corporations to make the lives of citizens better because the only ones fighting for labor/human rights are a tiny minority of representatives and there'll always be someone there to block it, whether they are republican or democrat. There can always be a sacrificial lamb that can be propped up on the ballot if it helps maintain capital. Even people who ran as progressive democrats can suddenly change their affiliation to republican after winning the election if it benefits capital. Even if Democrats encompass sinema and manchin. This is why the status quo needs to change and the parties need to die. The parties don't die by continuing to tell them to keep going on like they have been.
"I respectfully object to the notion that the GOP blocking everything will be a constant."
There will always be people who will be resistant to seeing change in the tangible world whether it's the GOP or not. And they will continue to be voted on by people who agree with them. I suspect democrats will be this group in the future if they manage to outlive the republicans. Change can be extremely scary, especially when it seems like the entire world is becoming more and more fascist, so I can see why someone with a child would want to protect the status quo at all cost. This fucked up world might give your child a full life at least. If too much changed too quickly, it might be too difficult to think about what impacts it might have on your child's life. I concede that there'll likely be nothing I can say that can change the protective nature of a parent, and while I wish I was as optimistic as you, I've seen too many bloody limbs that were caused by my comfort to continue in my comfort since the only things I really have to protect are my partner and our dog. Both of us have a lot to lose with a trump presidency and we know a lot of people like us do as well. I've voted democrat down ballot my whole life and me and so many of my friends feel entirely betrayed by the democratic party as a whole- so much that our relationship has shifted from odd-bedfellows to a malignant force that keeps a husk of a party (republicans) legitimate by only being a little more popular than them. I don't believe that the vast majority of voting americans are just to the left of literal fascism. There's a reason why civic apathy is so high- they don't see anything they want being proposed or protected. If republicans win this upcoming election, that doesn't upset the democrats' main goal of securing capital. I'm sure some of them can even write a few books on their experience during another trump presidency. But if a theoretical party existed that helped out the vast majority of americans by making things easier, cheaper, and more transparent, that would upset both the democrat and republican's goal of securing capital. This is why leftists say things akin to "both sides". They aren't the same. They've very different. But they're both pro-capital and it's very obvious that's what they fight for over anything else.
Speaking of biden's views on Israel, he seems to be more vocally zionist than any other president in my lifetime. Trump might be racist against arabs, but biden's zionism is colonialism + being racist against arabs (even if not vocally racist like trump). I'm not saying trump would be better for palestine. He likely would ramp up things just to look strong in comparison to biden- not because he has any idea what's going on. But that also assumes palestine will still be there when trump is sworn in.
The trump vs hitler question wasn't meant to be trying to compare biden with either of them- I mainly wanted to see how far along you'd believe in and participate in this system even if you know that both choices are actively bad. Would it have to be hitler vs pol pot before you consider rising up instead of believing that voting will help in a meaningful way? I'd like to believe everyone has a line whether they know it or not. A system that allows a trump to run and win is a system not designed for us to succeed. And I'm not even against voting- I think local elections are extremely important. I just really don't think a single person with unilateral control over our military actions is a good idea. Actions related to war should require unanimous consent so it rarely happens. But it isn't because securing resources for energy production or land to create capital is easily possible for someone who can be the sacrificial lamb if the populace isn't sufficiently convinced that the people we're bombing aren't evil enough. The capitalistic machine marches forward regardless of the happiness of the populace.
The rematch and choice of these two candidates is inevitable.
This is elder abuse at this point to run them. One or both of them might die during the campaign. And at this point, it might be the best case scenario since I can't see either of them stepping down.
I'm sure nazis/stormfront/proud boys are also a useful tool for trump to get re-elected and he definitely didn't start changing his policy to appease them... We aren't going to agree on this, obviously. You can't change your base without changing your policy eventually. And if Biden were to suddenly grow a spine and decide to be more progressive, the Nikki Haley voters will suddenly flip to being trump voters (or any reactionary equivalent to him) because they feel lied to. At best, Nikki Haley voters means Biden will be stuck politically, not able to move left even an inch. And at worst, he is free to move as far right as he wants due to liberals being generally okay with voting for him regardless of his support of genocide.
Like I said, we aren't going to agree on this.
Biden could suddenly appeal to nazis/stormfront/proud boys if he wanted to earn their votes, too, but he clearly doesn't. And therein lies the difference: Haley voters vs. Stormfront/proud boys. If you think there is minimal distance between these two groups then I don't know what to say. The mere point that we can't agree on this is exemplary as to why Biden must make concessions with the electorate in the first place in order to ensure the far-worse poison doesn't get into the White House in November.
Until you can provide an alternative solution to rally voters to put Biden over the 270 electoral votes, this is pie-in-the-sky dreaming in my view. Nevertheless, I appreciate the cordial discussion.
Honestly (and this is the point I thought you were going to make) there are more Nikki Haley voters than leftists in this country. I think nazis/stormfront/proud boys are too many, but not enough to influence an election.
The issue I'm seeing with Biden not giving concessions to leftists and progressives is that they're mainly the ones who have boots on the ground helping Biden get elected. Without politically active people who believe they can influence Biden helping him win, I'm not seeing any hope for his chances. The secondary effect is that once you lose leftists and progressives, they're VERY vocal online about why they aren't happy, which also hurts Biden's chances. So leftists and progressives might not be as numerous as Nikki Haley voters, but they still have influence over how people perceive this administration. I'm not sure if that effect is even quantifiable, or what matters more between the Nikki haley voters who choose to vote for him or the progressives/leftists who inadvertently cause apathy. Who knows. But if he cares about winning (which is still debatable as far as I'm concerned), he'd start giving concessions fast.
I see your concerns and find many of your points reasonable here. If you could be more explicit about what concessions to progressives he could give that he hasn't already and wouldn't otherwise jeopardizing another key voting-bloc in swing-states with swing-votes nonetheless, I'd be really interested to know. In that respect -- even among long-time progressives -- Biden has been one of the more progressive Presidents we've had. Even Bernie, AOC , Warren agree.
What I'm saying is I think it's clear that Bernie sat down with Biden in order to receive his endorsement, put Bernie in a leading budgetary role, and Biden pivoted left relative to where he was, say, 10-years-ago.
Circling back to my comment before: How far can he capitulate before it backfires with another voting bloc and again risks the literal nazi winning in just 8 months time?
I'll give you a glimpse into leftist spaces real quick: most people in there thinks Bernie, AOC, Warren, and even Katie porter are sellouts/traitors due to being slow or silent on their support of global colonialist projects. Likening them to a Kristen Sinema-esque person in progressive's clothing. Having them agree with Biden not only reinforces this opinion leftists have of them, but it becomes plainly obvious that none of them would have jobs anymore if Biden doesn't win, so it's in their best interest to capitulate towards the status quo.
If he was to break our arms partnerships with Israel and abstains from all future UN votes on Israel (which in no means fixes the situation here or abroad), I'm sure progressives could go back to holding their nose and voting for him. Honestly, so much shit needs to be addressed that's being ignored. The fact that there's multiple "cop cities" being built in the US is appalling and worthy of withholding voting for someone who won't address that alone, but still, progressives and leftists are used to holding our noses when it comes to horrific things we vote for, which is probably why hearing that we might be withholding due to genocide, liberals are collectively freaking out.
As far as the limits of his capitulation, he doesn't have to worry about liberals as they'll vote for him even if he's literally committing a genocide, so I'm not worried about them unless gas prices start to rise and they blame him for it. Republicans have been poisoned against democrats for decades- I honestly think maybe only 5% of Nikki haley voters would consider voting for Biden. The Arab community are watching their homes and families getting decimated with the help of Biden, so it'd honestly be hard to win them back through capitulation (even though he should try). Leftists and to a greater extent progressives are the people phone banking, going door to door, getting people registered, working polls, etc, and while their numbers aren't great, losing them is really rough for his chances at winning.
I think if he broke our arms deals, the right would scream that he's pro-hamas like they've been doing this whole time. CNN and other establishment news agencies might also saying that too since their profits relies on the status quo staying firm and headlines being emotionally charged. Immediately AIPAC donations would be halted and they would push candidates who are pro Israel to run against anyone who calls what is happening a genocide (this is already happening). Winning statewide elections would become more difficult if Biden capitulates to leftists and progressives with regards to financing a campaign. I think the backfire is less against a specific voting bloc and more with the sudden stoppage of political donations. Maybe he's waiting until AIPAC can't sponsor competition for state elections before voting season, but it's at the cost of Palestinian lives obviously. I'm also of a mind that the better and more relatable your ideas are, the less campaign money you need to advertise (to a certain extent). So honestly, if Biden wanted to be really sure he'd win instead of just winning back progressives and leftists, he should honestly pull out all the stops and push for popular policies. Call on congress to kill the filibuster and pack the court if you need to.
Thanks for the insight, I mean it. There is much agree with here — namely this: That the progressive grassroots organizers are the backbone of this country and that lacking voter-enthusiasm can cripple the momentum of the election, even if they vote themselves. I've made the same argument countless times when discussing the pitfalls of Hillary and to a lesser extent the risks to Biden. I also do agree there is merit to advocating for a policy that while it may be unpopular is the right thing to do. People with convictions are attractive; that's what distinguishes a good leader from an average leader — one who can see ahead of the curve and convince people of a direction before they get there. Unfortunately I don't think Biden is that; and I don't think that can happen in the 8 months we have left. What the polls are will likely be where they remain for many of these issues.
My response breaks down across 4 main points:
Whether liberals will break with Biden, or whether progressives will — and really, neither of these groups will likely break. These aren't the swing-voters in swing-states. What, are progressives who are traditionally the most-educated and civic-engaged ideological group suddenly decide to let Trump win? How will that advance their goals except for taking 2 or more steps back?
The vast majority of the shit that needs addressed and is being ignored as you mention is a direct result of the GOP obstructionism, combined with systemic such as the Supreme Court and Electoral College — NOT because Democrats don't desire to do it. Every single thing Biden is doing is related to how popular things are; that's the problem: appealing to millions of people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Sure you and I want the filibuster removed, but low-educated rural swing-voters in Ohio, Nevada, Arizona don't even know what a filibuster is.
I worry there's an element to the leftist movement that armchair purity tests at the cost of advancing progress. Instead of recognizing Bernie and AOC for what they're doing — actually running for office and seeing how the system operates from the inside — there are a lot who just cast them off as never being on their side in the first place, which I personally think is heavily myopic. In other words: What's more likely: that Bernie, AOC, Warren are traitors, or the Lemmy crowd of tankies of sub-22-year-olds are woefully out-of-touch with reality all the while possibly being subject to right-wing astroturfing to wedge-drive?
Yes the right-wing media machine will constantly call Biden Pro-Hamas, but it won't stick as effectively with critical swing-voters and apathetics as if he, for example, withdrew aid. Forget the the massive risk again in doing so when if Israel suffers another October 7th then everyone will paint Biden as leaving Israel defenseless and antisemitic. This is simply not good optics and would give the propaganda from the right legitimate bite with said swing-voters. I'm no advisor to Biden but if I was this would certainly be a consideration, for I don't even rule out a false-flag for Netanyahu.
Amazing discourse! Also, apologies in advance for being all over the place with my response because ADHD and dyslexia are hard when trying not to look like an idiot online haha.
This is kind of where we might differ here. Where Biden is staunchly pro-israel, his advisors know how much this issue is affecting his polling and could possibly get him to reverse his position if it becomes clear his position will lose him the election. I think that Biden's difficult decision is between doing the right thing, knowing that there could be a false flag attack that will happen and cause immense blowback against him among moderates (as well as known civilian casualties) or doing the politically expedient thing and waiting it out and hoping people forget about Palestine (guaranteeing civilian casualties) before November to prevent trump becoming president.
I think a big thing causing apathy is the fact that conservative voters want to break things and republican representatives happily oblige their requests, where the liberals and progressives generally want rights enshrined, which is nearly impossible with how this government is currently set up to run, so liberals and progressives never really get what they want unless it's attached to some pro-corporate or anti-privacy bill (or is watered down by republicans who just want to break it). From the perspective of someone not on the right, it seems like the government is broken because important things are never passed and terrible things are always passed. At some point, you start to think it's by design since the people who represent you never fight for you like the republican representatives fight "for their constituents" (there's a whole conversation about manufactured consent and propaganda to be had here, but to a conservative person, they at least are getting what they've been convinced they want).
I think some leftists are also accelerationists and would rather the worst case scenario happen so we as a society have to face the problems we've caused instead of slowly bleeding out, one minority group at a time. I'm not sure I'd put myself in this group, but knowing where our tax dollars are sent and seeing the carnage it creates even under a democratic president has made me view the system as inherently abusive. Being told that any amount of genocide could be classified as a "lesser evil" is such a wild take in my opinion and I'm not sure I could ever see a perspective in which my morals could bend like that to accommodate a president who would at least make my life easier than the other person when both of them have genocidal intent.
This is getting to be long and ranty, so I should probably address your 4 points.
"How will letting trump win advance leftist goals" Metaphorically, if this was the trolly problem, leftists would rather push the trolly off the tracks or remove the people from the rails rather than pull the lever. If trump were to win and America did descend into a hellscape, I'd hope that anyone moderate and to the left would be willing to not accept that as reality. It would be 2 steps back, 10 steps forward if done correctly, which is way easier said than done, but if fascism's legitimately knocking at the door, you don't let it waltz in. You fix the gate outside so fascists can't get to your door again. Biden has appointed Garland to oversee the process to keep fascism out, which has failed spectacularly because securing our electoral process against fascists wasn't as important as possibly creating a political martyr. Just the fact that Trump is able to run again after J6 is reason enough for a lot of people to believe this political process has become farcical.
"Things that need addressing are being blocked by the GOP" This will never not be the case though. It feels like we're stuck in a purgatory where the democrats can continually to slide to the right and we're forced to vote for them because a lame duck political party can never be worse than a fascist one. All while giving away our privacy, our ability to purchase a house or have the financial means to raise a child, our labor rights, our public land, our 3rd spaces, our clean water, etc because the alternative would be all of this plus fascism. It's not a democratic choice at this point. Either we have a malignant group who wants to destroy America or we choose the alternative however bad they might also be. Would people be okay voting for trump if hitler was running against him? At what point do you throw up your arms and say something has to change? That point for me and many others is now.
"are progressive representatives traitors or is something else going on" I think there's probably some nuance missing specifically with these representatives when it comes to Israel Palestine. To change their tune on something that has been propagandized to us for decades as well as the collective understanding that antizionism actually isn't the same as antisemitism, I can give a bit of grace for politicians being slow to act or even speak when trying to also not embolden racists. Having a megaphone that big can cause a lot of damage if you speak too quickly. But being 6 months late feels long regardless. And feeling like you no longer are represented by someone who calls themselves progressive is fair, so it's up to them to make it up to constituents and it's up to constituents to forgive and restore support if positive and real action is made. I do suspect there is quite a bit of astro turfing going on everywhere honestly. Propaganda like that works because it takes existing issues and amplifies them to become a political flashpoint. But this isn't "teachers are putting litter boxes in classrooms because kids identify as cats" here. It's live footage of kids getting bombed from our phone and knowing Biden is bypassing congress to make it happen. It's a legitimate concern whether it has been amplified or not. I'm open to hear why I should consider their lives less important than mine, but I'm not sure I'm going to budge on my views there.
"Biden acting against Israel majorly affects moderates and their likelihood to vote for him as well as a false flag attack being likely to have massive blowback" I fully agree with you here. If there is another attack right after Biden pulls aid, it doesn't matter if it was the right thing to do, Biden will be crucified for it. I suppose we should get some counterintelligence people over there to make sure to prevent something like that. But even if Biden were to step down if another attack happened, I'm not sure if any moderate would vote for a democrat for a couple election cycles. Unfortunately for this game of political chess, I don't adjust my moral line in the sand based on popularity. If there was ever an issue to be a single issue voter on, I suspect it might be this one.
No worries I can relate and appreciate the comment and apologies for taking so long to respond. Holidays, work, etc. For the record this will likely be my final response and I'll oblige you with the final word
When we talk about "lesser" genocide, I'm referring to any friction, any resistance, any braking -- if that means merely one less death than the inevitable alternative, then we should logically take that. I don't have to like either option, but it's always wiser to take the less-potent poison when it's a forced dichotomy.
Like you I can't reside in that camp of accelerationist "let it all crash and burn" because entropy dictates that picking up the pieces will be orders-of-magnitude more cost-intensive in all resources including time and lives.
Genocidal Intent is another thing; for I believe Trump has full intent of genocide while Biden does not have the intent of genocide. I think it is imperative we recognize that it is Netanyahu specifically committing genocide.
With respect to protesting Biden, not voting, and letting Trump in yet somehow derailing him as the proverbial trolly in a manner presumably akin to January 6th, I think that's just a bridge too far. Why let it go that far to begin with when you can put the brakes on now while transforming the Democratic party as the nation shifts from being less conservative to more progressive as the old boomers die off?
This is the problem we have at hand: The vast majority of this country is still more conservative than we care to admit, and while there are people like us who are far ahead of the curve, we have to drag these people along with us like a ball-and-chain. We have to spoon-feed them reality at the right time and place, such as legalizing same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, universal healthcare, etc.... And eventually, we do get them to finally "catch up," but it takes time.
I'm not too much of a fan of the idea of violent revolution; after all I have my kids to think of and we have all the tools at our disposal to avoid that right here and right now. Further I have to part ways with you on Garland, for I think he's doing a fantastic job. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can have a strong legal case, or a fast legal case -- but you can't have both. Especially when concerning the unprecedented nature of the charges and status of the person you're indicting -- mostly because of the great amount of outside money that will prop up and defend Trump as your department will be smeared as a political witch-hunt. Garland is a straight-shooter in my book, and it was genius to appoint Jack Smith as special counsel. Whether it comes in time and whether the stacked SCOTUS will impact this is obviously the question, but perhaps we shouldn't have abandoned Obama in crucial midterms both in 2010 and 2014 and this wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
I respectfully object to the notion that the GOP blocking everything will be a constant. I'm not sure how old you are but I remember a time when the line between the two parties was so blurred they really could be the same. Especially circa 2001-2003. It's incredible we have progressives like AOC and Bernie and Warren who are taking senior leadership roles and who have legitimate influence over the party. Such individuals didn't even exist within the Democratic coalition in Congress. Republicans are desperate. They know the writing is on the wall for their party. Their voting demographic is literally dying away and they are making enough inroads with other minority groups without ultimately disenfranchising the very base that is keeping them afloat: white males who are very often racist and bigoted. They've forked themselves, and every 4 years that drags by yields more to the Millennials and Zoomer generation. It's almost inevitable they go the way of the Whigs, which is why they are so scared. Either way, I don't feel this changes my original point which is to say that Biden cannot be blamed for not being more progressive when even the progressive policies he implements — such as a tuition bailout for the working-class — is blocked by the Right. Doesn't matter WHO you put in there, that would be a given. So first we must focus on convincing people to join hands and wipe Republicans out. Only then we can focus on policy and the direction of the country.
If it were between Hitler and Trump I'd vote Trump out of his sheer incompetence but it would still be a problem; but let's also not pretend that that the choices are remotely comparable to these; for I believe that's woefully disingenuous. Biden has many good intentions but again are blocked by the other side. Meanwhile Hitler and Trump effectively share the identical ideological banner.
With respect to progressives perceiving the likes of AOC and Bernie, I must lean to the notion that they are still more informed on the nuances of the issues compared to the average critics thereof. More importantly they see the bigger picture of what is at stake. They know Biden is persuadable. They know Biden at least has concerns about Palestinians. They know Trump would NEVER say that Israel is committing "indiscriminate bombing." They know there is no chance of withdrawing aid to Israel with Trump. They do know, however, there is a chance with Biden. Moreover such progressives absolutely did raise concerns sooner than 6 months; the only problem is that they know they can give the rope to let Israel hang themselves and in turn you USA can be perceived as reacting to their documented atrocities as opposed to getting ahead of polling and jeopardizing losing the election and letting the significantly-worse threat to Palestinians get in for 4 years. That is the gambit at play.
So my thought-process if distilled to bullet-points goes something like this:
The Democrats are softly pulling themselves away from Israel, which I think is the smart move.
Whoops. I was signed out and just now realized I had this notification. I do think a lot of our differences is just perspective that have led on to very different outcomes. I do appreciate the discussion, sincerely, because as someone who was in the liberal camp for the longest time, it's weird to feel such ire all the time from those same kinds of people online.
Here's some of the perspective differences we have:
You have a kid, where me and my partner have decided that the world is probably too fucked to ever want to bring a kid into this world. I can see how that would make you more protective of a status quo that keeps you and your family relatively safe where I see how so many people are struggling and me and my partner are willing to fight to make it right. I don't think either of us are wrong for these perspectives and I'd likely be where you are if I had children (and thought well enough about the future to want children).
2001-2003 was a wild time where everyone collectively decided that becoming more of an authoritarian surveillance state was a good thing under the guise of national security. I'm not sure if I'd consider the democrats sliding to agree with republicans on almost everything something that we should have rose tinted glasses on.
Both of us seem to be playing out our own version of "make the right decision, not the easy decision"
AOC and Sanders aren't, in my opinion, more measurably left than others in government nearly a decade ago. Harry Truman was pushing hard for Universal healthcare. Also In the Revenue act of 1935, there was a progressive tax rate of 75% for the top bracket. (that's only 37% today, and oftentimes many loopholes and tax havens make this percentage much lower). Bernie, I think, was mainly pushing for wealth, corporate, and estate tax changes, and they seem on par or less strong than the tax plans from ~90 years ago. I love both Sanders and AOC's views on their civic duty, but it will always feel like it falls short when AOC celebrates "taxing the rich" by instituting a 1% tax on stock buybacks when those shouldn't even be legal in the first place. And yes, I get that they're trying their hardest, but the issue is that both of them are fought hard by the rest of the democratic party and seen as antichrists from the republican party. Would republican voters who are struggling hate bernie sanders and AOC if they weren't being propagandized by every media outlet out there that their proposals were idealistic, unrealistic, and wasteful instead of doing things that would directly help them? It's a complicated series of cogs that make this machine work, so I can only judge democrats by what they as a group do rather than what a few of them want. I refuse to be swayed by the carrot and the string politics anymore by believing that democrats will all join hands around any policy bernie and AOC has without watering it down to make republicans more happy, only for republicans to water it down further, only for republicans to kill that bill.
These democrats won't wipe out the republicans without also wiping themselves out since both of them are parties that primarily support the growth of capital, not health/safety of residents, not equitability, not ethics, not the health of the planet. If those other things come, it won't come at the cost of capital (and to a lesser degree political power). Democrats know they don't have to sacrifice the capital of corporations to make the lives of citizens better because the only ones fighting for labor/human rights are a tiny minority of representatives and there'll always be someone there to block it, whether they are republican or democrat. There can always be a sacrificial lamb that can be propped up on the ballot if it helps maintain capital. Even people who ran as progressive democrats can suddenly change their affiliation to republican after winning the election if it benefits capital. Even if Democrats encompass sinema and manchin. This is why the status quo needs to change and the parties need to die. The parties don't die by continuing to tell them to keep going on like they have been.
There will always be people who will be resistant to seeing change in the tangible world whether it's the GOP or not. And they will continue to be voted on by people who agree with them. I suspect democrats will be this group in the future if they manage to outlive the republicans. Change can be extremely scary, especially when it seems like the entire world is becoming more and more fascist, so I can see why someone with a child would want to protect the status quo at all cost. This fucked up world might give your child a full life at least. If too much changed too quickly, it might be too difficult to think about what impacts it might have on your child's life. I concede that there'll likely be nothing I can say that can change the protective nature of a parent, and while I wish I was as optimistic as you, I've seen too many bloody limbs that were caused by my comfort to continue in my comfort since the only things I really have to protect are my partner and our dog. Both of us have a lot to lose with a trump presidency and we know a lot of people like us do as well. I've voted democrat down ballot my whole life and me and so many of my friends feel entirely betrayed by the democratic party as a whole- so much that our relationship has shifted from odd-bedfellows to a malignant force that keeps a husk of a party (republicans) legitimate by only being a little more popular than them. I don't believe that the vast majority of voting americans are just to the left of literal fascism. There's a reason why civic apathy is so high- they don't see anything they want being proposed or protected. If republicans win this upcoming election, that doesn't upset the democrats' main goal of securing capital. I'm sure some of them can even write a few books on their experience during another trump presidency. But if a theoretical party existed that helped out the vast majority of americans by making things easier, cheaper, and more transparent, that would upset both the democrat and republican's goal of securing capital. This is why leftists say things akin to "both sides". They aren't the same. They've very different. But they're both pro-capital and it's very obvious that's what they fight for over anything else.
Speaking of biden's views on Israel, he seems to be more vocally zionist than any other president in my lifetime. Trump might be racist against arabs, but biden's zionism is colonialism + being racist against arabs (even if not vocally racist like trump). I'm not saying trump would be better for palestine. He likely would ramp up things just to look strong in comparison to biden- not because he has any idea what's going on. But that also assumes palestine will still be there when trump is sworn in.
The trump vs hitler question wasn't meant to be trying to compare biden with either of them- I mainly wanted to see how far along you'd believe in and participate in this system even if you know that both choices are actively bad. Would it have to be hitler vs pol pot before you consider rising up instead of believing that voting will help in a meaningful way? I'd like to believe everyone has a line whether they know it or not. A system that allows a trump to run and win is a system not designed for us to succeed. And I'm not even against voting- I think local elections are extremely important. I just really don't think a single person with unilateral control over our military actions is a good idea. Actions related to war should require unanimous consent so it rarely happens. But it isn't because securing resources for energy production or land to create capital is easily possible for someone who can be the sacrificial lamb if the populace isn't sufficiently convinced that the people we're bombing aren't evil enough. The capitalistic machine marches forward regardless of the happiness of the populace.
This is elder abuse at this point to run them. One or both of them might die during the campaign. And at this point, it might be the best case scenario since I can't see either of them stepping down.