What other things have options where everything is so bad that it's a matter of "what sucks the least" rather than "what's the best"?
What other things have options where everything is so bad that it's a matter of "what sucks the least" rather than "what's the best"?
You're viewing a single thread.
Because too many of us who had selfish political actions, and for decades kept saying "both sides are bad" while the side nearest facism kept acting in bad faith.
Democratic elections have always in the end been about picking the least-bad option. And, like it or not, elections and their consequences shape the rest of the world.
It's true that "both sides are bad" is what led us to being closer to fascism than ever.
But you've got it backwards.
The "less bad" party being able to count on securing votes simply by being "less bad" allows for the "more bad" party to lead the march, and the "less bad" party to follow while still being "less bad". This creates a slow march towards fascism while maintaining the illusion of choice in the population instilling passivity as they can always just "vote for less bad".
I don't know how you square the circle of asserting that 'both sided are bad' is what got us here and still echoing "less bad" to buttress their thesis
Waiting for the left to be "good" instead of "less bad" is what makes "both sides are bad" such an effective demobilization tactic.
No, settling for "less bad" instead of fighting for good is what makes the "less bad" continue their march towards fascism.
Very telling you see the only option as voting for "less bad" or "waiting" for them to magically change leftward...
They will never change leftward unless you force them to change.
What does that fight look like, in your mind? Standing and shouting for Bernie and then sitting out the general when Clinton wins? Or arguing for Bernie in the primary since he's the best choice and then arguing just as hard for Clinton in the general since she's the best choice then?
Primary-only voting doesn't force anyone to do anything but ignore us harder in the primary.
And if that isn't what you mean by your objection to framing all elections as choices for "least bad", then why are you echoing the rhetoric of those who do?
If you reward rightward shifts with your vote just as well as you reward leftward shifts. Why would they ever move left, instead of banking your vote and trying to secure more and more rightist votes by moving right? How do you beat fascism by marching along a fascist line?
That fight looks like placing your line in the sand, and once it is crossed those on the other side are your enemies, lest you end up following and drawing new meaningless lines.
That fight looks like working within your communities to spread education and recognition about who those enemies are, and building structure in your community so that when the enemy is identified you can work together to ensure the enemy feels your resistance.
After which, they may just cross that line back over, recognizing that you now see them as an enemy and not an ally, and that they need you if they wish to have success.
If they don't, then that just further reveals their intention was always to march rightward regardless, the only difference is you are no longer marching alongside them and have instead set the groundwork for opposing fascist enemies.
No they fucking haven't.
The uniparty thing started with like Clinton... Throughout our history, we had choices. Very meaningful ones. Maybe not the ones we wanted, but we had different courses for the county. It was always towards something
Click through some of these. This was the first rise of a fascist movement in the US, one that went on to influence Germany.
Did we hold the line and insist everything is fine? Fuck no, if you click back you'll the Republicans held everything, the other two candidates had zero chance. Click forward and you get the largest wave of progressivism in our history, it took generations to tear down those safety nets, and they're still not completely gone
That's where we are now. Harm reduction doesn't win, movements win.
Picture the clearest example in human history, where one side was absolute villains and the other a superman-esque obvious good guy.
Then explain to me how the good guy is not the "least bad" choice.
You're missing my point entirely.
That's loser talk. That's how you lose elections. That's how Trump won, twice. It barely got Biden in the door, because Trump was currently in office
You don't have to be the less bad choice. You have to be the good choice. You have to stand for something. You have to have a message. You have to fight. You have to make enemies.
A Democrat will win the next election, no matter what. But in 2028? It very likely will be 4 more years of fascism if all we can muster is "well, it's our guy or another fascist"
The only way to stop this is to get populist progressive candidates in office. In every office, in every election.
The Overton window needs to be moved left, or this never ends.
Quit with the loser talk and get involved with local elections. Go join your local DSA or phone bank with progressive victory. Help pave the way for a good candidate
So, you are in favor of "my guy or the Nazi" voting? I didn't hear a "no", there.
It isn't "loser talk" to recognize the rules that elections run by, or to push back against the "both sides" rhetoric that lets the Overton window drift ever rightward.
Either you show up and vote in every election for the least bad candidate, be they good or great or only "not as bad", or you are doing more harm than good.
I didn't say "no"
I said it's loser talk. It's weak. Just like the Democrats. Which is why they're the enemy - they're in the way, and if we don't sweep out the Schumers and Jefferies the DNC will continue to collaborate with the Nazis against populist progressive candidates
You can't adopt their framing. Not maga's framing, or the DNC framing. Reject it, just like I reject your premise that voting is just harm reduction.
If you want to win, you can't talk like that. You can't bet on "safe" candidates. You can't settle for "not a Nazi". You have to demand more, you have to have fire and speak of hope for the future
That's a hell of a lot of words that aren't either "of course we should vote in every election for the best possible candidate" or "no, we should withhold our votes in the general if the Dems don't nominate someone sufficiently progressive."
If you mean the latter, say it. If you don't, then say that, too.
I reject that framing. It's a loaded question, it's loser bullshit and I won't have it
I'm not saying vote every election. I'm saying win every election.
How do you win? Not by betting on the lesser evil. You do it by putting in the work to have a candidate you believe in. You do it by starting today, so that when the election comes your vote will not be a compromise.
You should feel proud of each and every vote. And yes, you should vote every time... But now is not the time for voting, it's time to campaign
So quit with the defeatist bullshit and pitch in. You'll feel less pessimistic when you're surrounded by winners who work for a better tomorrow